I think I speak on behalf of all members of the House when I say that we were all very deeply shocked last night to hear of the sudden death of one of the senior officials of this House, namely the late Mr. Roos, the Librarian. For many years he was known to all of us as a dedicated official with whom we all came into contact very frequently and who was always extremely helpful to all of us. I understand he was the person who had the longest period of service on the staff establishment of this House, namely a period of 38 years. I think it is appropriate that on this occasion, while this Vote is under discussion, we should not only record our gratitude and appreciation for the services rendered to Parliament by this official, hut that we should also avail ourselves of this opportunity to extend our sincere sympathy to his next of kin, and to pray that God may comfort them in the days that lie ahead.

Sir, may I ask for the privilege of the second half-hour? I understand that this is not a formal motion; it is part of the debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote, and in these circumstances I think we on this side of the House would like to associate ourselves very closely with the words which have come from the hon. the Prime Minister. Mr. Roos was a servant of Parliament who had done his duty with great distinction over a very long period. I think we all remember him for his helpfulness, his extreme politeness and his willingness to put himself out for members to get publications or books not readily available. I think that while we have been served by very many distinguished servants in this House who have set a very high standard we have suffered a very grievous loss in the passing at such a comparatively early age of one who not only learned to know our ways hut who in a sense guided the direction in which our ways should lie. I believe that we would all like to express our sincere sympathy to his wife and two young children in this very great loss they have suffered.

Sir, this is not a formal motion, so I am in the position of having to continue, and I want to say in continuation of this debate that yesterday we devoted ourselves more particularly to external affairs. To-day I want to let the emphasis fall on another aspect of the hon. the Prime Minister’s activities. While I accept that he has given considerable attention since his accession to office to external affairs, and quite rightly, the price that we have had to pay for that seems to he that he is losing touch to an extent with internal affairs and with the position of the ordinary man in the street in this country. [Interjections.] Sir, I see hon. members opposite are not inclined to agree with me. They seldom agree with anything I say except when I give them advice which they promptly take. Sir, I have been kind to the hon. the Prime Minister. So many things are going wrong that I cannot imagine that they would be going wrong if they were receiving the personal attention of the hon. the Prime Minister. That is why I say that I believe he is losing touch with the ordinary man in the street. The first matter that I wish to raise is the position of Jan Burger, the ordinary man in the street.

He is now M.P. for Turffontein.

No, he is not M.P. for Turffontein. The M.P. for Turffontein has entirely ceased to be representative of the ordinary citizen of South Africa. He used to be a gentleman called Smith, who wrote for the Star, but he has become a doctor from some European university and I understand that he, too, is losing touch with the ordinary man in the street because of his academic distinctions. Judging by some of his interjections, one wonders in what subject he got that degree, but be that as it may. In the very week in which the hon. the Minister of Finance has introduced his Budget, a disinflationary Budget, and claimed success for it, what do we find? In the very week in which we are discussing the Budget here, we find in the South African Financial Gazette that the Reserve Bank convenes a bankers’ meeting because of an interest-rates crisis. We hear the story that clients are being lured away from other banks by higher earnings—

Sir, somebody is going to pay for those higher rates of interest, and I suspect that that somebody in the end is going to be the man in the street. At the same time we find that wage-and salary-earners and civil pensioners have been left behind by the ever-rising cost of living. The hon. the Minister of Finance in his most optimistic moments never claimed that he was going to bring down the cost of living; he never claimed that he would keep it static; he just hoped that he would be able to contain the inflationary forces that were developing in South Africa and perhaps arrest them. But what has happened? The wage-and salary-earner and the civil pensioner have been left behind. The last increases that they received were given to them before the more recent and more drastic rises in the cost of living, and already pressure is building up from various organizations which have left no doubt in anybody’s mind that, unless the cost of living comes down, they will have to press for higher wages and salaries for the individuals concerned. We see here a report that there is likely to be a sharp tussle between the Minister of Transport and the representatives of 113,000 white employees of the Railways over pay demands which have been formulated for submission to the Minister. It is learnt that the general target will be in the region of R15 a month wage or salary increase, which will raise the wage bill by close on some R20 million a year. In addition, the position of more than 100,000 non-White workers will also have to be reconsidered. Iscor, which usually sticks rigidly to industrial agreements, has conceded the need for granting an average of 5 cents per hour allowance to its workers, and the same has been done by the Rand Water Board and the Electricity Supply Commission. New agreements are being negotiated. Then we hear of the workers in the Post Office, and we hear that about 500,000 industrial workers and clerical workers are agitating for better pay packages in spite of Government pleas for moderation in regard to pay claims and warnings of crippling inflation. Labour organizations feel that the cost of living has climbed out of control and that their workers’ standard of living is declining rapidly. Union leaders point out that the money which workers take home buys nearly 10 per cent less than it did two years ago. The trend in negotiations is towards productivity bargaining, designed to increase incomes as well as profits, whilst keeping the price of the product down. That is all very well as far as it goes, but the pressures have not only been building up in that respect. We find it reported in the Press that there is a new agreement for the coal miners of South Africa. Experienced white coal miners and underground artisans, involving 1,714 employees, will earn an average of R300 a month from 1st May, when the monthly pay scheme on the coal mines comes into operation. Basic wage earnings will rise by as much as R80 monthly. The announcement was made in a joint statement last night by the Federation of Mining Unions and the Collieries Committee of the Transvaal and Orange Free State Chamber of Mines. It adds that the Government Mining Engineer had, with ministerial approval, agreed to grant certain exemptions from mining regulations to permit the introduction of a monthly pay scheme on the collieries. Then it is quite clear that the same difficulties are beginning to arise in respect of the gold mines and that negotiations are under way.

What we want to know, and what I believe we have a right to know from the hon. the Prime Minister, is what his view is in regard to this situation. The cost of living has risen since the last increases, and it is still rising. Is it his view that wages and salaries should keep pace with these rises, or is it not? And is he prepared to consider that if these rises can only be granted by a relaxation of the colour bar by agreement between employers’ and employees’ organizations with a view to raising productivity and associating those rises with productivity, so that higher standards of living become possible for the workers—is he prepared to consider those relaxations? You see, Sir. the coal miners’ arrangement sets the tone and is indicative of what can be done. There are many other examples of the sort of situation that is arising. I believe that of the 17 job reservations made between 1956 and the end of 1965, exemptions have already been granted from nine, the chief reason being non availability of white workers and the impossibility of maintaining the race ratios laid down. We want to know what the Prime Minister’s policy is in this regard. It affects almost every member of his Cabinet, and almost every industry in the country. There are statements from many leading industrialists and economists, many of them advisers to the hon. the Prime Minister, on the vital necessity of making our labour force more productive and allowing the non-White in many cases to take on added responsibility.

The hon. the Prime Minister is always anxious to know what our policy is. Our policy is very clear on this matter. We have made it perfectly clear that we believe that wages should keep pace with cost-of-living rises. [Interjections.] Does the hon. member for Krugerdorp agree with that? Does he believe that there should be cost-of-living allowances which keep pace with the increases in the cost of living? Yes, I think he agrees. I want to know whether the Prime Minister is prepared to consider wage increases to keep pace with the rise in the cost-of-living, or whether we are going to have the old, old story of waiting until just before an election and then giving a rise to the workers involved in the hope that they will forget about what happened in the past? [Interjections.] Secondly, I want to know whether the hon. the Prime Minister is prepared. in the event of the industrial colour bar applying, to consider some measure of elasticity which can be obtained as the result of co-operation and agreement between employers’ and employees’ organizations, always subject to the rate for the job: and when I say the rate for the job, it is not the minimum rate but the rate actually paid at the present time. That has been allowed on the S.A. Railways and by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. I want to know whether the Prime Minister is prepared to consider allowing that same measure of agreement to industry in order to increase productivity and justify higher wages, and to ensure the safeguarding of the position of the white worker.

May I ask a question? Do you suggest the rate for the job in preference to work reservation? And do you stand for the maintenance of the colour bar as laid down in Act No. 25 of 1926?

Order! The hon. member is now making a speech.

I appreciate the anxiety of the hon. member to put his case. He has been driven into a corner, of course. He knows very well that we stand for the maintenance of the industrial colour bar. He knows that we have never accepted work reservation under the Industrial Conciliation Act, where it lies in the power of one Minister. And he knows very well that it has been the policy of this party, since he was once a member of this party, that … [Interjections.] The hon. member knows that it is the policy of this party that there should be elasticity, to be negotiated by employers’ and employees’ organizations. but always subject to agreement between the two and subject to the protection of the position of the white workers, by the payment of the rate for the job, and that rate does not mean the minimum wage but the actual wage paid.

It is on that subject that I want enlightenment from the Prime Minister, first of all, but that leads one naturally to this whole question of productivity which may very well be the key to the entire problem of inflation in this country. I want to remind the hon. the Prime Minister that influencing this factor of productivity at present is the Ministry of Bantu Administration and Development. I want to remind the Prime Minister that the Minister of Bantu Administration and his Deputies play a major role in determining a vast number of things of great importance to employers in the country. They influence the availability of Bantu labour and they influence the supply of Bantu labour, and they influence how that labour is used and the training of that labour and the duration of the employment of that labour and they influence the sitting of industry. They do all those things with regard to ideological considerations and not having regard to productivity. That is the point I want to get across to the hon. the Prime Minister. This is done for ideological considerations and not with the emphasis on productivity. I know they think that they are preventing waste of labour in various areas, but to replace one Bantu by one Coloured does not increase productivity. To get five men to do six men’s work when the sixth man is sent back to the reserves where there is no work for him at all and where he is a charge on the community is also not increasing productivity. Nor is he increasing the standard of living in the reserves. Mr. Folscher of the University of South Africa has some interesting things to say on this subject, namely the availability of work in the reserves and on its borders and the effect thereof. Before I quote him I want to draw the Prime Minister’s attention to a number of facts. These are that the activities of this Ministry of Bantu Administration and Development is first of all restricting the development of the Western Cape. There is no doubt about that. Secondly, it is tremendously increasing the difficulties and headaches of management everywhere and causing them to give time to the recruiting of labour which could well be spent in other activities and it is leading to inefficiency. Owing to the limitation of the period for which a man can stay when he is a migrant labourer, you frequently find yourself in the position of having to retain people for the job that somebody was doing quite efficiently when under the direction of those Ministers he gets sent back to the reserves.

Does that also apply to the mining industry?

It applies to the mining industry as well. Why did the mining industry apply to the hon. the Prime Minister’s predecessor to have permanent labour and why when you established Sasol did you allow them to keep a percentage of permanent labour unrivalled anywhere else in South Africa?

The mining industry is regarded as one of the most efficient industries with its migrant labour.

I accept that but they could be more efficient if they had permanent labour. Nobody knows this better than the Minister of Labour. I want to suggest also that this is leading to a measure of inefficiency because of lack of competition for the jobs concerned. Where you restrict the supply of labour and the labourer knows that you are dependent upon him. he can afford to play up and he does too.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Deputy Minister will have his chance to address the House. The hon. gentleman can get up and talk when he likes because nobody listens to him. Look at what is happening in the building industry at the present time. The building costs in the Cape have been pushed up without any doubt owing to the constant turnover of labour in the building industry. They are having to recruit people and retrain them to do the sort of job that the ordinary labourer has been doing. The hon. the Minister is having his difficulties with his own Bantu labour force here in the Western Cape. But I am talking not only of the Western Cape but of the greater part of the Republic. I say that the activities of this Ministry of Bantu Administration and Development are unquestionably leading to inflation and the rising cost of living here in South Africa. There are lots of people who are realizing that we are having to make changes. We find that Iscor’s management favours the training of more Africans in skilled and unskilled occupations. We find that in general engineering job fragmentation means that more Africans are being absorbed due to the shortage of suitable white labour. Job reservation has been suspended. The few determinations made have been swept away by the demand for manpower. In building, the new agreement acknowledges the presence of non-Whites doing semi-skilled work. You find statements by Dr. Anton Rupert and by the economic adviser to the Prime Minister. Dr. Rieckert. all making it clear that we have to make a better use of our labour and that we have to make it more skilled. What is happening? It has an impermanency which is due to the activities of that Minister which makes it extremely difficult and in most cases where that labour is doing semi-skilled work, or more advanced work it is not doing it as a right, but by permit from the department. That sword of Damocles is always hanging over the head of the employer concerned. Furthermore, vocational training for the Bantu is not allowed in the ordinary urban areas. It is allowed only in the reserves and the homelands. Mr. Chairman. how can we get more efficient labour on that basis? Here we have these Ministers active in trying to reduce the labour force in these areas and without doubt contributing to inefficiency and inflation and the rise in the cost of living for the ordinary man in the street. What we want to know is whether this Prime Minister is going to allow this nonsense to continue because the tragedy is that we are being asked to suffer all this in the interests of a policy which cannot possibly succeed.

[Inaudible.]

The Prime Minister said that it can succeed. Now let us see what our conditions of success are. We can only succeed if the Prime Minister is prepared to do two things. One of those is to ensure an intensive development of industry in the border areas or inside the reserves themselves. There is a Professor Scheepers who did a survey in the Transvaal on the ratio between White and non-White in various parts of that province and drew up a map setting out what the ratio was, White to non-White. He says:

What do you find when you look at that 1.56 per cent? You find that it is the area most intensively developed industrially. There is the best ratio of White to non-White. The Prime Minister says that this policy can succeed. Of course it could if he was prepared to ensure that on the borders of the reserves are the most intensively populated white areas of South Africa because only then can he succeed and under no other circumstances. We have debated this matter in this House before. We have dealt with the question of 1978 and all the promises and the forecasts that were and were not made and the graphs that were and were not drawn. I have discussed some of them with the professors who are alleged to be responsible for those graphs and I have stated the conditions under which they made their forecast and how they have ceased to exist under the policies of this Government. I think that we have to ask this Prime Minister whether he is going to go ahead with this policy realizing that it is going to mean a redistribution of population, not just black population but white population to the borders of the reserves. For blind ideological reasons he is going to expose the white population to immense dangers and immense difficulties. Let us then come back to the question of moving this black labour out of the white areas because this Ministry is going to reduce their numbers in the white areas. That Deputy Minister has gambled his reputation on turning back the stream. Let us look at what a distinguished economist says in this regard.

He says:

That is the problem with which the hon. the Prime Minister is going to be faced.

Who is the authority?

You ask who the authority is. You will find it in Dieptebeeld of last weekend. It is by Prof. Folscber of Unisa’s Department of Economics. The Tomlinson Commission realised this difficulty. They realised that if you want to attract people back to the reserves and if you want to get a high percentage of the Bantu population back to the reserves you would have to provide employment for a large section of the Bantu that would have to be taken out of agriculture and off the land in the reserves. They indicated that that would have to be done not only by border industries but also by the establishment of industries inside the reserves. The Government accepted the report subject to certain reservations. One was that it was not prepared to have private white capital and private white initiative in the reserves. It wanted it to be channelled through Government channels. I raised the matter with the previous Prime Minister in the no-confidence debate in 1962 and he explained his policy of allowing what he called “ward entrepreneurs” to provide capital, and successful industrialists to provide guidance under strictly controlled conditions. In other words he wanted to attract capital and skill on a strictly altruistic basis, something which seldom happens. His eyes were fixed not on industries inside the reserves, but on the borders. He claimed that secondary industries on the borders would lead to tertiary industries, such as laundries, garages and the like, which would be started by the Bantu themselves. When I asked him later in the session what white entrepreneurs would be allowed in. I did not get a very clear answer. The result today can I think be summed up as follows: The reserves are economically virtually stagnant. Industries inside the reserves are virtually stagnant. We have had flamboyant claims and grandiose claims. One was for R25.000.000 for forestry. I see there is a statement by the company concerned that finality has not yet been reached. The second point is that border Industries are being developed only at a few growth points in close proximity to the existing industrial areas and they are not leading to a large-scale growth of tertiary industry within the reserves. The third point is that financial institutions have not been willing to provide assistance on an alturistic basis because they are governed by profit motives. The difficulty that I have is that I want to know whether the Prime Minister is going to continue to limit development in this way. Is he going to stand by this policy that private white capital and white initiative are not going to be allowed into the reserves? We recently had a speech by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development indicating not a change of philosophy or an admission of a change of philosophy, but that he was not entirely happy about present developments. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the last speech by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition may be divided into two parts. I do not intend occupying the time of the House for the umpteenth time with a discussion on the second part of his speech. That subject has been debated over and over again. If the hon. member has not had enough of it, he will have an opportunity, when the Bantu Administration and Development Vote comes up for discussion, to raise it again under that Vote. It is obvious that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is doing that because he wants to get away from the matters raised yesterday. I promised the hon. the Leader of the Opposition yesterday that I would not let him get away.

However, I do want to reply to the first aspect of his speech. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition used certain words, and he will agree with me if I say that they are not true. He said that as usual this Government would wait until just before an election and would then grant wage increases. The hon. the Leader will agree with me that the statement made by him is not true. There are so many proofs. A short while ago, and I remember it as though it was yesterday, it was mentioned in this House that the most urgent demands had been presented to the Minister of Transport, shortly before an election, and that the Minister had refused to accede to them. He then said that he could not do so and that he would not do so at that stage. He did so at a later stage. There were other occasions. What are the facts of the matter? The hon. the Leader should keep to those facts. As far as this Government is concerned, and I want to say it emphatically and by way of reiteration, there is no need for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to be concerned about the salary and wage earners. It has always been this side of the House which was concerned about those people. Allow me to tell the Leader of the Opposition that they are the people who have returned this Government to Parliament repeatedly, and who will return this Government to Parliament repeatedly.

Now they are paying the price for that.

The only price they pay for that is that the hon. member for Durban (Point) addresses them now and then. That is the only burden they have to bear in this regard. There are two sides to this question, and the hon. member for Durban (Point) knows that just as well as I do. Throughout its existence this Government has always been at pains to see to it that wages and salaries increase proportionately to the cost of living. These are matters which can be precisely determined. We need not argue about them in the dark. The basic fact is that under this Government wage increases have kept ahead of the rise in the cost of living. That is the basic, elementary fact. The people of South Africa know that they can rely on this Government to review the position from time to time and to make adjustments if necessary —and that is my reply to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. It has never been of any consequence to this Government whether it was before or after the election. It did that if and when it became necessary. The Government will continue to do so in future.

Is there no cost of living battle at the moment?

Of course there is a cost of living battle. Of course there have been wage increases. Surely only a fool would deny that. We all know that that is the case. Nor is it restricted to South Africa. It is a world-wide phenomenon, but this Government has always faced up to it and has always done its duty by the people in that regard.

†But Sir, I actually rose first of all to thank the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for letting me have the covering letter and the memorandum sent out by the hon. member for Karoo. I am greatly indebted to the Leader of the Opposition. Let me say at once that far from owing the hon. member for Karoo an apology, I want to make certain accusations. I do hope that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will take note of those accusations and that he will react, and react immediately. Because let me say at the outset that the explanation which the Leader gave of this incident cuts no ice whatsoever. In fairness to the hon. member for Karoo I want to read out his covering letter as I received it—

and this letter the hon. member sent out to the Coloureds—

Now we turn to the memorandum.

Before we proceed to discuss this matter, may I ask the Prime Minister if he has received a letter from the hon. member for Karoo?

Yes. I am coming to that—I am going to mention it too. Whilst we are on it—I received it just when I entered the House—I might just as well refer to it now. The hon. member for Karoo has written me a two-page letter the gist of which is the following, and the hon. Leader can correct me if I am wrong. The gist of it is that he has only voiced the opinions of the Coloured electorate. Am I correct when I say that that is the gist of the letter?

I think that you should read the last paragraph.

If the hon. Leader wants me to do so, I will do so. The final paragraph reads as follows—

[Interjections.]

Order!

I will start again—

But the hon. member for Karoo sits here as a member of the U.P. and he sits in the caucus of the U.P. But let us forget all about this and let us look at the memorandum itself. I want to refer to one of the first statements in this memorandum, which is an utterly scandalous statement. This is the statement—

[Interjections.]

Order!

The gentleman who sent out this memorandum can give as many explanations as he wants to give. But he is a member of the U.P., he sits in the caucus of the U.P. Whilst the Coloured representative he was the Leader of the U.P. in the Provincial Council—he was so highly thought of, and he makes this scandalous statement. Now I want the Leader of the Opposition to substantiate these charges or he must know what to do. An hon. member of this House must under those circumstances apologize to the White people of South Africa for the scandalous statement that has been made. Let us go on, let us look at the sort of things that are said in this memorandum—

You see the whole tenor of this memorandum, Sir. Referring to the university college—at one time the “bush college” of hon. gentlemen on the other side—the memorandum says the following—

Let us go on, and I want hon. members to listen to this statement—

Then listen to this one—

But let us go further. Let us come to the last portion of this memorandum, the heading of which is “Proposals”. This is what it says—

But, Sir. it is not the Coloureds’ proposition; it is “my” proposition and “my” happens to be Mr. Graham Eden. United Party M.P. Then we come to stage two—

Eight Africans to Parliament! Then we come to stage three, because this is only stage two—

A common voters’ roll consisting of Africans, Indians, Coloureds and Whites—

Helen has found a new boy friend.

Then he ends on this ringing note—

Two men looked through prison bars, One saw mud. the other stars.

Sir, that is the memorandum. I do not think it is necessary for me to make any further comment. I think the introductory letter and this memorandum and the proposals speak for themselves, and I candidly think that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition owes an explanation to this House.

Sir. I have had debates with many Prime Ministers who are bankrupt of policy. I have never taken part in a debate in which a Prime Minister has so obviously run away from the questions put to him and the subjects raised on his Vote as the hon. the Prime Minister has done in this debate. I have never witnessed a more shameful state of affairs than we have just had in this debate, with the hon. the Prime Minister trying to draw a red herring across the discussions and quoting in this House a memorandum put up by a sick man. The hon. the Prime Minister knows that the hon. member is too sick to answer for himself, and he chooses this opportunity to raise this matter when the hon. member cannot stand up and defend himself. Sir, I think it is an extremely poor exhibition on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Karoo has made it perfectly clear that he is not representing the United Party policy and he is not trying to put it across, but because the hon. the Prime Minister cannot deal with the questions put to him he tries to draw a red herring across the floor of the House and he accepts the dictates of his newspapers that he must try to get the United Party to state its policy; that he must try to get the United Party to answer his questions and that he must not answer the United Party’s questions. Yesterday the hon. the Prime Minister had “Burger-it is”: he has it in a most acute form, and he can take it from me that as long as he allows himself to be dictated to by his newspapers, he will lose the respect of this House. Sir. the hon. gentleman says he wants an explanation from me. Yesterday the hon. gentleman told us that he was not compromised and that his policy was that the Coloured Representatives should be removed from this House under certain circumstances. Does he recall the occasion when I raised that very matter with the then Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd? Does he recall how bitterly the then Prime Minister resented the fact that I had accused him of wantin? to remove the Coloured Representatives and how he assured me that he had spoken of Bantu Representatives and not Coloured Representatives? Does the hon. the Prime Minister remember the time when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was the first speaker on Coloured affairs? The suggestion had been that the Coloured Representatives were going to be removed. Does the hon. the Prime Minister remember the promises made by the late Dr. Verwoerd. and the then Minister of Coloured Affairs, the present Minister of Defence? Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister sat in the National Party Caucus but he apparently had ideas which differed from those of the then Prime Minister and the then Minister of Coloured Affairs. Sir, he says that I owe him an explanation. I think he owes me an explanation. I think he owes this House an explanation. What is more, I think he owes the country an explanation, because then he has been elected under false colours. At the back of his mind he always had the idea that he could get rid of the Coloured Representatives. He has been disagreeing with Government policy all the time. Sir, what is the hurry about this document? It does not set out United Party policy. I am not called upon to defend it. Let us wait until the hon. member for Karoo can get up and defend it himself. I am quite satisfied that he will give the Prime Minister a great deal more than he bargained for.

You are the Leader of the Party.

Let us come back to the questions that we put to the hon. the Prime Minister. Let us get his policy clear once and for all. Let us find out what his views are on these very important subjects, instead of just trying to seek cheap headlines in the newspapers. Let us find out what the hon. gentleman is thinking about the effect of these policies upon the people of South Africa.

Sir, I raised the question of the investment of private white capital in the reserves, and I raised it very pertinently because I had an explanation not so long ago from the hon. the Minister which was an example of a lack of erudition such as we have seldom had in this House. He dealt with the various stages of development. He sought excuses for not allowing the investment of private white capital in the reserves because they had not yet reached the necessary stage of development. He gave us three stages of development and the concomitant stage at which the infra structure would be developed. Sir, before the hon. gentleman, before he comes and talks in this House, should really study Rostov’s five stages of development in economic history. This is the greatest non-communist contribution; it is a contribution from Rostoy of Cambridge University, in which he set out the stages of development. The hon. the Minister should read as well what Prof. Hobart Houghton says and how he applies them to South African conditions. This is not the Sunday Times writer; this is Prof. Hobart Houghton, a member of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council. He will then realize that his examples are not entirely apt and that they certainly give no justification whatsoever for the attitude he is taking up. Sir, I go further than that. If one needed evidence that he gave no justification at all, then the answer is this: How many countries at the moment are not developing as a result of the help of foreign governments or as a result of vast investments by foreign private companies in the countries concerned, and to what extent are not all these stages of development being distorted and thrown overboard simply because of the fact that they are faced with new situations which were not envisaged at the time? Sir, I have notes here about what is happening in Albania and the tremendous development there with Chinese help, about how industrial output is increasing by 8 per cent per annum and how cold storage plants are being created and how this vast development is based not on agriculture or mining but on foreign help and educational reform. I have the example of what is happening in Angola with the R16 million loan from the Cox Company. I have the example of the tremendous amount of aid that the U.S.A. and its private people are giving. Prof. Houghton himself points out that in most countries outside Western Europe the preconditions for economic growth and takeoff are a consequence of the impact of the more advanced nations. The backward countries to-day are mostly developing with aid from Western countries in money and training, and the services of technical personnel, or a planned Communist programme. This means that all this talk of the stages of development can be speeded up with outside help from other states and by the investment of private white capital. This Prime Minister will not allow that private white capital to be invested otherwise than on the agency basis, which has not worked up to now. I want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied to continue in this way with this extremely slow development, acting as no attraction to the labourers who are looking for employment in the Reserves. I want to read to him what was said by Dr. van Eck in a symposium when this very matter was discussed. One finds it in the symposium conducted by the S.A. Foundation with the California Institute of Technology in 1962 [ at a seminar, at page 32. Dr. van Eck said this—

[Time expired.]

I should like to assure the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that an adequate reply will be given to every question he has put in this debate, because it is neither the policy nor the practice of the National Party Government to run away from questions put to it, as has over the years become known to be the practice of the United Party to run away when they are questioned on their policy, as they are again doing in this debate.

We should like to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition how many Graham Edens there still are in his party. We should very much like to know that, because it is quite clear to us that what we have here is a United Party which speaks with the voice of Jacobs but shows the hands of Oppenheimer every time they are caught out. That is the position that party is in. I want to make a prediction. The position in a parliamentary caucus is that if in the caucus a member differs considerably with the policy of his party, steps are taken against that member. But I want to predict that no steps whatsoever will be taken against the hon. member for Karoo, because there is no difference of policy between the United Party and the hon. member for Karoo. That is the point, and the people will be interested to see what is going to happen here, because the United Party has been caught putting its foot into something as big as can be imagined. The position is that if South Africa does not have the right colour policy the position of every person in South Africa is endangered and the position of that very John Citizen of whom the Leader of the Opposition has spoken is endangered, just as the position of the white man in other parts of Africa has been endangered time and again.

I want to try and show the House that there is no real difference between the declared policy of the United Party in so far as it is known and the statements made in that memorandum by the hon. member for Karoo. In that memorandum we merely have the logical conclusion of the United Party’s policy, we said years ago already that that was the position. The crucial question is very simple, namely which panty in South Africa is able to safeguard the position of the Whites and white control in South Africa. The policy of the United Party rests mainly on two pillars. The one pillar is that they regard South Africa as one mixed fatherland which they want to retain undivided. That is one of the cornerstones, and if I am wrong they should get up and say so. Proceeding from this basic approach the United Party then adds as the second leg of its policy white leadership in this undivided mixed fatherland for the foreseeable future. Those are the two pillars on which their policy rests. Is that correct? Very well, that is correct. That has been the approach of the United Party all along, and there was a time when the United Party presented this basic approach, namely one undivided mixed fatherland and white leadership in that fatherland for the foreseeable future, as being a form of integration. That was in the days when the hon. member for Houghton and the other members of the United Party who became Progressives still belonged to the United Party. Thereafter the United Party formulated this policy as a policy of partnership. That, of course, is also a form of integration. That was at the time when the British policy in Kenya was to regard the Bantu as a junior partner and the white man as a senior partner. In those days the United Party continually and specifically put forward the idea of partnership, as applied in Kenya, as the antithesis of the apartheid policy of this Government. But we know what happened to that junior partnership. In less than 15 years the junior partnership in Kenya not only changed into a senior partnership, but proceeded to kick out the white man there, because less than 15 years ago more than 6 million Bantu in Kenya had 14 representatives in their legislative assembly as junior partners, while 70,000 Whites had 46 representatives, and we know what has become of that position. Thereafter, and still proceeding from this basic approach which is based on these two points, the United Party gave a new name to its policy, calling it the “middle course” policy. What was that policy? It was the middle course between the white man as the ruler and the black man as the ruler. That was their “middle course” policy, which was still based on one undivided mixed fatherland under white leadership. Thereafter they came with their “ordered advance” idea, which was still exactly the same thing in a different form, and recently they came with the policy of race federation, which basically still means partnership and, therefore, integration. In plain language it means joint government by Black and White, even though the Opposition tries to be the head in that Integration body, with the Bantu forming the legs. But it remains integration. Now I want to ask them how they are going to govern that fatherland with one nation, as they see it, and with one loyalty? Then they give the answer themselves. They are going to govern that fatherland through one central government, with its seat here, through one central parliament, in which the Leader of the Opposition himself said on 7th May, 1962, that Black and White would sit together eventually. I quote—

On 7th May, 1962, the hon. the Leader said it was the policy of the United Party that the Bantu should be represented by Bantu in the Central Parliament, but that if the United Party wanted to convince the Bantu with its federation plan it was clear that, after the wild promises of self-government and independence made by Dr. Verwoerd, it could not for all time deny the Bantu representation by their own people. He therefore said it himself. What the hon. member for Karoo is doing here is merely to implement the old traditional policy of the United Party, and we know what the hon. member for Yeoville said in the speech he made in London on television in which he let the cat out of the bag there, too, when he thought that we in South Africa could not hear what was being said there. This is what he himself said, namely that we would have eight Bantu in this House eventually. But there is still much more than that. Last year during the general election the United Party itself announced in its official publications of policy that the representation in this one mixed father-land in this Central Parliament in Cape Town would consist of eight Whites, but they themselves said that when those eight Whites were to be replaced by Bantu it would be done by way of a referendum. The only point I want to make in connection with that at this stage is that by saying that they are going to have a referendum on that issue, they themselves admit that there is a possibility that Bantu will have to be allowed to sit in this House. That is their policy. There is therefore nothing peculiar about what the hon. member for Karoo is doing. He is simply implementing the policy of the United Party and that is why they will not kick him out. The interesting aspect of the whole matter is the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I just want to interrupt myself by saying that when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout with his National Union Party joined the United Party, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition thought he had a big trout on the book when all the time he had a little minnow. In one debate after another in this House he resented the fact that we said that theirs was a party which stood for integration. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is quite amusing to see these desperate attempts on the other side of the House to get away from discussing important points of policy, which the hon. member for Primrose obviously has not the confidence that the Prime Minister can answer for himself. I think that the Prime Minister should consider whether to keep him in his caucus. Fancy feeling that he cannot leave it to the Prime Minister and fancy having to jump in, thinking that perhaps he will be a fatter red herring than the Prime Minister himself. It has been a most amateur effort. Before he makes statements of this kind he should read Professor Rhoodie’s book on apartheid and partnership and then he will know something about it. As for the questions he set, he set them all wrongly, based on wrong quotations and then answers them himself, in a most surprising manner bearing very little relation to the truth of the situation.

I was talking to the Prime Minister, when I was unfortunately interrupted, on this question of whether he is going to allow the investment of private white capital in the reserves coupled with private initiative in order to attract away from the white areas this flood of black labour which the Ministry of Bantu Administration and Development is supposed to be turning back. I want to remind him again of the statement by Dr. Rupert in respect of industrial partnership and the advantages that have flowed there from. I want to make it perfectly clear that as far as we in the United Party were concerned our policy stated clearly that whereas in the past Native labour from the reserves was progressively integrated with capital and industrial leadership outside the reserves, the need has now arisen subject to strict safeguards, and in the case of appropriate industries only, to integrate capital and industrial leadership with Native labour in the reserves. Is it not time that the hon. the Prime Minister was prepared to step in and move in that direction? That is the only way in which he is going to get rapid industrialization.

The Minister gave you a full answer.

I wonder if the Prime Minister listened to that answer, because if we are to abide by that statement, then I feel very sorry for the Prime Minister, because a more pathetic performance in trying to justify that attitude I have seldom heard in this House. If the Prime Minister wants to abide by it and accept it, we will exploit it from every platform and we will point out the ludicrous nature of the statements made by the hon. the Minister and the entirely false theory on which he bases his whole belief. What is more interesting is that we have it now from the hon. the Prime Minister that private white capital going into the protectorates which are becoming independent goes with his blessing. But it is not going into the Transkei with his blessing. He is going to prevent it going into the Transkei. The Transkei Government has developed to the stage today where it can control to a large extent whether private white capital comes in or not. Is the hon. the Prime Minister still going to step in even if that Legislative Assembly wants it? Is he going to say that he is going to refuse to allow it? It is no answer to me to say that the one territory is independent and that the other has not yet reached independence. I believe that that Legislative Assembly has a large measure of control as to what investments can be made there. It controls the soil of the Transkei. I want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister whether he is going to prohibit this at all costs and prevent that type of development which I believe, and many economists in South Africa believe, is the one hope he has of really industrializing the Transkei. That is a matter of vital importance to his whole Bantu policy. His whole Bantu policy can stand or fall on the attractiveness of industries inside the reserves and on the borders of those reserves. I may say that so far there is singularly little evidence of success. So much so that even supporters of his Party such as the late Professor Bruwer made it perfectly clear that unless there was more development, the policy was in danger of deteriorating into a farce.

There is one other matter which I want to raise with the hon. gentleman and which I regard as of vital importance to South Africa, and that is the question of the management of our water supplies in the Republic. We have just been saved from a major water crisis in the Vaal triangle. No sooner had that happened than we found ourselves faced with a crisis here in the Western Province, which has always been regarded as fortunate in respect of the regularity of its rainfall and its water supplies. We found ourselves here also with schemes planned years ago not being put into operation. On the Berg river itself we have the Wemmershoek dam on a tributary and two other schemes planned but not in operation. The Riviersonderend scheme was planned years ago but is not in operation. We find difficulties all over the place. We find a lack of storage dams and I do not believe that we have yet stirred this Government out of its apathy in that regard. I know that a commission has been appointed. I know that it is sitting but commissions under this Government have the habit of sitting for many years. What we want to know is where is the master scheme which will correlate our river systems and place us in a more satisfactory position. I have been reading an article by Dr. Kokot, the Deputy Director of Water Affairs and Chief Engineer in the Department until recently. He says—

He goes on later in this article and says—

He points out that the Orange river is not 10 per cent exploited at the present time. He points out that the waters of Natal can carry a population of 43 million. He asks: “Where is the overall plan, where are the ideas and what priorities are to be applied? I believe that I have to say to the hon. the Prime Minister, that we cannot face recurrent water crises in South Africa due to bad management and lack of planning. Droughts are endemic in this country. They do enough havoc to our agriculture as it is but if they are to start affecting the industrial life of this country then it seems to me that a very heavy burden of responsibility rests upon this Government and this Prime Minister. I hope that while this matter will be taken further by the hon. member for South Coast, we will get satisfactory replies from the hon. the Prime Minister in respect of the matters which I have raised.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is very much afraid of dealing with this problem which is of overriding importance in South Africa. He and his Party have obviously reached the stage where they are looking for a new policy as far as matters of colour in South Africa is concerned. At this stage they are not ready to talk yet, because they are still considering the matter. I have here before me the race federation plan of the Opposition. In this a very clear exposition is given of. inter alia, three different stages on which the plan is based. The plan shows a remarkable resemblance to the ideas entertained by the hon. member for Karoo. The other leader of that party, their new leader, actually, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. came to this House with a new idea a few days ago. This is what he said on that occasion—and I now want hon. members to see how diametrically opposed these two ideas are—

He then went further as regards their federation plan—he was careful to leave out the word “races”. He said it was based on this diversity. Then he was asked the question, “Does it mean that the federation will be a geographic one?”. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout then replied. “Yes. geographic”. The United Party’s race federation plan which we have here reads, inter alia, as follows—

Now the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has in mind a geographic federation, while the old federation plan was that of a race federation. The old federation plan contained a further and very clear statement in this connection. It was in respect of the Bantu outside the Bantu areas. This is what was stated in the United Party’s old race federation plan—

In other words, outside the reserves we will have this multi-racial state which the hon. member for Primrose mentioned just now.

Read page nine.

This is stated on page seven.

Yes, but read page nine. [Interjections.]

It is quite clear that they do not see South Africa as a state of many nations, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said a few days ago, but in this race federation of theirs they see South Africa as consisting of several states. Outside the reserves they will have a multi-racial state in which the Bantu and the Whites are integrated, while inside the reserves the Bantu alone will have a say in separate Bantu states. That is how they see things in their race federation plan. The hon. member for Karoo has made a statement which bears a strong resemblance to their plans as far as a race federation is concerned. He even mentioned, inter alia, the figure of eight representatives in this House, whom he said would be Bantu, according to the plan read out by the Prime Minister a little while ago. When the question was put directly to him yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition stated in a very facile way that the eight representatives would be Whites. But he forgets what was said by the hon. member for Yeoville in Great Britain during a visit to that country. We come across these inconsistencies of the United Party time and again. They do not want to tell us what their policy is. We can come to only one conclusion, namely that the United Party is still the party to-day which stands for integration in South Africa, in spite of all these so-called changes of policy. Their white leadership in South Africa, race federation and “discrimination with justice” all revert to one thing only, namely that they are seeking integration in South Africa. That is their only solution. That is why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is so concerned about white capital in the Bantu homelands. He is seeking integration in advance in the Bantu homelands as well. He is very concerned about the situation, because he knows that as long as the Bantu homelands are developed according to our policy—the policy which was so clearly and forcefully set out by the Minister Of Bantu Administration last week—and as long as that policy is maintained, his policy of integration in those areas is doomed. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not satisfied merely to bring about integration here in the white area. He wants to bring about integration in the Bantu areas of South Africa as well. That is why he puts one question after another. He asks why white capital is not allowed there. Let me tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition honestly and frankly: The policy of the National Party was enunciated very clearly by the late Dr. Verwoerd in 1956. If he wants me to give him the number of the column in Hansard. I can let him have it. It is set out quite clearly there in what manner the policy in respect of the Bantu areas will be implemented under the National Party Government. It was confirmed in that respect by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development the other day. Let me just ask the Leader of the Opposition to come back to this problem in respect of which the whole country is waiting for him. He should not run away and deal with water affairs every time as he did right at the end of his speech when he said he was very concerned about water affairs. We shall discuss those matters under the relevant Vote. I can only think that they must be in very deep waters as far as these matters are concerned and that they do not know what course to adopt. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the other members of his Party—the question has been asked: “How many more members for Karoo are there?”—and, for example, the hon. member for Durban (North), to get up and tell us what they think of these ideas held by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Let the hon. member for Hillbrow get up and tell us what his views on these matters are. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I hope that the hon. member for Heilbron will excuse me if I do not follow his line of thought because I must say I am thoroughly bored with hearing these constant exposés of what is or is not official Opposition policy and how it has changed over the years and so on. So I leave it to hon. members of the Opposition to continue the argument with the hon. member for Heilbron.

I want to come back to something which was discussed in this House yesterday. We seem to work in a sort of closed circuit in this Parliament. We forget all about the great big world outside when we get involved in our arguments here. I must say that it was with a growing sense of bewilderment and unreality that I listened to the whole discussion yesterday about sport and the so-called changes in policy that have been introduced by the hon. the Prime Minister and the rapid take-over of that policy by the official Opposition, and so on. Here we sit solemnly discussing in this House the whole question of whether or not we may admit a team containing one non-white or two nonwhite members, or whether we are going to allow two teams from South Africa, one white and one non-white under one banner, to go across and represent us in the Olympic Games, in a world two-thirds Coloured, a world which has completely put aside all considerations of colour as the hallmark of merit, in a country where we are a small minority of 3½ million white citizens, despite all the wishful thinking that we are a white majority Government because the Africans are divided into seven or eight ethnic groups and the Indians and Coloureds are less in number than the 3½ million Whites. Here we are at the foot of a huge black continent with a population of over 200 million people. and we sit here solemnly discussing for a whole afternoon whether or not the whole of South Africa will come crashing down if there is some slight change in policy as far as sport is concerned. I must say that we now seem to have the impression that, because some concessions have been made by the hon. the Prime Minister in this regard, we are now going to be back in the pound seats as far as international sport is concerned. [Interjections.] All these statements by the Prime Minister are seized upon avidly by the Press—both Opposition and Government Press—as being great changes, and also by the Rugby Board, the Olympic Council Chairman, and so on. The latter made this announcement about how important a statement had been made. I must be very dumb, but I am very unclear indeed about what the nature of the concessions are. The Prime Minister said that he was going to spell out for us very clearly exactly what changes he was implementing. As far as I am concerned, he certainly has not done so at all. Although the statements have been received very favourably by and large by the Press, it is not very clear what these changes mean. Many of the headlines say that, “It seems … the way is now clear for Maoris, for instance, and Dolly”. That was one headline this morning. I should like the Prime Minister to give us some sort of really clear statement about this matter. Or is it just that everybody is eagerly grasping at straws and that they are putting interpretations into the mouth of the Prime Minister which reflect the way they wished he would interpret this changed sporting situation in South Africa?

Let us look at these so-called concessions. The thing that worries me most are the conditions which are hedged around the concessions that the Prime Minister laid down yesterday. As far as I can see there were three. First, that politicians must not use this matter to make trouble.

And it includes you.

Yes. of course it includes me. It also includes politicians elsewhere in the world. I presume. Does the Prime Minister honestly think that he can sit here in South Africa and dictate what politicians elsewhere must do and say about South Africa? Secondly, that sport must not be dragged into the political arena. Well, I have never heard such an extraordinary statement in my life! We would not have been discussing this matter in Parliament if it had not become such an acute political matter. And who made it a political matter but the Government? Who started the nonsense of prohibiting non-Whites from attending sporting meetings where there were white performers or where the so-called facilities were not separate? For years we had been having non-white spectators at sporting events in South Africa. Who made this an acute political matter? [Interjections.] What about the third condition? The third condition is that concessions must not cause internal difficulties. I do not know what the Prime Minister means by that. Does he mean internal difficulties in his own party with the “verkrampte” Nationalists who sit very close on my left and behind me? Does he mean difficulties as far as the provision of toilet facilities for non-Whites are concerned when they attend sports meetings? What does he mean? Does he mean that it must not make difficulties about the attendance at social functions by non-white team-mates? For instance, if the Pretoria City Council kicks up a row again about a visiting non-white team, as they did over the Japanese swimmers, is this going to stop the new trend in sporting activities in South Africa? What is more, all these delicate matters—this is the fourth important condition—must be handled like Dresden china by the Press. They must be very careful how they handle it. Nothing awkward must be reported. Once again the Prime Minister may be able to dictate to the Press of this country but he is certainly not going to be able to dictate to the Press of Britain, of the U.S.A., of New Zealand or of Australia.

I want to know to whom, after all, is the Prime Minister making all these much hedged-about concessions? Certainly not to overseas sportsmen. The Olympic Games will not fold up if we do not attend. The M.C.C. and the All Blacks will regret not being able to play against us, but they will continue, whether South African teams participate or not. The concessions, as I see it, are being made to white spectator-sportsmen in South Africa. That is where the so-called concessions are being made. It is hoped that by the slight change in policy—and it is a slight change and it is a step in the right direction, providing that all these conditions can, of course, be fulfilled— white spectator-sportsmen in South Africa will not be deprived of watching international matches. The concessions are being made for one reason and one reason only, and that is because white spectator-sportsmen in South Africa have been feeling that they will be deprived of the pleasures—they have been anguished at the thought—of seeing international teams performing in South Africa. Their hearts sink—and rightly so—at the thought of having to stump around from one inter-provincial sporting event to the other, shouting “Vrystaat!” [Interjections.]

What would you like to shout—“Moscow!”?

No. I should like to be able to shout “South Africa!” That is what I should like to be able to shout. I should like to be able to go to an international sporting event and shout for South Africa, and it would be music to my ears if non-white spectators were rooting for South Africa as well, instead of going, as they do, to these matches and showering their loyalties on the other side. That would be my ideal way of attending international sports events. There is not very much in this big deal for non-white spectators because there are all sorts of new conditions about this as well, one of them being, I understand, that they will only be allowed to attend these events providing they do not get the idea that only white spectator-sports are worth watching. Well, really, I must say that the nonsense one has to listen to when white politicians in South Africa try to justify their own bigoted attitude is apparently quite unlimited. I want to say that there is one little ray of hope in all of this. It is that if this does come to pass and if all the conditions are fulfilled in terms of the Prime Minister’s edict, we will perhaps see some non-white sportsmen performing in this country, and it just might start changing the thinking, condition the thinking in a different direction, of white people in South Africa. I say this because I know that in America when non-white sportsmen started coming into the big American events like baseball and Jackie Robinson, for instance, became a hero of hundreds of thousands of young white Americans that was the beginning of a change in attitude towards non-Whites generally. This might very well happen here too.

Leaving sport on one side. I want to come to another matter and that is this. I want to say at once, as I said earlier in the no-confidence debate in this Session, that I welcome the recent contacts that the Prime Minister had with African statesmen from neighbouring territories. I am sorry that he found it necessary now to start justifying his actions in terms of inter-state as against inter-personal relationships. What on earth for? It was not necessary for the Prime Minister or for his Press for that matter to start making these absurd explanations as to why it was all right for the Prime Minister to have tea or lunch or a drink with African statesmen, providing a state line had been crossed. Not only had the colour bar to be crossed but also a state line had to be crossed. What was wrong with the Prime Ministere simply standing up and saying: “I am prepared to have tea or lunch with any non-White in South Africa as well as non-Whites from outside the country”? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether it is good form to say that people “make whoopee”, but yesterday afternoon hon. members on the opposite side really did “make whoopee” when they persistently tried to suggest that we were adopting the United Party’s policy. Sir, we may assure you, the way we see the matter from this side, that those statements of yesterday afternoon will prove to be an enormous boomerang for the United Party. Even yesterday afternoon the hon. the Prime Minister told them “If it is true that we are implementing your policy, then surely you no longer have a right of existence?” After the hon. the Prime Minister had said that, someone remarked that when that boomerang came, Helen would eventually be all that would remain, but I want to give you the assurance that after that boomerang has come there will be more left than only Helen, because we consider it quite likely that some of the intellectuals on the opposite side will then have separated from the United Party, because in the Cape Times of 20th October last year we were told that it was the task of a certain Mr. Colin Eglin “to mobilize the rich intellectual resources at the command of the Progressive Party and to weld them into an effective machine for leading public opinion”. That is what those people are engaged in, and once that boomerang has come and there are several United Party members who would like to be in the ranks of the Progressives, we will at least know where we stand with them. Mr. Chairman, we have just heard from the hon. member for Houghton precisely what her policy is. We know where we stand with her.

But another interesting point emerged from the remarks of the hon. members of the Opposition yesterday, namely that we were carrying out their policy. I encountered that in the Free State quite a while ago, shortly after the last election, when I visited a good acquaintance of mine, a good supporter of the United Party, a man who reads his Volksblad every day. He told me: “Look, my Leader tells me the Nationalist Party is carrying out our policy, so now I am also voting Nationalist.” That is how the boomerang is returning to the United Party from all quarters. But, Sir, I want to read you something else. On 20th January, 1960, the hon. member for Yeoville, the No. 1 policy-maker of that side—I call him No. 1 because there are quite a few policy-makers on that side—responded to the announcement of the previous Prime Minister with regard to the referendum and asked the following question: “How long will it take, if they do get their Republic, before the agitators will start again and will say that we should change our Constitution once again; that we should do away with the remnants of the British constitutional influence and return to the Republic of Paul Kruger?” That is what the hon. member for Yeoville said, but only some nine months ago policy-maker No. 2, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, said the following, according to the Sunday Times of 31st July, last year—I might mention that there is no “covering minute” here to explain what he meant; I therefore hope the Sunday Times quoted him correctly. According to the Sunday Times he said—

That is precisely what the hon. member for Yeoville said they did not want. Sir, that is our problem as far as the United Party is concerned. If we maintain the status quo the hon. member for Yeoville says that we are carrying out their policy. If we should perhaps make a change in future, the United Party would again say that we were carrying out their policy. That is the way it goes with the United Party, and that is why we get all this confusion.

I now come to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I do have his “covering minute” here in the form of his photograph and his policy statement, which contains nine promises. One of the nine important promises which were made is that they will tolerate no interference from abroad. But on which grounds does the outside world interfere with the South African point of view nowadays? The outside world is not concerned about the minor scraps between Afrikaans and English speaking people in this country; the outside world is not concerned about our rising cost of living, if there is anything of the kind; the outside world is not concerned about our drought or about our agricultural pests. No, the outside world is concerned about two things: In the first place, people abroad are concerned because Communism cannot get the grip on this country that they would like it to have. But I leave it at that, because the United Party is also anti-communistic—and I suppose in this respect we are also carrying out their policy! The main reason why the outside world interferes in our affairs is that this Government applies a policy of separate development, and that is not to their liking. That is the reason why the outside world interferes with our affairs, and that is why the hon. the Prime Minister and hon. members on this side were fully justified in asking yesterday that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should please come down to this essential, basic issue. If it comes to water or the cost of living or all those other things, we have enough people on this side who are unanimous, who can speak the same language as the Prime Minister, and they will help him reply as far as those matters are concerned. We have no fear that there will be conflicting statements such as those made by the hon. member for Karoo; we speak one language, and that is why we make the request that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should come back to this point. He has had many opportunities to do so in recent years. I refer to his speech of 20th November, 1963, when he announced his “crash plan”. What did he say then in respect of race policy? What does his “crash plan” comprise in respect of race policy? All he said about it, according to a report in the Rand Daily Mail, was “Goodwill and friendly co-operation across the colour line.” He had another opportunity on a subsequent occasion when he spoke about the “six differences” between the National Party and the United Party. In respect of race policy he again made only one solitary remark. He said—

Sir, we try every time to bring him back to that point. How will that peaceful leadership which they advocated during the previous election be able to exist unless justice is done to the non-White in the constitutional system in which he should be represented, or unless the non-White fits in with that constitutional system? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition had a further opportunity on the occasion of his New Year message, when he said—

Sir, that is what the United Party is concerned with, and they were told that repeatedly in the course of the Budget Debate, and this afternoon that was said once again. This is what they are concerned with: They are concerned solely with the economic interests or the financial interests of this country, and there we see the hand of an Oppenheimer. They are also afraid of another remark made by this Mr. Eglin, who told them that the day would come when the Progressive Party would be in power, and with a view to the integration of the non-Whites they want to enlist the support of those intellectuals. That is why these hon. members place the emphasis on this matter only, and are not prepared to present the essentials of their race policy to us. [Time expired.]

The hon. member who has just sat down will forgive me for not following him. I had an idea that we were discussing the Prime Minister’s Vote, so Grimm’s Fairy Tales leave me stone cold.

When my time ran out yesterday, I was dealing with the question of the relationship between us and our neighbours, particularly in regard to water supplies and those water works which are just outside our borders, which may have a strong bearing on our relations with those countries. I pointed out that there was an economic approach and a diplomatic approach to those countries on these matters and that we might be persuaded to participate in a particular work because it was essential for our economic well-being, or it might be that the question of economics was of little consideration, but that we were actuated by a good neighbour policy. I dealt with certain aspects of the matter where I was present at a big gathering overseas when aid prior to the independence of certain nations had been called exploitation, but after independence those same people asked for aid. I want to give the Prime Minister two further examples to show the danger of this type of development, and I am asking the Prime Minister to be good enough to give us his policy in regard to these matters. May I say, in passing, that I know the Minister of Water Affairs cannot be here to-day for medical reasons.

The one case I want to refer to briefly is that of Uganda and Egypt and their dispute over the Nile water, where tremendous stresses are building up at present, Uganda taking a very strong line in regard to the ownership of the water, which they say starts and runs through their country. A better case still is that of the waters of the Indus, the so-called Cashmere water problem. While Pakistan and India were under the British and (the Government saw to the distribution of that water there was no trouble, but as soon as Britain got out of India there was trouble. Just before she got out, she got both Governments mutually to agree to a treaty to deal with the disposal of the Indus water. That treaty was signed and Britain as a friend of both parties accepted the position, and then Britain left in 1948 and friction started immediately, and this problem has nearly led to the outbreak of war on more than one occasion between India and Pakistan. I know of three occasions where the outbreak of war was imminent. They had common interests in a common river, but when the pressure came the division of interests was immediately manifest. This is the sort of thing that worries me, and that is why I should like to put it clearly to the Prime Minister.

Let us look at the question of the water in the Tugela in my own province. I raised this matter with the Minister of Water Affairs last year, in Column 116 of Hansard, but the Prime Minister said he would answer, and he did so. In dealing with the suggestion that water should be pumped from the Tugela to the catchment of the Vaal, the Prime Minister said this—

Fair enough. We accepted that. But the present Minister of Water Affairs said this on 7th October last year—

That was, I take it, the commission appointed by the late Prime Minister. Then I dealt with the question of the various Bantustans and the present Minister of Water Affairs said—

That is the point I referred to yesterday. In January the late Prime Minister had said that there would be international agreements with countries such as Basutoland and Swaziland. Now the Minister of Water Affairs says there will also be agreements with the Bantustans, and then we get this extraordinary statement—

In the light of what happened since then, I think that was an extraordinary statement. Surely every drop of water we have in South Africa is of value to us, whether it flows through the Bantustans or not. Why are we proposing to spend millions of rands outside our borders and invest our capital in areas where it may be subject to the whim of a change of government in some other country when we still have the position in our country that our water resources are still awaiting development We have said from this side of the House before that our principle is that in regard to water supplies, we shall protect existing communities; they shall have security as to their water supplies. It will be time enough, when we have cared for the existing communities, to look for development beyond our borders and to spend our capital, of which we are short, in developing such undertakings. The first point is that we shall provide security of water supplies for existing communities, whether they are rural, urban or industrial. The second point is that we shall develop our own water supplies. That is the second cardinal principle, that the money we have to spend shall be spent on developing our own water supplies. Surely nobody can object to that. Then we see as the next step the possibility of a grid system, where there can be an interchange of water, after the fullest hydrological survey has taken place and it has become quite clear that in the interest of South Africa, and only in the interest of South Africa, after complying with the first two principles, demands, there should be a grid system from which surplus water can be drawn for the purpose of allocation to where necessity may suddenly strike.

Do you want us not to carry on with the investigation of the Oxbow Scheme? I do not quite follow you.

What I asked the Prime Minister is that he should explain Government policy in regard to matters such as the Oxbow Scheme and the Ruacana Falls Scheme and the new proposals for the Zambezi with the Portuguese Government. What is the basis upon which negotiations are taking place? Is it that these works are essential for South Africa, that it is an economic necessity for South Africa? Or is it at any rate partly the case that we are concerned about a good neighbour feeling, with diplomacy and with the desire to assist our neighbours as well as ourselves, and that we are willing to risk some of our capital in works of that nature which are being left if not completely under the control of a foreign state, very nearly so, bearing in mind that the present Minister has now twice said in this House that he does not want to have a bonfire made of our interests in regard to essential water supplies? Here is then the position in which we find ourselves at the moment, namely that we ask the Government to define our position in regard to these particular matters so that we may know precisely where we stand when these issues are dealt with in public and in this House. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is long since I have seen the Opposition run away from the idea of policy as the Opposition ran away today. The hon. the Prime Minister asked them nicely and even begged and almost threatened, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition remained stubborn; on policies he did not say one word in reply. Let me make it quite clear that I understand that. This is the place to raise that, because there is no other place. This is the proper place to raise that, and for the reason that here we have to approve the Prime Minister’s salary on this Vote. If we decline to approve his salary, there is the alternative that we have to approve the salary of the alternative prime minister. Who is the alternative prime minister? Believe it or not, it is the Leader of the Opposition. Before we would be prepared to decline to approve the salary of the Prime Minister and to transfer it to another member, we first have to know what his policy is. That is why we are entitled and why this is the proper place to ascertain what the policy of the Leader of the Opposition and his Party is in respect of certain important matters in South Africa. I know why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not want to discuss these matters. There are two very obvious reasons. The first reason is. of course, that the moment the hon. the Leader opens his mouth, he puts all four feet in it. That is his greatest problem. The second problem is this: At the moment two by-elections are being held, and the Leader of the Opposition will wait until after those two by-elections. In his view the time will then be ripe, when there is no danger of reaction on the part of the public outside; then he will declare his policy. We are entitled to know and we shall continue asking until we know what the United Party’s attitude is in respect of their race federation policy. Do they stand by this little yellow book? I ask for the twentieth time. Do they stand by the attitude of the hon. member for Yeoville, namely “politically we will encourage them to accept a federal association with South Africa, in their case with a geographic content, and in the case of the detribalized Natives, with a population content”. I quote from Hansard, col. 4541, of 17th October, 1966. Do they stand by that, or do they stand by the latest admission of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, namely: On the premise of a geographical federation? Where does the Opposition stand? The electorate and we want to know what their position is. because there are reasons for that and I need not go into those again. There are very obvious reasons why we want to know that. The geographical federation has its problems in respect of population. It has its problems in respect of who would represent them in this House of Assembly, etc.

But I want to leave this matter for the while because I dealt with it in a previous speech the other day. I want to present the other point of view. I want to ask where the United Party really stands in respect of the Coloured’s representation in this House. I want to elaborate somewhat further on it today than I did in the past. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout tried to give us the slip by saying that the point was, as he put it, that only the Coloureds who had been on the voters’ roll in the Cape and in Natal would be restored to the voters’ roll. Did I understand him correctly?

Did you not listen when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke yesterday?

Yes, I did listen. He was just as vague as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, as usual. [Interjections.] The Leader was just as vague. He said nothing. What will become of the Coloureds of Natal and of the Cape who were not on the common roll originally? According to this little book they will be restored to the common voters’ roll. The hon. member cannot tell me that if they are put on the common voters’ roll it will be the end of the story, because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself suggested that that was provisional. He suggested that in this situation the restoration of the Coloureds of the Cape and of Natal to the common voters’ roll and the restoration of their representation in Parliament were provisional. These two matters go hand in hand. He made it quite clear that they should get it in such a way that it should be a provisional position. Actually the ultimate is the representation of Coloureds by Coloureds in this Parliament. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout had no doubts about that, and the hon. the Leader attacked us because we raised this matter while a commission of enquiry was dealing with the matter. On 17th March, 1967, long after that commission had (been appointed, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made a speech here in Cape Town. He addressed the lunch-hour meeting of the Institute of Citizenship and dealt with this matter quite clearly. He summarized it beyond all doubt, briefly and to the point: “Coloured men and women from all the Provinces should therefore be granted the right to elect a number of representatives to Parliament from their own ranks.” One could not want it any clearer. In other words, I want to put it as follows: If the Opposition is not prepared to state their policy now. I contend that the United Party is advocating that the Coloureds of South Africa should elect Coloureds from their own ranks, on a group basis, to sit in this Parliament. I make this allegation and I say that this is the policy of the United Party, and I have already advanced proof of that. They should refute that if they do not agree. [Interjections.] I was here. The hon. member was no clearer on that point. I suggest that the United Party is in favour of free, uncontrolled, unbridled white capital and white initiative being let loose in the Bantu homelands at random, and of those homelands being developed by such means. Mr. Oppenheimer may open a series of factories there tomorrow and then buy the land of the Bantu as he pleases and actually possess the Transkei. There will be no control because there will be free influx of capital, according to the United Party’s policy in respect of the homelands. Thirdly I suggest, and I can prove this, that the United Party is in favour of black people sitting in this Parliament eventually, as representatives of the black people of South Africa. They are in favour of that. Once again I want to give a brief illustration. This little yellow book of theirs states that there will be eight Whites in this House of Assembly and six in the Senate, as representatives of the Bantu. That is the initial stage, but those representatives may be replaced by non-Whites or may be increased to more than eight, subject to approval by a referendum of the voters. I just want to make a logical analysis of the matter and ask who the voters are who will vote in this connection. According to the same publication the Bantu will also become voters, because they will be placed on a separate voters’ roll to elect those eight people; therefore the Bantu are also voters. If the Bantu are also voters, along with the Whites and the Coloureds, we have the situation that those voters have to elect the eight representatives and those people will vote in the referendum to decide whether that number should remain eight or whether there should be more, and whether they should remain White or should become non-White. Let us give the United Party the benefit of the doubt. Let us presume by “voters” they mean only the Whites and the Coloureds. Then I ask myself the following question: If that referendum is held, what attitude will the hon. the Leader of the Opposition adopt on the platforms where he is going to appear. If a vote is to be taken on the question of these eight people, will the Leader of the Opposition adopt the attitude on the platforms that they should remain White or that they should become Blacks? Will he call upon the people to vote that they should remain White, or will he call upon the people to vote that they should become Black? What will be his attitude in that referendum, or at those meetings? Let us give them the benefit of the doubt and say that in his view they should remain White. Then the Whites and the Coloureds will agree and will keep them White. Then I ask the hon. Leader: Does he think the Bantu who originally asked for that will be satisfied with a decision taken by Whites and Coloureds, that they should be represented here by Whites ad infinitum? Do they think that is possible? Do they think the Blacks will reconcile themselves to that? That is why I believe that the hon. member was honest. I conclude, Sir, because I see you want to stop me. The hon. member for Karoo was advocating pure United Party policy one hundred percent when he said: “Bantu here by Bantu.” The Leader of the Opposition was honest when he himself said that it was the policy of the United Party that the Bantu should be represented by Whites in the Central Parliament, but if the United Party wants to convince the Bantu with a race federation plan, it is clear that it cannot deny the Bantu representation by their own people forever. I put it quite clearly that that is their policy. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will forgive me if I come back to my own line of thought. I want to deal again with the Tugela River for a moment. I pointed out that the late Prime Minister said that it was not Government policy to take water from the Tugela. He said that it was a private idea and that the Government did not subscribe to that policy. Then in October last year the present Minister of Water Affairs did not say that he would take water from the Tugela, but he said that he would very much like to do so. On this year’s estimates we find provision for R11 million made for a dam on the Tugela River at Spioenkop. This is the first instalment on a dam costing an estimated R11 million. We have no White Paper, as far as I know. I do not know what the background to this is, but I assume, from what I have gleaned from a paper here and there, that there is a suggestion that this should be a containing reservoir for the purpose of pumping water “over berg”. This is in fact one of the first schemes. I want to suggest that this is being done in a panic and in a hurry. It is not good that things should be done in that way. I feel that that is a great deal of the trouble. It stems from the fact that there has been a lack of official realization that we have a succession of droughts in South Africa to a lesser extent. We are having good rain now. Over the greater part of the Republic we are now having too much, but that does not matter. That will pass and in a year or two we will be again in the midst of another big drought. We have to realize that droughts are endemic in South Africa. They are a part of our natural climatic conditions. We have to realize that our industries are growing immensely and using more and more water. Our population is growing more and more and using more and more water. I want to come in a moment to a practical suggestion as to how we can deal with this problem. I should, however. now like to come back to the Prime Minister. In regard to the Tugela, is it the Government’s policy that they have put this money on the Estimates for the purpose of building the Spioenkop Dam to take water from the Tugela and to pump it “over berg”? If so, what happens to the Tugela Basin scheme, which, for the development of that area, was to provide for a population of some 12 or 14 million people to settle there? I say that it seems to me as though these things are done in a panic. I have it on very good authority—the Prime Minister can test it—that after all the trouble over the Hluhluwe River Dam, now that it has been completed, the water has been tested and they find that it is so heavily charged with alkali that it cannot be used for irrigation. That is what I have been informed now. After all the trouble the water cannot be used for irrigation because it will create bark conditions in the soil if it is used for that purpose. This was found after it had been completed. I also have it on very good authority that, notwithstanding the replies to my questions in this House in regard to the Josini Dam and the Pongola Poort Dam, the suggestion now is that the amount of soil available for irrigation on the eastern side of the Ovombo Mountain is so limited that big steps are now being taken and a survey is being made and a report has been sent to the Government to indicate what is necessary for irrigation to take place on the other side of the mountain—the western side of the mountain. Why do these matters have to wait until millions of rand have been spent before this kind of enquiry is made? This is what I think is wrong. Is that correct?

That is not quite correct.

Is it not quite correct? Is it partly correct? [Interjections.] The Deputy Minister of Bantu Development must know something about it. I do not know where he has got that information from. Perhaps from an even less reliable source than I have, but for what it is worth, I say that this is a report that I have heard and I put it forward. Here we have the question again of panic measures taken under stress, costing the country millions of rand. We now have breathing space for a moment, with the good rains we are having, to do the right thing and to carry out the principles which I have already enunciated, namely to protect the water rights and to secure the water rights of people who are already there, the established communities, rural, urban and industrial. We must develop our own water resources before we go further afield. Last year I suggested in this House that the time had come when we should cut out many of these commissions and get down to one. Let that commission investigate every one of our irrigation schemes in South Africa and find out what is being paid and why, and what are the chances of irrigators making a reasonably good living without a continually, recurring cost structure being hung around their necks every time we have a drought. It is most unfair for these people who are relying on a dam to find suddenly that that dam has dried up. With that should go an investigation of the relative requirements of industry and urban requirements in relation to those of the irrigators. That commission could be one of the most important in the history of South Africa because there is no doubt that at the present time there is a clash between he demand for water by urban development, associated with industrial complexes, and the irrigators. There is a clash and when there is a limited amount of water available and if the principle of providing security of supply has not been accepted, that clash takes place only to the detriment either of the irrigator or of the industrial complex or of the urban development, or both of them, as the case may be. To find a formula, it may even go so far as to say that the water supply for irrigation purposes cannot be drawn upon for the purpose of industrial development, or that special water supplies should be provided for urban development and any industrial complexes associated with it, and that that water cannot be used for irrigation purposes. It may even go as far as that, but it is not a matter which should lag for many years. It should lay down a clear pattern for us in South Africa to follow, instead of there being these panic measures which, on investigation, after the money has been spent, are found on occasions to be fruitless expenditure, probably to a very great extent indeed.

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the hon. member for South Coast that on the Water Affairs Vote we shall deal very fully with water matters. The Prime Minister may perhaps respond to what the hon. member said a moment ago, but we are not prepared to be diverted from policy matters. We are not prepared simply to listen to the laughter of Opposition members. Apart from their leaders not one of them has dared to take part in this debate—this debate relating to policy matters. It is only the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for South Coast and the other leader, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who are taking part. Only the leaders dare take part in this debate on policy matters, because they are best able to evade policy matters. Now I should very much like to respond to a certain matter mentioned yesterday by the hon. member for Yeoville. I regret that he cannot be here. I know it is impossible for him to be here, and we regret the circumstances which gave rise to his absence. Yesterday the hon. member for Yeoville made a remark with reference to separate development, with reference to a statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister, namely that we have a policy which safeguards future generations in this country. The hon. member for Yeoville responded to that and said:—

The National Party policy of separate development implies that we shall not force future generations into a certain course or direction. If we or some other party were to follow a policy of integration as pursued by the United Party in this country, we would commit the future generations to a certain course. The N.P. does not commit any future generations. On the contrary, if a future generation were to lose all faith in the future or if a future generation had no faith in themselves, in other words, if a future generation should be United Party members, and if they did not want to continue with the policy of separate development bequeathed to them by the generations preceding them, then that generation could accept a policy of integration with one stroke of the pen. It would be the easiest thing in the world for them to do so. It is the easiest thing in the world to make two separate streams merge. But I do not believe for one moment that that will happen. I do not believe for one moment—and I say that on the basis of the facts, as I know our young people, and on the basis of the indications of what future generations are going to be—that a future generation would want to do that or would want to reason along those lines. Let us consider what would happen if the U.P.’s policy of integration came to fruition in this country. Let us consider what a future generation would do if it discovered that it had been forced into a certain course by the heritage bequeathed to it. What would it do if it were forced into a course from which there was no return, a course by which it would simply be compelled to accept a policy of integration and complete merging in one multi-racial nation, one multi-racial parliament and one multiracial government? What a tremendous reproach such a future generation could level at this present generation, if we were to commit them to that! No, Mr. Chairman, I want to make it quite clear that the policy of the N.P. is the best one, not only for this generation but also for future generations. I say that the N.P. rejects most emphatically this idea of the United Party, of one multi-racial nation, one multi-racial people. I do not think they will deny that their ambition is one multiracial nation in this country. They are no longer even denying matters which they previously denied. Nor is it possible for them to deny that. They cannot repudiate that, because those things were said quite clearly by leaders of the U.P. Here I have the Hansard report on the first debate after we became a Republic. Hon. members who were members of this honourable House at the time will remember that when the hon. the Leader of the exposition took part in the debate eleven United Party members dozed away as long as he spoke. We remember that as though it was yesterday. In that debate the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the following (Hansard, 8th June, 1961, col. 7559)—

Surely it is clear that the Opposition advocates one single people, one single nation. It is clear that they are moving towards a policy which will realize this. But if it is not clear, I may read to them what a prominent member of the United Party said at the time, a member who was a rising star at the time but who has since proved to be a shooting star. I am referring to the hon. member for Durban North. He wrote the following in an article in the Cape Times of 24th April, 1962. The article was actually written in reply to an allegation by the Progressive Party that the policy of the N.P. and the race federation policy of the U.P. did not actually differ very much. The hon. member then wrote an article in an attempt to establish the contrary, and amongst other things he said the following—

I think this proves very clearly that the United Party have every reason to evade their past, reason to evade their policy and what is really fundamental to their policy. For not only do they advocate one multi-racial nation in this country, but that is also what they propagate. I am not speaking only of the little yellow book with their policy, which they have published. It is something which is presented as an excuse. I am also referring to what they said in other contexts, the statements from public platforms throughout the country —it depended on who the audience was. They said very explicitly the opposite of what they pretend their race federation policy is. Thus we find that while the United Party has always maintained, in terms of their race federation policy and as the hon. member for Yeoville in fact repeated yesterday, that it is their policy that the Bantu shall be represented by eight Whites in the federal parliament, I have in the past repeatedly put a certain question to them, but the hon. the Leader and the other hon. members of the Opposition consistently evaded a reply to that question. The question is: What is your policy in respect of the Bantu homelands? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to interrupt again in this political fight. It seems to me that hon. members on the Government side do not know the meaning of “Committee of Supply”. The meaning of Committee of Supply is to address grievances to the hon. the Minister whose Vote is under discussion and it is based on the good old custom that redress of grievances precedes the supply of money. That is how I have always been taught Parliamentary procedure functions in Committee of Supply. It means that each Minister comes before the Committee of this House and members of the House on both sides—although one seldom hears a word of criticism of Ministers from hon. members on that side of the House, but they have that right—in terms of Parliamentary procedure have the right to question Ministers in turn about their policy and how they have in fact been carrying out their duties, how they have been administering their portfolios. Only after satisfactory information has been given, does the House in fact vote the money which each Minister has asked for. That is the reason for Committee of Supply. But hon. members here think that this is an open forum for party debate of party policy and for querying the Opposition about its policy. I am just not interested in that. I come back to the meaning of Committee of Supply and I want to put some more questions to the hon. the Prime Minister.

I said earlier on that it was extremely satisfactory to everybody, including myself, although I doubt if the Prime Minister really cares very much about that, that he made the recent contacts he did make with African statesmen from other parts of Africa. I think that these meetings are all to the good and they should be continued and they should be expanded, and I hope the day will come when the Prime Minister will see fit to go visiting elsewhere in Africa and indeed that he will go further afield and that he will go abroad as Prime Ministers of other countries do, visit around and meet statesmen in the rest of the world. In other words, he must broaden his whole field in international relations. Therefore, I think it is a great pity that he should have found it necessary to take it upon himself to advance these ridiculous explanations about why it is all right for the hon. the Prime Minister to have tea or dinner or a drink with Black statesmen from other territories who come to visit us but not with Africans inside South Africa. In other words, these man to man relationships with non-Whites are fine as long as an inter-state border has been crossed but the moment it becomes a question of associating with those inside South Africa it runs completely counter to Government policy. Then it is no longer fine for the hon. the Minister to continue these intelligent social relationships with fellow citizens who happen to belong to a different colour group from he himself. As I have said. I do not know why the hon. the Prime Minister found this necessary—I can only presume that he had to reassure his anxious followers that there was going to be no change in race relations inside South Africa. I personally have had no doubts about that—I have not seen great changes inside South Africa since the hon. the Prime Minister took office. I will, however, admit that he has done quite a smart job in presenting himself as an amiable and accessible gentleman to the Press and in so far as certain outside relationships are concerned. That is because there has been a certain measure of intelligent handling of the situation relating to our non-White neighbours across the border. Everybody inside as well as outside South Africa is just dying for some sign of change from South Africa and consequently all these indications have been eagerly grasped at. Everybody is anxious to see some sign of change on the part of South Africa. But if one examines the situation in South Africa a little more objectively one finds that in fact very little has changed. What has changed in so far as the ordinary lives of non-Whites in this country are concerned? Has there, for instance been any slackening in the implementation of the policy of apartheid? No, Sir, on the contrary, there has been a tightening up of that policy all along the line. There has been an almost ferocious application of the policy to the urban African and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration has been given full rein as far as his obsessions are concerned, obsessions about removing Africans to the Bantu areas. Has there been a slackening off in the implementation of group areas as far as the Coloureds and Indians are concerned? Of course not. These are the things which affect the lives of people. What about the pass laws, the arrests under the pass laws —a fantastic number of about 2.000 per day for statutory infringements? These figures come from police reports and are, therefore, official. As I was saving, there is no abatement in any of these directions. There has been nothing but a tightening up as far as internal policies are concerned.

I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that if he wishes to maintain the more favourable image he has built up for himself in South Africa he is going to realize in the long run there is just one way in which he will be able to do that: to take the heat off the implementation of the policy of separate development or apartheid or separate freedom—whatever you like to call it, which as a policy by and large, means a miserable life To non-Whites in this country. That is the only way in which the hon. the Prime Minister is going to be able to maintain a favourable image.

But them has been another little ray of hope over the last few months which, possibly, represents a slight shifting in policy provided, of course, it does not, as the hon. the Prime Minister said, involve us in any of the devious changes inside—which as far as I can see is inevitable because it is going to involve us. However, let us be hopeful and let us hope there will be some change. The other little ray of hope is contained in the message which the hon. the Prime Minister gave to the students of the Orange Free State University. There he expressed the wish that students in South Africa would devote part of their lives To service in and outside South Africa, in the neighbouring territories. They should, in other words, evolve some sort of voluntary service or peace corps, or whatever you like to call it. I do not mind what it is called and if people do not like to call it a “peace corns” it is all right with me, as long as there is this idea of service on the part of young White South Africans who could act as diplomats, as ambassadors, as ministers without portfolio and go into the neighbouring territories to assist there. Already there is one small organization of this nature operating in South Africa—the South African Voluntary Service. It is doing a good job of work. It is this sort of thing which should be expanded. Students may, for instance, go to a neighbouring territory to help build a school there, to help doing some agricultural work and render technical assistance of which they are capable. This is a very valuable diplomatic function. Why should we leave it to countries like America to send 30 or 40 workers into one of our neighbouring countries, like Lesotho? Why shouldn’t we be doing it? It is no good for the hon. the Prime Minister just to give encouragement to students, although I am all for it. This idea needs something more tangible. In Britain the overseas’ voluntary service, although not run by the British Government, is financed by the British Government to the extent of 75 per cent. Seventy-five per cent of its expenses are advanced by the British Government the rest comes from philanthropic societies, subscriptions from schools …

Do you expect me to finance Nusas?

The hon. the Prime Minister must not be petty about this. I do not care which organization it is. Something like this should be encouraged and set up and if it is doing good work, then, of course, the Prime Minister should assist financially. How ridiculous can we get; how petty can we get? If this group of students is doing work of which the Prime Minister himself approves, why should he object Ito helping them? Even Stellenbosch students are coming in on this, and why should they not? I think it is a very good idea and should be encouraged. Why not? The American Government advances vast sums to the American Peace Corps which has something like 12.000 to 15,000 young people working in 46 different countries in the world. The hon. the Prime Minister thinks this is a good idea. Let him then investigate what is being done. If he approves of what is being done, then even if it is being done by the Witwatersrand University, let him support it. I know at the very mention of the word Witwatersrand University a great black cloud descends. …

Do you want to see a “happening” in Botswana?

I have seen Pretoria University students behaving in a very much worse way than Cape Town University students—when they threw stones at women, for instance. [Time expired.]

If I had not been present this afternoon to see and to hear what happened here, and somebody were to tell me about it to-morrow, I would not have believed it. To me it sounded almost like the story of a man who was reading the Bible. On one page he read that Moses climbed the mountain. Unfortunately, he turned two pages instead of one and then saw, “And he fled.” He could not understand that, took another look and said: “Moses climbed the mountain … and, by jove, he did flee?” Through all the years I have been in this Parliament the United Party has made a colour debate of every debate. But this afternoon they run away—they flee. The Budget debate lasted five days. We could then discuss finance, and yet only three hon. members on the opposite side spoke about finance. But now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes along and wants to discuss finance. We want a confrontation of policies and, for that reason, I challenge any hon. member on the opposite side, including the Leader of the Opposition, to get up and to reply to the questions put to them by this side of the House. They are afraid of two things. Through the years they have bumped their heads; their policy of integration and merging is no longer accepted by the voters. Locally it is a policy which has come to a dead-end; it is a policy which is also coming to a dead-end abroad, because the outside world no longer sees in the National Party and the policy of separate development the image created of them by the United Party; the outside world now sees them as they are. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition claims that they have the right to ask questions. Sir, the Opposition forms part of our democratic system in this country. The other day I mentioned here that the Leader of the Opposition, in recognition of that system, receives a higher salary than other members. We recognize that system, and for that reason the people and we ourselves are entitled to know what the policy of the United Party is. It is time this chopping and changing on the part of the United Party was stopped. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition tried to suggest that, because a commission of inquiry was in session, colour matters could not be discussed here. The Leader of the Opposition himself did not respect the existence of ‘that commission when he spoke about colour matters during the no-confidence debate. Sir, I now want to make this accusation: The hon. member for Karoo is a loyal United Party supporter; he is a blood-member of the United Party; he is an old jingo, and when he compiled that document which the hon. the Prime Minister read to-day, he was setting out the policy of the United Party. In that document the hon. member for Karoo spoke from his heart and wrote from his heart. What is written in that document came from the depths of his heart and is precisely in accordance with the United Party’s policy. One would not have blamed the hon. member if in that document he had spoken about the Coloureds only, because he represents Coloureds, but what on earth did he have to do with the Indians and with the Bantu? He formulates a policy for them, and he prompts them. Through the years it has always been the policy of the United Party to prompt the non-Whites in South Africa; to tell them that they should revolt against apartheid. They do not have a case any more because the non-Whites accept our policy, and now they have to circulate such scandalous documents among the non-Whites to incite and inflame them. Whose henchman has the United Party become in South Africa? It has become the henchman of the instigators and the inciters. That is how the people and the voters see the United Party. Sir, I say there is chopping and changing. We on this side may not discuss colour matters, but yesterday the hon. member for Bezuidenhout did just that. In his second speech he made some significant statements. He said it was their policy that the Coloureds who used to be on the voters’ roll should remain there. When saying that, is he referring to the plus-minus 27,000 Coloureds placed on the separate roll in 1957? To-day their numbers are much smaller. To-day there are probably not more than 12,000 of them. What about the other several hundred thousands of Coloureds in the Cape? Will they also be restored to the common voters’ roll? Who is to represent them— Whites or Coloureds? Or could it be either Whites or Coloureds? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout made a second statement. I am sorry that he is not here at the moment. He said that the northern Coloureds should be granted representation on a group basis, and then he said that the Coloureds would prefer to be represented by Coloureds on a sectional basis. Where did the hon. member get that notion? I may tell him and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the last thing the Coloureds want is representation by Coloureds. They do not want to be represented by Coloureds. They want to be represented by the white man. Here we have the old United Party policy of divide and rule all over again. We have had the experience of how they divided the Afrikaners in order that they could rule. Now they are advocating the same policy with regard to the Coloureds—not a policy of unity as far as the Coloured population is concerned: no, they want to divide the Coloureds in South Africa and keep them powerless. They want one group on the common voters’ roll, and those Coloureds may choose to be represented either by Whites or by Coloureds. If it works the other way round and a Coloured is elected, then he must also represent the Whites in that constituency. That is the United Party’s policy, not so? If the majority of the voters on the common voters’ roll send a Coloured to the House of Assembly, then that Coloured must also represent the Whites here. [Time expired.]

Sir, I would remind the Committee that the hon. the Prime Minister is responsible for his Cabinet. It is not a very easy task that he has, and I would also remind the hon. the Prime Minister that we on this side of the House have a right to put questions to him in regard to his policy, and we want to exercise that right to-day. The hon. the Prime Minister has admitted here to-day that the cost of living is going up. He has admitted that there are demands for wage rises. I want to know from him what he is going to do about it. These are pressing matters which have to be settled now and not in the distant future. People outside want to know what is going to be done to relieve their burdens in meeting the increasing cost of living. We find that when there is a rise in the cost of a basic commodity, there is a ripple effect. If a pound of sugar goes up by I cent, why should one scone go up by I cent? You cannot expect the people to stand by and not grumble if nothing is done, and the only people who can do something about it is the Government through the Prime Minister. These are important matters for us, and they must be settled soon. The questions of wage increases and productivity are being bandied about. The late Prime Minister said, if my memory serves me well, that though the worker does not need more wages he wants more wages.

That is not true. He never said so.

Does the Prime Minister disagree if a statement like that is made? Does he subscribe to the fact that to-day the worker needs more money to come out? I want to know from the Prime Minister whether he is in agreement that the rising wages should keep pace with the rise in the cost of living? My hon. leader put that question to the hon. the Prime Minister. To us it is important. It may be that to the hon. members opposite it is not important.

And I have just replied to it.

To me it was an evasion of the reply. He did not say specifically what steps he would take. Is he going to stop the ripple caused by the rise in the price of basic commodities?

The Minister of Finance told you over and over what the policy of the Government was.

The Prime Minister should repeat that policy and tell us what he is going to do about this very important matter; or let the Minister come back into the debate and tell us what steps he is going to take to stop it. The demands of the man in the street will not be so high if he can stop it. These people need the money.

But you know that the trade unions can negotiate for increased wages.

The trade unions do it when they feel they need it, but they are not doing it so that they can have part of their wages taken off by the Minister of Finance to be put away as a savings levy. They are not asking for that; they ask for basic salary increases to meet the increased cost of living. It is as plain as that. They do not ask for it for any other reason. It is happening on the coal mines and on the gold mines and in transport and at Iscor. The chain has started and it will go throughout our industrial life. The printers to-day are asking for increased wages also. I, for one, do not think they are doing so because it happens to be the fashion, but because they think they need the money. But I will leave that and go on to another effect of this cost of living, and that is the shortage of accommodation for the workers to-day.

I charge the Government with bad planning. They took over our immigration policy. They had 20 years to plan for the future. They dilly-dallied with immigration and then started it without planning properly to have sufficient accommodation for the immigrants when they came to this country. To-day there is a fight for accommodation, and that is making the immigrant unpopular in our country, because he wants accommodation and our own workers want accommodation and they both fight for it, and there is a clash between them. The one is blaming the other for the lack of accommodation throughout the country. It is not sufficient that an immigrant is kept for six or seven weeks in an hotel before he is given a home. There are not enough places for these people to live in. How it is possible I do not know, but they are over-bidding the ordinary South African worker for accommodation. They probably do this by more than one family moving into one house. They get the houses because there is a combined income and they are able to pay higher rents. I say to the Prime Minister that his Planning Committee has failed hopelessly to provide sufficient accommodation not only for our natural increase in population but also for the immigrants. What is he going to do about that? Let him answer that question. So it goes on right through our lives to-day. We see rising costs in accommodation and for food. The Minister of Finance told us it will be no hardship at all to take off the savings levy from our people. I asked him what rate of interest he will pay on it and whether he will guarantee when this loan will be repaid. But we have not heard a word. The Minister did not take the trouble to reply to the questions I put to him, and I think it is now the duty of the Prime Minister to let us know what is going to happen to this money that is being collected from the workers. Until we can get satisfactory replies from the Ministers, the Prime Minister must take the responsibility for telling us what he is going to do to meet these conditions under which the people are suffering to-day.

To-day we have witnessed a fine demonstration of an egg dance which was executed by the Opposition for the simple reason that they did not have the moral courage to set one policy up against another here and discuss it. It is very clear that an instruction has been issued to certain members of the Opposition not to participate in this debate for fear that they may say something about the colour question which may get them into difficulties to-morrow or the day after. There sits the Leader of the Opposition, a man for whom I have a lot of respect, but they do not have the courage to set their policy up against ours in this debate. It is clear that speakers are now being appointed to discuss the cost of living and wage scales, to talk about water affairs and fly around like political vultures to try and pick out an eye here and there. According to the Standing Orders a hundred hours have been set aside to deal with the Votes, and when it is the turn of those particular Minister’s Votes, we will be able to debate them.

Cannot the hon. member discuss Coloured Affairs under the Vote?

We should like to do it very much. We should very much like policy in regard to this matter, which every voter in South Africa is deeply concerned about, to be discussed in detail here, this most important matter of policy in South Africa, i.e. the adjustment of race relations and the adjustment of population relations in South Africa. But that we do not get from the Opposition side. No complaints in regard to policy can be made as far as we are concerned. Yesterday the hon. the Prime Minister made a policy statement in this House which met with a wide response both in South Africa and the world in general. We on this side are not afraid to make a statement in regard to these matters. But another spectacle we witnessed here to-day was that people are being sheltered in the caucus of the United Party as political organizations who have their own views on matters. I am thinking of the memorandum which was read out to us here by the hon. the Prime Minister and which had been drawn up by the hon. member for Karoo.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition can rise and then we can set policy against policy. I am asking him how he reconciles the fact that a member having those views as revealed in that scandalous statement which he made in that memorandum can sit in his caucus and can sit in his party. Can it be reconciled with the constitution of his party? It puts me in mind of what they said in the election when they had people with divergent views in their party. One of their candidates then said that they were a democratic party and that all kinds of people with all kinds of views could sit in their party. We have witnessed that phenomenon here to-day. Let me just say that that document was not issued by a private individual. That document was issued by the hon. member in his capacity as a member of the House of Assembly. He came to this House of Assembly under the auspices of the United Party. He made himself available for election as a candidate of the United Party, and he is bound by a mandate even if it was Coloured voters who sent him here, those people whom they want on a joint voters’ roll, those people whom they want directly represented here in the House of Assembly by their own people. I take it that I am correct when I say that the United Party advocates the policy that Coloureds should be represented here by Coloureds. They do not merely advocate it. I want to ask them whether they still adhere to the policy as it was stated by the late Mr. Hofmeyr in this House Yes, it was a long time ago, and the hon. member may laugh. I just want to know whether they still adhere to that policy or not. I adhere to the principles of the National Party as laid down in the election manifesto in 1948, and I am irrevocably bound by a mandate which we as a party have received from the voters. Our day-by-day actions in this House are aimed at implementing the policy of separate development. The voters want to know where they stand with the United Party. We stand by that policy. We laid down certain principles and we are using those principles as cornerstones and on those cornerstones we are developing our policy in South Africa and retaining the identity of the White man in South Africa. We are retaining the identity of this Parliament as the Parliament of the White man and we are affording, as and when it is acceptable and the people have progressed to that stage, the other population groups in South Africa the opportunity of being themselves and retaining their identity. That is separate development. I repeat that we are retaining for this Parliament its identity as a White Parliament for the White man. There is only one party in South Africa which can say that, and that is the National Party. We are in this fortunate position in South Africa to-day that the Republic of South Africa has a different appearance to-day than any other country on the continent of Africa. We have a different appearance thanks to the one fact, namely, that for more than 50 years there was a National Party here with a consistent policy and a consistent direction in South Africa, one which is still here and will remain here in the days to come. That is why we are different in appearance from the rest of Africa. It is because we laid down and built upon that policy of South Africa first, as well as adhering to the principles of separate development in South Africa, that we have achieved in South Africa what we did in fact achieve. We would not have achieved it if we were to have done what was suggested here by the Deputy Leader of the United in 1946. I am referring here to a debate which was conducted in this House when legislation was introduced here to give the Indians in the Transvaal land tenure and the right to vote. The late Mr. Hofmeyr said at that time that the colour bar must ultimately disappear from our Union Constitution. I am now asking the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he adheres to that statement made by Mr. Hofmeyr or whether he does not adhere to it. They have returned to it. That is why I am quoting it. I have here the pamphlet issued by the United Party. I can also put the question: Is the Leader of the Opposition prepared to say now whether he still adheres to the policy of giving these middle-class Bantu in South Africa—the detribalised Bantu here in the cities—land tenure in South Africa? Would somebody in the United Party rise and tell me that? I see the hon. member for Newton Park is looking at me in a peculiar way it stands in their little pamphlet Race Federation. That is their policy. Do hon. members on the opposite side adhere to this policy as set out in the Sunday Times under the headline, “Are they really just like Nats?”. There the differences between the United Party direction and the National Party direction are very clearly emphasised. All that we want from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is that he should give the lead in such a way in his Party that when the Votes of the various Ministers are discussed we will then discuss those matters which have been raised by the hon. member for Rosettenville, and earlier on in the debate by the hon. member for South Coast. We can then discuss those matters, but let us avail ourselves of this opportunity of setting policy against policy. There is no doubt about the separate development policy of the National Party, with the identity of every nation as such being retained, but we want to know where the United Party stands with this obscure plethora of statements which have already been made, and we want to know which policy direction we can actually expect them to take. [Time expired.]

Before I call upon the hon. member to address the Committee, I want to point out to hon. members that there are 52 different Votes to be dealt with in respect of 18 Ministers. I do not mind if they go into general principles and raise general principles on the Prime Minister’s Vote, but if they want to go into detail, I shall ask them to sit down.

With reference to your ruling, Sir, does that apply to Coloured Affairs and Bantu Affairs as well?

As far as basic principles are concerned, they may be discussed, but detail may not be discussed.

I take it that that ruling will then be observed?

Yes, that is the idea.

Mr. Chairman, I can readily appreciate the Prime Minister’s difficulty. We are here this afternoon to discuss a Vote of R149,000. The Prime Minister has had pertinent questions put to him. On finding himself in difficulties, he resorted to the old political tactic of throwing a political bone on the floor of the House for his various members to chew on. It gave them the opportunity of making speeches which they have made before, without having to take the trouble to think. He hoped in that way he could alter the course of the debate. He will not succeed. Sir. The Prime Minister is, as in business, the head of the show. He is the Chairman of the Board. He may not be concerned with detail, as the Chairman quite rightly said.

You are a shareholder with another policy and I should very much like to hear it.

We had better not talk about shareholders, because we have already had an address from another expert, a director.

You are a shareholder and I badly want to hear your policy.

As far as I am concerned, I am dealing with the Prime Minister’s Vote. I am dealing with his account. He wants money for the current year. I want to know how he is going to spend it. I want to know what his policy is going to be. because since the Minister of Finance spoke the other day, we heard that the Reserve Bank is considering the increase in interest rates. I think the hon. the Minister will agree that the Financial Gazette is not a journal antagonistic to the Minister or towards his Party or the Government. It says—

We are concerned with the cost of living and the effect a spiral in interest rates will have on the cost of living. It is true that, on detail, the Minister of Finance is responsible for this. But surely, the Prime Minister should not be exempted from responsibility. He should indicate to us whether he is coming to grips with this problem and what he intends to do. Because so far we have the impression that the Prime Minister has gone from place to place, improving his personal image, but not doing his homework on essential matters concerning the welfare of the people of the country as a whole. That is the trouble. That is our charge against the Prime Minister. It is all very well to go along and have a certain measure of halo polishing, but sooner or later you have to get down to a job of work, and do the job of work concerning the day to day needs of the people. That is where the Prime Minister seems to have failed. He has failed to give direction and leadership. We have a complete mess as far as border industries are concerned. Any failure on the part of the border industries will affect the people as a whole. Failure of productivity in the border industries will affect the welfare of the people as a whole. The Prime Minister tells us that his policy is concerned with the development of border industries. I wonder how many border industries the Minister has visited. He will see fine factories, fine production lines, fine machinery, well-kept gardens and fences, well lit after dark, but has he seen the slums, the degradation, the filth and the soil that lie outside those areas? Does he regard it as creditable for a country like South Africa to point with pride to border industries and not show where the people live? If the hon. the Minister wants to see a sewer and a slum, I can show him one at a border industry in which the Government takes some pride, a newly created one. The water supply was planned, yes. Eventually the river has become contaminated and they had to abandon it and look for water supplies elsewhere. At the same time, the hon. the Minister takes full credit for the Government’s policy. The Government lays down plans and has blueprints. We have not even seen the carrying out of blueprints as far as this Government is concerned. Let the hon. the Minister go to a place called Hammarsdale, where people are rotting with typhoid fever, where the Government has had over ten years to plan the factories with the help of the I.D.C. It has built a big dam with additional water, provided electric power and built a tarmac road. They put in all the trimmings which are shown to overseas visitors. They take the overseas visitors there and show them with pride the excellent conditions under which the people work. But has the Prime Minister dared to show overseas visitors the conditions under which people live, the degradation and squalor? Not a single house has been built for those people by this Government. Planning? It makes the word ludicrous. And here the Prime Minister is telling us that we have to discuss our policy, what we intend to do. when he cannot even carry out his own policy. What is happening in front of our eyes, is a complete disgrace to this country which calls itself civilized.

The hon. the Deputy Minister for Bantu Administration agreed with those views last year when I raised the matter in this House. He agreed completely that the conditions are unsatisfactory. In fact, he visited that area last year, and when he was invited to go and see some of the housing, he said that he would do so on another visit, because on that particular day it was raining. He did not want to get wet or walk in the puddles on the sidewalks and see the conditions under which those people live. And so long as we have a state of affairs where there are cost rises, spiralling wages, spiralling interest rates, lowering productivity, slum conditions under which people work, so long will we criticise this Government and we will blame the Prime Minister for his lack of leadership. It is all very well to have photographs in the newspaper, to show your face on various special occasions, to show yourself as an important person, to be reasonable and …

Is the hon. member trying to be personal?

No, Mr. Chairman. To such an extent as the Prime Minister can show himself as a reasonable person, we recommend it. It is all to the good of South Africa.

Do not try to be personal.

I want to point out to the Prime Minister that he has an additional responsibility, and a Prime Minister must not complain …

Then you must find the words to use.

The Prime Minister is the last one to talk about personalities in this debate.

If you want that, you can have it.

I am not being personal with the Prime Minister; I am saying that the Prime Minister has an additional responsibility as Leader of his Party, as Leader of this Government, to create better conditions for South Africa than exist today. The Prime Minister should know that, because we expect from him not only the special occasions, not only the improvement of South Africa’s image in a general way but we expect to see more efficient administration. Until such time as we see more efficient administration, until we see appreciation of the living conditions of the people, and of the problems of the people, we will go on criticizing the Prime Minister and we will not get diverted in any way whatsoever by red herrings put across the track in the course of a debate of this character, because he has a first charge, and that is to answer for the policy of his Government and to answer for the implementation of that policy.

The way in which the United Party has tried to struggle out of the corner into which the hon. the Prime Minister forced it as far as its colour policy was concerned, reminded me involuntarily of the old poem [translation]: “On my old banjo, with only one string, I play in the moonlight— any old thing.” In the past the United Party has plucked so indiscriminately and violently at the various strings, that there is only one string left today. Now they are trying to play a ditty on it as far as their colour policy is concerned, and all that one can make out is something like: “Somebody stole my girl”.

To present the most favourable image of South Africa in the outside world and to ensure peace and security in South Africa, one thing is necessary above all else, i.e. a fixed basis on which colour questions in the country can be approached, questions which are peculiar to South Africa, as a result of the heterogeneous composition of our population groups. That is why the colour policy is by far the most important facet of our politics. Any political party in South Africa which is worth its salt and which is honest and upright in its intentions in regard to this country, and which appropriates to itself the right to criticize the administration of the country, must adopt a definite attitude in this connection. That is precisely what the United Party has failed to do. In all the years of their existence they have up to now never had a definite basis on which to approach these questions. They have repeatedly jumped from one policy to to another without batting an eyelid over the previous one. A few months ago we had an example of the confusion which exists in the ranks of the United Party as far as their colour policy is concerned. Towards the end of the previous session of Parliament the hon. member for Bezuidenhout gave us a foretaste of a new policy of territorial federation which differed fundamentally from previous policies. On 20th November, 1966 the Sunday Times wrote the following in regard to that policy—

As a result of this statement the hon. member for Yeoville said in an interview that he was extremely pleased with the new policy, with the excitement which had gripped people’s minds as a result of their new policy. He could have stated there that he did not agree with that new policy. What he did say, however, was that he was very pleased at the reception which it had enjoyed. He said further that the N.P. was too dogmatic as far as its colour policy was concerned. He said—

In the Evening Post of 26.11.66 Urbane Kenney had the following to say about this new policy—

What does the hon. member for Durban (Point) have to say about this matter? I am quoting from a report in the Rand Daily Mail—

At the end of that report the following appeared—

It is clear that there is a lack of unanimity amongst U.P. members as far as colour policy is concerned and that is why they do not dare state a policy here because they are too afraid to do so. They must at all costs keep this chronic deficiency in their constitution concealed from us and the voters outside. When colour policy is discussed to-day the reactions of the United Party are similar to the peculiar behaviour of a Cape plover if one disturbs it in its nest. It flies 15 to 20 yards away from its nest and creates a furious din while it flutters up and down. If one walks closer to it, it flies another 15 yards or more further away. It does everything possible to draw the intruder away from its nest where it is most vulnerable. That is precisely what hon. members on that side are doing when we cross-examine them on their colour policy. But we here and the voters outside are tired of their peculiar behaviour. We want to know whether there are any eggs in the United Party’s nest, and if there are eggs whether they are not perhaps rotten eggs or wind eggs. What does the U.P. do when it is afforded an opportunity of formulating and stating its policy? During this session they have had many opportunities of stating their policy to us, but they have been as silent as the grave. During the past few months they have held four provincial congresses. One would at least have expected a party which finds itself in the position in which the United Party is at present to have determined its policy at those congresses. But what did they do at those congresses? There at his own congress in East London the hon. member for East London District moved a motion of no confidence in the National Party! It puts me very much in mind of the tale of the cat which went away and left the mouse at home. Before those congresses were held the chief secretary of the United Party behaved as if he were Cassius Clay and said that the United Party was now in a “fighting mood”. We waited, South Africa waited, to learn what the new policy actually was. But the mountain laboured and brought forth a mouse. Why do United Party speakers bother about holding meetings? Do they state their policy to the people? No. The “bright young boy” of the U.P., the hon. member for Hillbrow, is also a U.P. policy maker. Nevertheless, he is not participating, in this debate to tell us what their policy is. What did he say the other day at Green Point? Did he state the Party’s policy? No. He said this Cabinet consisted of “tired old men and ignorant young men.” Well, if I belonged to a Party such as the one to which the hon. member for Hill-brow belongs which is being given the drubbing of its life by “tired old men and ignorant young men” then I would button my lip because I would realise that my own leaders were ignorant and that Providence had merely given them a head to keep their ears apart.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I am not altogether certain what the point of (the previous speaker’s discourse was. He was apparently praising the policy of the Government. I want to say a few words about one of the effects of the Government’s policy overseas. I am referring to the expulsion some two years back of South Africa from the World Health Organization. It was not greatly noticed at the time, nor was a great deal of attention given to it. This expulsion from the W.H.O., a subsidiary of the U.N. (where we are not very popular), has had a serious effect upon the health education and the general outlook of the health services of the country. Before this expulsion took place we were a very distinguished member of this organization and our services were highly valued, chiefly because the Africa section of the W.H.O. consisted largely of undeveloped countries and, apart from the university in Cairo, there were no medical schools on this continent except those here. Generally the higher university education of the non-White of Africa was in this country. Now that we are no longer a member of the World Health Organization, we are deprived of a great number of scholarships and bursaries which used to be given by the World Health Organization. Many of out senior men and nurses had posts in this organization. Since our expulsion we have been deprived of these, and we have been cut off from contact with this organization. It is true that we can buy their literature, but we cannot have discussions with their members. Our scientists and our health staff in this country have no scholarships and no bursaries available to them. I think the hon. the Prime Minister should give this matter his attention and see whether it is not possible for the health people of this country to be subsidized in some way or given more bursaries or more scholarships so as to be able to go back and retain contact with this organization and other scientists. Sir, in talking about the “health people” of this country I am not concerned with doctors in private practice or with doctors in hospital practice. I am talking about health workers, nurses and the general public health workers of this country. We suffer from many of the serious diseases which are not altogether confined to tropical countries. At the same time, however, we have a large number of tropical diseases in this country, and this separation from the World Health Organization can have grave results. I would, therefore, urge the hon. the Prime Minister to give this matter his serious attention.

It has become far too obvious in the past few days that this debate is a kind of mutual milk and honey drinking session on both sides from the same bowl, and one has come to wish that something would happen which would make something of this debate. I am not the person to do that, but the men who are capable of doing so are now aware that such a need exists.

Mr. Chairman, the United Party’s darkest days and darkest midnight have arrived. In 1948 already, with the breakthrough of South African Nationalism, a breakthrough was made which not only signified the end of the period of British colonialism but also the end, slowly but surely of the United Party, and what is remarkable is that the United Party has since that time, instead of following a politically constructive course to see whether they could not achieve anything in this country, have followed a kind of political vengeance trail after the defeat which it suffered, and the United Party itself has been our greatest ally in the struggle to destroy it.

It still is.

Who all and what all have they not gathered about them in an attempt to undo what the National Party has achieved? They gathered about them all types from the most decadent jingos to the dour National Highveld farmer near Bethal, from the Bredasdorp dune farmer to Moses Kopane, from Harry Oppenheimer to the Torch Commando, from university professors and ex-judges to bishops, who all congregated on platforms and on street corners and announced the downfall of South Africa as a result of the disaster, which was that the National Party had come into power. They practically invoked disaster on this country, i.e. that the banks would close down and the capital would flow out and that the out-of-work would wander through the streets of our cities in their thousands.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind you, since we may only speak for ten minutes, that under the decimal system 10 cents is equal to 12 pennies. I shall now proceed. At present the United Party are running away from the things they have said and done in the past. Today they are the champions of the white man who are sitting on the opposite side; they are the people who took steps against the United Nations; they are the people who have actually expressed a kind of hatred for Britain and who are saying, as General Smuts always said, “Keep the ‘kaffir’ in his place”. They are saying, “Fight for Rhodesia, protect the white man because the National Party is selling out to the non-Whites”. In this debate we have really seen hon. members on that side to be the whitest of the White, the greatest of great patriots. One might as well say they are President Krugers and President Steyns in the flesh that are sitting there. I just want to point out to you that the United Party have in this struggle run their faithful horse ragged in pursuit of mountain zebra, and those remaining are trotting along now like tame, ill-treated dogs after a bad master. There are some of them who only vote for the United Party because they are not afraid that the United Party will come into power, otherwise they would not do so.

We have two parties in this country, the National Party and the United Party. On the one hand there is a Party which is not only promising the Whites in this country their own homeland, but is giving it to them: they already have it. It is being developed and they are also going to give the non-Whites their own homelands. On the other hand there is the United Party. Those are the two opposing parties and each one believes that it can govern the country better than the other. The one party is the party which talks, not about separate homelands, but about one large homeland, a mixed nation and a mixed fatherland. The other party wants to give the Whites, as well as the non-Whites, sovereignty in the areas in which they are living and to whom those areas historically belong. The other party wants a mixed South Africa, which wants to make South Africa a colonial territory for the sake of so-called world opinion. We, the National Party, want to give to the Bantu what belongs to them historically, according to the legislation of 1936, which was placed on the Statute Book by the United Party Government.

The United Party wants to give the entire South Africa to the Bantu, with the exception of a little place in the corner for the Whites which will be granted to them to live in solely on account of their utilitarian value for the non-Whites who will be ignorant usurpers of the country’s administration. In 1947, or somewhere thereabouts, a manifesto was issued by the United Party in which they set out a policy, the consequences of which would have been the disappearance of one of the Coloured ethnic groups, i.e. the ethnic group to which on this side and hon. members on that side belong. Under the policy of the National Party we will always have a white State President in the white area, a white Prime Minister, white Cabinet Members and Members of Parliament, white judges, police chiefs, rectors of universities and white house mothers and fathers and white magistrates. But if the policy of the United Party were to be carried out consistently then all the posts could be filled by non-Whites in a common fatherland. Sir, I am not going to adduce proof. On 27th January 1965 the Minister M. C. Botha referred in the House of Assembly to a television talk given in London by Mr. Marais Steyn and it is with sympathy towards him that I am mentioning the name of the hon. member tonight. I know that he is feeling sad tonight; I am thinking of the death of his mother. But what he said, he said, and we are not going to hesitate to repeat it. There in England the question arose whether the United Party predicted that there would be black M.P.’s in Parliament in Cape Town and his reply was: “Our Leader and all of us foresee white representatives for the present, but this is in no way permanent, and later on there may be Bantu in the white Parliament of South Africa.” That was his reply. Mr. Botha asked a few other questions, and on 5th February, 1965, Mr. Steyn replied and said. “Yes, we accept that in due course Bantu will be represented in this House of Assembly by Bantu.” That is precisely what the hon. member for Karoo has also stated in his memorandum. We must not be so angry with the hon. member for Karoo, because he helped refresh our memories.

I just want to say this in regard to the Coloureds. In 1963 the United Party issued a policy pamphlet, i.e. the Handbook for Better Race Relations, and in section 4. page 6. of the August edition, it is said that the Coloureds will all be replaced on the common voters’ roll, and in the same place the manifesto predicts direct Coloured representation in this House of Assembly, which was later discovered as a so-called new policy by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Senator Wessels put this question in the Other Place on 2nd February, 1956: “Do you predit, under your policy that a Coloured may ultimately become the Prime Minister of the Republic of South Africa?” And here is the reply of Senator Horak: “Theoretically, yes.” [Time expired.]

It is very clear to me now that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not only does not want to talk about his policy, but also does not want to allow other members of his Party to say a single word about it. I have a measure of sympathy with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, because I am aware that his Party is frantically looking for a new policy. I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. member because I know that in a short while they will have to go to Bloemfontein to try to find that policy. I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition because the idea has taken root amongst the people outside—and one comes across it every day —that it is no longer possible to refer to the Opposition as a political party which Ins a policy. The Opposition has become a “happening”. Everybody throws things about just as he pleases, one dances here and the other makes a noise here, but as for any question of a co-ordinated policy—on the part of those hon. gentlemen we might as well forget about getting that from them, and I simply have to accept it that way.

Instead of discussing matters of policy which belong under a Prime Minister’s Vote, hon. members have now come forward with details and matters which should, in the first place and according to the best traditions of this House, be discussed under the Votes of the various Ministers. Now I am obliged to reply in passing to the questions they asked me in that regard, but I want to make it quite clear that I am not going to establish a tradition in this House of going into detail in respect of the other Votes which are yet to be dealt with. [Interjection.] Is it the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) who says that I do not want to reply? I just want to say that if they start throwing things about in the “happenings”, I beg them not to throw the hon. member for Musgrave at me. [Laughter.] I do no, mind their throwing paint and other things about, but I beg them not to throw the hon. member for Musgrave at me.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition— and I am starting at this afternoon’s futile debate conducted by him and his people …

You made it futile.

No, you cannot blame me for your actions. [Interjections.] The Leader of the Opposition started the day by asking me whether I was satisfied with the development of the reserves. A day or so ago the Minister dealt fully with that matter. If I remember correctly the hon. the Deputy Minister, Mr. Vosloo, also made it quite clear to the Opposition that it would be a fool who said that he was absolutely satisfied with any development, since one can never be satisfied with it. I shall simply leave the matter at giving the Leader of the Opposition the reply that I am perfectly satisfied with the way in which the Minister of Bantu Administration and his Deputies are dealing with this matter; that I am perfectly satisfied that everything possible is being done to stimulate that development, to allow it to take place and to train the people required for that purpose. But I shall also content myself with what has already been said to the Leader of the Opposition, namely that one can only develop as fast as one’s human material allows one to develop. The hon. the Leader has repeatedly—and he has received the reply to that question so often—returned to the question of the investment of white capital in the reserves. I told him by way of interjection that the Minister had stated the Government’s point of view very clearly, and therefore there is nothing for me to add to that. I differ in principle with any person, no matter who, who says that the reserves should be thrown open to the investment of white capital, with everything connected with that. For that purpose the Government has established its channels and its means, and the Government takes the view that those channels and means are adequate for stimulating the development required here.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke to me about water affairs. The hon. member for South Coast also devoted a few of his turns to speak to that matter. Let me say at once that this Government and I myself attach the greatest importance to water in South Africa, because we have all come to realize, especially of late, what one may expect in a country if one does not look after one’s water resources with the greatest care. Let me add at once that if somebody wanted to lay it at the door of the Government that there was a protracted drought in this country, then he is free to do so. He will not find many people who believe him, but that is beside the point now. Hon. members are well aware of the fact that the Government is paying the greatest amount of attention possible to water conservation and water provision in South Africa. Indeed, I do not know why hon. members raised this matter again, because earlier in this Session we had a full debate on water affairs. We had another one subsequently and that subject was literally exhausted. but for want of anything else to raise under this Vote, hon. members are raising that matter again, and I shall simply have to content myself with giving them replies to those questions.

The hon. member for South Coast mentioned three water schemes, namely the Kahora scheme, the Oxbow scheme and the scheme at the Kunene River. The hon. member asked me how far the negotiations conducted in that regard had progressed. The hon. member is aware of the fact that in respect of the Oxbow scheme and the Kahora scheme no negotiations whatever have been conducted as yet. All that is being done at present, is that technical investigations are being carried out, and they have not yet been completed. If and when those technical investigations are completed and a report is submitted to the Government, the Government will announce its attitude in regard to those matters. But my friend will understand that I cannot adopt an attitude in regard to a matter which has not yet been investigated fully. As regards the other scheme, the hon. member is aware of the nature of the projects up in Ovamboland. We discussed it exhaustively by way of a substantive debate under the Vote of the previous Prime Minister. Other than what has already been said repeatedly in this House about that matter, I cannot tell the hon. member anything in reply to that question. If there is any specific matter about which the hon. member wants information in that regard, he may ask me and I shall gladly furnish him with such information. The hon. member referred to the Tugela River, the most important river in Natal, a river with a tremendous amount of water. As the hon. member knows, it is said that it can supply all the cities of South Africa with water. The hon. member is also aware of the fact that it is Government policy, and it has been stated time and again, to develop the Tugela River for Natal. The hon. member need not be concerned that it will not be developed for Natal. But I shall not go into detail now. If the hon. member for South Coast wants to go into further detail as to what the exact nature of the planning is, he is free to discuss the matter—and I invite him to do so—with the Minister of Water Affairs on his Vote. He, as an expert and as the person in charge of that Department, can furnish him with all the particulars. The hon. member knows that the possibility was raised that, if the drought prevailed and the position of the Vaal Dam deteriorated, water would be taken from that area as an emergency measure, because one cannot have allowed the Witwatersrand to go under, surely. It would simply have been a catastrophe for South Africa. If the hon. member is afraid that Natal’s water will be taken away from it in as far as it needs it itself, then he need not be, because it is not the policy of the Government to take away from Natal the water it requires for its own development.

I dealt with the matter from the point of view that the Tugela River goes through a Bantustan and therefore falls in the same position as the waters passing through Basutoland and Swaziland. That is the point I made.

I am very honest when I tell the hon. member that I fail to see the point. Whether or not it passes through such an area is beside the point. Suppose it flowed through such an area and suppose there was an independent state, then they can only keep back a certain quantity of water. The rest must pass through in any event. If we were to raise this argument in respect of the Oxbow scheme, we would see that the Oxbow scheme is not part of the Orange River scheme. But suppose somebody else plans to build a dam at the Oxbow scheme, then it cannot affect the Orange River project. For the life of me I cannot see that. The Oxbow scheme is being investigated at the moment with a view to, firstly, water supply—which to me as a layman seems to be quite secondary at this stage—and, secondly, the question of the supply of electricity which may provide in a need of ours, but which may amongst other things also provide to a large extent in the needs of a friendly neighbouring state, because it will be a source of revenue to it. It is with that aim in mind that we shall view this matter as sympathetically as possible.

The hon. member for Pinetown—and I do not take it amiss of him, because he was not prepared and he merely stepped in to fill a gap—referred very disparagingly to the border industries. Border industries have been discussed here on many occasions, but now the hon. member talked of a “complete disgrace”. I readily concede that housing conditions are not as ideal everywhere as one wants them to be, but, after all, the hon. member is aware of how much is being done in the field of housing. The hon. member is a member of the United Party, which also governed once upon a time, and he is the last person who should talk of a “complete disgrace” when it comes to housing. Mr. Chairman, people who lived in glass houses should not throw stones in that way. Whose purpose is the hon. member serving now? Whose interests is he serving by rising in this House in his unpreparedness and by talking of “people rotting with typhoid fever”? Surely that is not true. There was an outbreak of cases. He asked the Minister of Health a question across the floor of the House, and the Minister furnished him with information in respect of the steps which had been taken and the causes of the outbreak. If a person who does not know what the position is, reads that a responsible member, a senior Whip of the Opposition, got up here and said that there were places in South Africa “where, the people are rotting with typhoid”, what impression is that going to create amongst people? I do not take it amiss of the hon. member, because he was unprepared and he did not have the opportunity of counting his words in that regard.

The hon. member for Houghton adopted the customary Progressive Party attitude here. I want to tell the hon. member that I have for the umpteenth time taken cognizance of the Progressive Party’s point of view. With reference to separate development the hon. member said, amongst other things, that it would lead to a “miserable life for the non-Whites”. Let me tell the hon. member that she simply does not know what she is talking about. I have gone out of my way to investigate these matters. In the course of doing so I have probably seen more Coloured leaders than the Progressive Party has members at present, because they are rather disillusioned with that Party and its policy. After all, the hon. member ought to know that to-day separate development is no longer the policy of the National Party only, but that it has become the policy of all the people of South Africa. It has become the policy of the people of South Africa, and I shall tell the hon. member why, amongst other things. The leaders and the masses of the coloured groups have come to realize very profoundly, and they have experienced in practice, that separate development works not only in favour of the Whites, but also in favour of the non-Whites, and that it creates facilities and opportunities which never existed in the past.

Then allow the Coloured elections to be fought.

Everything will happen in good time. The hon. member knows just as well as I do that a select committee has been appointed by this House to go into this matter. Until such time as this committee has brought out a report, no election will take place. I want to tell the hon. member very clearly that I dare not charge her as a member of this House with this, but I want to tell her that friends of hers outside will meet with increasing failure in trying to incite Coloured people against Whites in this country. They will try in vain to do that.

The hon. member for Rosettenville also entered this debate without being prepared. He repeated what he had said in the Budget debate in respect of the cost of living, to which I have already replied. He also referred to a shortage of houses. Sir, do you still remember the days of “Harry the House-builder” when the United Party was in power? Do you remember what a fiasco it was? I do not want to bore the House.

Where is your house-builder?

The United Party had a house-builder and we have the houses. I do not again want to go into all those figures about how much accommodation we have provided and how much money we have made available for that purpose. These matters have already been dealt with ad nauseam in this House. Another complaint of the hon. member was that he had asked the hon. the Minister of Finance a certain question during the Budget debate and that the Minister had not replied to it. It so happened that I was not here all the time, but I know the Minister of Finance as a very courteous person who replies to all questions. I think it was probably a nonsensical question, otherwise he would have replied to it. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Durban (Central) asked me a question—also without being prepared. The only thing my good old friend could think of, was that we had been kicked out of the World Health Organization a few years ago.

He probably heard it only yesterday.

No, that is not fair. My friend must be fair. He did not hear about it only yesterday. It only flashed into his mind that we had been kicked out of the World Health Organization a few years ago. The circumstances which had given rise to that, were discussed here in detail. All I can add to that, is that to my mind South Africa did not lose as much as a result of that as other people did. Whether the hon. member and I like that or not, it is simply a fact we have to accept. I am not aware of any harm which South Africa has suffered as a result of that, because then we would already have seen it in these few years. I am aware that people have had to do without assistance which South Africa could otherwise have rendered, assistance which they need. I foresee a day—and that day will come—when South Africa’s assistance in that regard will again be asked. That is very clear to me. We are already being approached in this regard by friendly states. I may tell the hon. member that Lesotho, amongst others, has requested our assistance in this field. We shall readily render that assistance, inter alia, in training the nucleus of a Bantu nursing corps which can, in turn, train nurses there. We shall render that assistance to them. I have no knowledge of the other matter the hon. member mentioned in respect of nurses, but I assume that the hon. the Minister of Health will take note of that, and if it is a practical proposition, he will devote the necessary attention to it.

I have now dealt with all the thoughts expressed by hon. members on the other side. The only matter with which I cannot deal and with which I should very much have liked to deal, is the policy of the United Party, but unfortunately I have not heard what it is. Nor do I expect to hear what it is, and I am now going to reconcile myself with the idea that I shall not be afforded the opportunity to say something about it or the privilege to hear what it is.

Will you say something about Coloured representation?

What do you want to know about it?

When we discussed the desirability or otherwise of having Coloured representation in this House, the hon. the Prime Minister remarked that he did not regard himself as being committed. He had not compromised himself. He said that he regarded the present representation in this House of Assembly as an absurdity. Then I said: I understand that you are of the opinion that it should be abolished. The reply was: On a certain condition. Then the hon. the Prime Minister said that he would deal with it again.

By way of an interjection across the floor of this House I told the hon. member last year what my personal point of view in regard to that matter was. At the moment that matter forms the subject of an enquiry by a select committee; consequently I do not want to say anything about future developments in that regard. I do intend to state what my policy up to the appointment of that select committee was, and the hon. member knows what it was. It is not necessary for me to set it out.

Abolition?

I informed the hon. member of it last year already, but it would not be fair at this stage, because for what purpose then do we have a select committee? We want to know what the policy of hon. members is in respect of representation in this House, apart from that committee. The attitude we adopt is that up to the time of the appointment of that select committee, there were four white representatives in this House. We said that Coloured persons would not sit in this House. This select committee deals, inter alia, with those four White representatives in this House. But this has not prevented hon. members on the other side—and this is now a fig-leaf behind which they are hiding— from making statements outside, such as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and others have in fact made. There is also the hon. member for Karoo with his pamphlet which he distributed outside.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8 p.m.

When business was suspended, I had almost finished replying to what hon. members on the other side had asked. I just want to deal finally with the charge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had made against me, namely that I had supposedly neglected domestic affairs. Let me say this at once to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: In the past his charge was, of course, exactly the opposite, the charge against my late predecessor was that he devoted his attention to domestic affairs only and that he did not denote the necessary attention to foreign affairs. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has merely reversed the charge now. I have already referred to the close attention the Government is paying to wages and the cost of living; it is not necessary for me to go into that again. May I just point out to hon. members that the present power and strength of South Africa lies in the very power of its economy, in the fact that it has provided its people with employment and that it has developed the country as no previous government has ever done.

That is not true.

The hon. member is living in a fool’s paradise if he denies that. He should rather not say that outside, because people will laugh at him. The attitude the hon. member is adopting is a foolish one. As far as this Government is concerned, therefore, it can state quite confidently that in spite of the tendency for the cost of living to increase throughout the world, the cost of living in South Africa has not increased to the same extent as it has done in most other countries. We have the statement of the Economic Advisory Council to the effect that had it not been for the steps taken by this Government, inflation in South Africa would have been much worse. The measure of inflation which we have and which the Government is combating with might and main, is the very result of the unprecedented development which has taken place here in South Africa at such a fast rate. Therefore I can merely express my astonishment at the fact that hon. members on the other side are accusing this Government of having neglected domestic affairs. Sir, our people are not merely concerned, and rightly concerned, about the cost of living and salaries; they are not merely concerned, and rightly concerned, about opportunities for employment—and these they have been afforded by this Government—but they are also concerned about their security. I do not want to rake up the past, but hon. members on that side may with good reason search their own hearts and consider their record in this regard in past years.

Does that not apply to the National Party? They cannot afford to rake up the past.

Hon. members may consider what attitude they adopted when we had to contend with communist threats.

What attitude did you adopt when we fought Nazism?

The attitude adopted by this side of the House is well-known. Our attitude was one of neutrality. We proclaimed that to the world and we adopted that attitude here in South Africa. That is history now and everybody knows what our attitude in that regard was. Since the hon. member has raised that point, I want to put this question to him: Who are the people, amongst others, who helped us to come to power in 1948? They were the people who had taken part in that war, and for whom I have the highest esteem. As far as that is concerned, the record of that side of the House is well known. They used those people to win the war for them, but they lost the peace for them. However, I do not want to go into those matters now.

What do you mean by that?

When that war was over, the soldiers received nothing but neglect from the then government authorities. It was this Government that had to look after those people when it came to power.

You do not know what you are talking about.

Of course that was the position. Where did the victory of the National Party come from? The electorate of South Africa and the population of South Africa are satisfied with the way this Government manages domestic affairs. They are satisfied that this Government can be trusted in so far as it concerns their security and their prosperity.

Mr. Chairman, I did not have much time during the lunch-hour, but I glanced through the newspapers and I would be neglecting my duty if on this occasion I did not issue a warning to certain sports administrators to read my speech before making statements, and that they should not arouse expectations which are not justified. I am referring to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) in particular I am sorry that the hon. member is not present. The hon. member, who is concerned with a certain branch of sport, would do well if he studies my speech in that regard. If there are persons who even remotely think that it is to be read into my speech that dividing lines will now be broken down, then they are making a very big mistake. I should like that to be understood very clearly.

Including Die Burger?

The breaking down of dividing lines in this country itself is not to be read into the speech I made here, and that also applies to sending certain mixed teams overseas. I want that to be understood very clearly. I therefore repudiate the charge made by hon. members on the other side against this Government, namely that this Government is allegedly adopting an indifferent attitude to the highest domestic interests of South Africa, or that this Government is adopting an indifferent attitude to the survival of the people of South Africa.

This side of the House wants to express its appreciation of the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister has again participated in the debate and has replied to certain questions on policy which were put to him yesterday and to-day. Earlier on in the debate yesterday he promised that he would reply to all questions in regard to policy matters.

Surely he has done so.

The hon. the Prime Minister said in the course of the debate that where some of his Ministers had already made statements in regard to certain policy matters which had been discussed here, he would not reply to them again. Under these circumstances we owe him a vote of thanks for having in any case dealt with the question of supplying certain parts of the population with work. We are only sorry that the hon. the Prime Minister said that he was entirely in agreement with what had been said by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and his Deputy Ministers, as well as with their actions in regard to the question of productivity. The hon. the Prime Minister, if I can recall his words correctly, said just now that the strength of South Africa’s economy lay in the fact that it was able to supply all its people with work. Sir, my hon. Leader referred yesterday to the policy of the United Party in regard to productivity and the employment of as many people as possible, to whatever race they belonged, subject to the proviso that the principle of work reservation was not violated, so that we could solve this problem of this dire shortage of white labour. Sr. I cannot accept that the hon. the Prime Minister with his sense of justice will agree with the statement which was made here by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and his Deputy-Ministers to the effect that the number of Bantu in the urban areas and in the Western Cape particularly must be reduced by 5 per cent per year, particularly in this early stage of border industry development. I do not want to repeat an argument which I put forward in another debate, i.e. that there are 180,000 of them and that there are not 180,000 Coloureds to do the work which the Bantu are doing if 5 per cent were to be sent back to the border industries which have not yet been established to accommodate them, and to the Transkei which cannot yet absorb them. As yet there has not been a sufficient inflow of capital to provide work for them there, and in the agricultural industry near the border areas there is a surplus of Bantu labour, so much so that the Director of the S.A. Agricultural Union has issued a statement in this regard and said that it creates a human problem for the farmers, that they have to support so many people for whom they do not have work but whom they cannot send elsewhere. I should like to hear from the Prime Minister in this regard whether it is the Government’s policy at this stage of the development of border industries that the Bantu must be sent back at that tempo. I am talking in particular now of the border areas in the Eastern Cape where there is still a desperate shortage of border industries to accommodate these people, where the people in the Transkei are so fed up that they are constantly looking for work elsewhere, where the incidence of crime is soaring and where the people do not know where they stand. I want to ask him whether the Government policy at this early stage—I repeat at this early stage: it may be a policy for the far future or for when border industries in the Bantustan areas of the Transkei have been developed—is the provision of work, as he said, for all his people. The Prime Minister said that the prosperity of the country depended upon whether there was employment for as many of his people as possible, but at this stage they are being deprived of employment at a rate of so many per year where they do at present have employment in the areas in which they are living. They are being removed to an area, or are being encouraged to go to an area where there this kind of employment does not exist. We on this side of the House regard that as a rash thing to do and think that it cannot be done at this stage. I do not want to cross swords with the Prime Minister in regard to the development of the reserves, the allowing of white capital into the reserves, or about his first model Bantustan. I said in another debate that one day when it has obtained its independence there will be nothing to stop capital flowing in from all directions, from all sources and from all nations and all parts of the world. Personally I would have thought it good Government policy to allow them to maintain a link with the Republic by allowing white capital from the Republic to flow into those areas, even if it were only on a qualified basis. But not on that qualified basis as has been stated by his Ministers here, i.e. that it can only be done on an agency basis, or that they can invest there through existing financing bodies on behalf of that model Bantustan at a rate of interest which is not guaranteed. That is not the kind of investment we had in mind when we mentioned in our policy statements, repeatedly, that the Reserves should be developed to the utmost. We have been accused here all afternoon of doing nothing in regard to our policy statements. We have already said that as far as employment in all sectors of the community is concerned we would be in favour of a shortage of manpower in the white sector being supplemented by nonwhites and other sectors of the community, provided it did not intrude too much upon work reservation as it exists at present. We have also stated in this debate that it is the Party’s policy to develop the Reserves as much as possible, and to develop them with white capital. Surely that is the direct opposite of the governing party’s policy. We should like to know what the Prime Minister’s reaction is in regard to the announcement by his Ministers who are entrusted with this portfolio, the most important and most powerful portfolio in this country, since the hon. Ministers are dealing with the weal and woe and welfare of 13 million people. It is a powerful portfolio and a major responsibility and it is for both sides of the House to display the greatest degree of humanity towards those people who comprise such a large part of the population. Whether or not they will ultimately have the franchise in other areas, or in this area, they are nevertheless part of the population. [Time expired.]

At the outset of the debate yesterday the Prime Minister said he would ask the Opposition to state their policy, and if they did not want to do so, he would implore them to do so, and that if they still did not want to do so, he would be compelled to force them to do so. We are now past the halfway stage of the debate and up to now nothing has been forthcoming. Sir, let me remind you that this is the fourth debate which we have had this sitting in which this policy could have been discussed; there was the No Confidence Debate, the Small Budget and the Budget Debate of last week. This is the fourth debate this session in which the Opposition has been afforded an opportunity of putting its policy.

At the moment two by-elections are being held. The people outside want to know what the United Party’s policy is. It was more than a year ago since the United Party last stated its policy. That was before the March, 1966, election. If one now sees or hears the words “white leadership” then they sound quite foreign. I have said that we have two by-elections in the oiling. The people want to know what they are voting for, if they vote for the United Party.

The hon. member for East London (City) spoke about the urban Bantu. During the past session a great deal has been said, apparently with a view to the Worcester by-election, about the removal of the Bantu from the Western Cape. Our attitude as far as the urban Bantu are concerned, is quite clear. We say that they cannot be granted any political or economic rights here. We have a policy in terms of which they must return to their homelands and retain their ties with their nation and exercise their political rights there.

But what is the United Party’s policy? A few days ago the hon. member for Randfontein asked whether the United Party was going to regard Soweto as a constituency, and then there was no reply. But we do have in writing what the United Party’s view is in regard to a place like Soweto. They are going to regard it as a constituency, not so? Or does the hon. member for Durban (Point) want to deny it?

Make your speech and I shall make mine. This is an old tactic.

The hon. member does not want to reply, and wants to intimate in that way to the voters of Worcester and Johannesburg (West) that that will not be the case. But I now want to read what the hon. member for Yeoville said according to a report in the Cape Times of 2nd May, 1962, shortly after the race federation plan received wide publication in South Africa, and he is the man who actually set out that policy. This is what he said—

But listen to this—

According to the United Party’s policy Soweto will become a constituency, as well as Langa and Nyanga, and they will be integrated into one of the constituent states in the United Party’s race federation. That is not the only occasion on which the hon. member for Yeoville said that. On 3rd December, 1961, he wrote in the Sunday Times—

There is no doubt therefore as to where the United Party stands in regard to the position of the urban Bantu. They are going to give them proprietary rights in those areas and they are going to make places like Meadowlands and Soweto in Johannesburg, Vlakfontein in Pretoria, and Langa and Nyanga here in the Cape, constituencies which will send representatives to the Central Parliament. I am now asking the hon. member for Durban (Point) whether it is still their policy? Is that what the United Party is saying to Worcester and Johannesburg (West), i.e. that Soweto is going to be a constituency? [Interjections.]

There is another question which goes hand-in-hand with the previous one. While we were discussing the removal of the Bantu from the Western Cape the position of the Coloureds was also raised. A few days ago the Prime Minister asked the hon. member for Yeoville whether he agreed with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that Coloureds must be represented on a group basis, and he then replied in the affirmative? Since when is it the policy of the United Party? Surely the Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly stated their policy clearly. At De Aar on 5th May, 1962, when he gave a broad outline of the race federation plan, he said—

Prior to that he had said (Cape Argus, 18th March, 1961)—

That was clearly the United Party’s policy throughout, and just prior to the election last year the hon. member for Yeoville wrote an article in the Rand Daily Mail of 14th March, and what did he have to say? He said—

That is the essence of white leadership, that the Coloureds will rejoin the Whites on the same voters’ roll. That was stated in March, 1966. But now the hon. member for Bezuidenhout comes along and states that he advocates Coloured representation on a group basis. Now I am asking the hon. member for Bezuidenhout whether he is in favour of race classification?

No.

Sir, can you imagine anything more stupid? How is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout going to keep the Coloureds on a group basis if he does not classify them as Coloureds? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Bezuidenhout can be all things to all people. He can say his say and hope that he will not be pinned down. [Interjections.] I think that at their next committee meeting the hon. member for Durban (Point) can make a point of asking him because in December of last year the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said—

Now I am saying to him that if he is not in favour of race classification but wants to give the Coloureds representation on a group basis in Parliament, then he is talking complete nonsense. [Interjections.] The United Party has had its policy stated time and again by the Leader of the Opposition, i.e. that the Coloureds will become part of the white group. The federation which the United Party talks about is not a federation of Whites, Coloureds and Bantu but comprises, as the Leader of the Opposition has said here, a “European group”, consisting of the Whites and the Coloureds on the one hand, the Bantu on the other. In the race federation plan of the United Party there is no such thing as a Coloured group. [Time expired.]

I want to thank the hon. the Prime Minister for finally having replied to the questions put to him, and did so in spite of the fact that his supporters did everything within their power to detract attention from those questions. Arising from the Prime Minister’s opening remark, one of the matters which has to be dealt with is the question of what really ought to be discussed under the Vote of the Prime Minister. The view has been expressed that I would be neglecting my duty if I failed to say anything about this matter. The discussion of this Prime Minister’s Vote is not the first of its kind in which I participate.

You have been in the Opposition for a very long time already.

But the hon. the Prime Minister has not been Prime Minister for very long, and I want to predict that if he continues to act as he did here to-night, he will not remain Prime Minister for very long either. Well, it seems to me that foreign affairs may be discussed under the Vote of the Prime Minister as long as the discussion does not go into too much detail. It also seems to me that colour policy is par excellence a matter to be discussed under this Vote as long as one does not pose too difficult questions to hon. members opposite concerning, for example, border industries or the investment of white capital in the reserves. As a matter of fact, these are questions which the late Dr. Verwoerd wanted to deal with very much when he was Prime Minister …

I have already replied to all those questions.

… and how did hon. members opposite not complain because we had dared to raise such matters! I recall very clearly that a number of years ago when I raised agricultural matters under the Vote of the Prime Minister, when Dr. Verwoerd was Prime Minister, charges were levelled against me by everyone on Government side because I had dared to raise such matters under the Vote of the Prime Minister. I was told that I was to discuss national affairs. After I had pointed out that Dr. Malan once raised agricultural matters under a discussion of his Vote, the previous Prime Minister apologized to me because that objection had been raised. Once I raised the drought and then too there were objections that that was not a matter of “national interest”. To that I replied that the drought could lead to a national catastrophe. Subsequent to that hon. members opposite did in fact start discussing the matter. What about financial matters? After this afternoon’s discussion it would appear that financial matters may not be raised under the Vote of the Prime Minister—apparently that is not allowed. Why? If they are heading for a financial crisis I want to issue the warning even now that we will raise financial matters and that we will contrast their policy to ours as we have time and again done in the past. The hon. the Prime Minister replied and spoke of the sound condition of the South African economy. He pointed out that the economy was much more sound than it used to be in the old days. In the course of his reply he also referred to the 1948 position. Has he forgotten that we, the United Party Government, were able to lend Britain gold worth £80 million and that capital flowed to this country to such an extent that we had to take steps to prevent too much capital from entering the country? The Prime Minister also referred to ex-servicemen and intimated that they had been treated poorly. I do not hold that against the hon. gentleman because I wonder whether he has first-hand knowledge of this matter. But let me tell him that the best demobilization scheme in the entire world was that applied by the then Government in South Africa. There is one thing which I shall say to the honour of Dr. Malan and that is that when he took over as Prime Minister he carried on with that scheme and did not shrink from it.

The hon. the Prime Minister deemed it necessary to-night to issue a warning in regard to the interpretation of his statement of yesterday on sport. I honestly have to admit that I did not follow it very well and consequently I want to leave that matter until tomorrow. We can then discuss it further. I think I do not quite understand what he was talking about and there was preciously little of what he said that one could understand. He also spoke about the security of South Africa and said that the people of South Africa felt secure under this Government. But I wonder. What do they have to feel secure about? If South Africa is to be secure, its economy must be strong and if its economy is to be strong, there are two essentials; in the first place inflation must be combated effectively, something we have not seen up to now, and in the second place the productivity of our labour has to be exploited to the full. This we have not seen either up to now. There is not the slightest doubt about the fact that the military strength of the great powers of the world is based on their economic strength. Consequently it is necessary that South Africa must be strong in the economic sphere. However no nation in the word can be strong and can offer strong resistance if there is not national unity. When we come to national unity I ask myself the question what party has the best chance of effecting national unity in South Africa. As I interpret the policies of the two parties in this connection, there is not the slightest doubt that where the United Party advocates real national unity of the Whites, the creation of a virtually new nation here …

A piebald nation.

No. I am speaking of the Whites. That hon. member has been in Parliament a very long time and should therefore not make such irresponsible remarks. Here we have respect for one another. Here we are all Whites, are we not? I was saying that the United Party is advocating the creation of a virtually new nation here, one which respects the background, the history and the language of both sections as being peculiar to all members of that nation and one in which a person will be judged on his devotion and service to South Africa. When I listen to the speeches of so many hon. members on the opposite side of this House, particularly when they hold meetings on public holidays and think the Press is not present and that the United Party will not hear about those things, it too often seems to me that they are making an offer to co-operate but to co-operate on certain conditions and those conditions always seem to be the preservation of the Afrikaner’s own peculiar identity.

But I want to go further and say that if South Africa wants to be strong, there must be good relations between the various colour groups in South Africa—between the Whites and the Coloureds and the Bantu.

Have relations ever been better than now?

Here I repeat my question, who has the best chance of retaining the co-operation and the loyalty of the Coloured, for example, to the White group; the Nationalist Party with its policy or the United Party with its policy? [Time expired.]

If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition complains here to-day that answers are not given to all their foolish questions, I should like to remind him of what he said in his reply to his motion of no-confidence at the commencement of the 1966 session. According to column 310 of Hansard of that year he said—

He said that in January, 1966. Therefore they approached the election which was held on 30th March of that year with the greatest measure of faith. What was the result of that election? The biggest defeat ever suffered by the United Party! If I have to give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition any advice tonight, that advice is that the less he speaks in this House the better, because every time he speaks ten of his members lose their seats. What has been our experience in this debate? We have had the experience of listening to what the hon. member for Karoo said. Let us now look at the leading article of the Rand Daily Mail of 20th August, 1959—approximately the time when the United Party succeeded in ridding itself of the leftists, the Progressives, in its ranks. At that time the Rand Daily Mail published the following informative article—

Is that not what we are experiencing in this Parliament? Is it not the hon. member for Houghton who time and again has to take members of the Opposition in tow? In this debate too the hon. member for Houghton spoke irresponsibly. As far as she is concerned, she does not mind what she says in this House. She sees no future for the white man of this country—for all she cares he may be sacrificed on the altar to-morrow and disappear from the scene entirely. That is the view she takes in regard to the White man.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that it was not ex-servicemen who put the National Party into power in 1948. Just consider how many promises the United Party made to ex-servicemen. And what did they get? Those who went into farming perhaps found a bull and a separator, and nothing more, on the farms. We want to tell the Opposition to-night that that was the only promise to ex-servicemen which it kept. Consequently they were so deeply disappointed that they voted us into power in 1948. Now this National Party Government is taking in hand a matter, one of the matters which is of vital importance to the survival of the white man in the Republic of South Africa and that is to return the black man to his homelands.

When?

Never mind “when?”. He will return when the time is ripe. We are engaged in that process. [Interjections.] Once more, Sir, there is hollow laughter from that side of the House. Do hon. members recall how hon. members opposite laughed and mocked when this Government said that it would solve the housing problem of the non-Whites? Do hon. members recall how that side attacked Mr. Frans Mentz and Dr. Verwoerd? Do hon. members recall the hollow laughter from that side when we started the site and service scheme? Do hon. members recall those things? And at present the Johannesburg City Council boasts of Soweto, Meadowlands and all those places. Had it not been for the site and service scheme and the resettlement of non-Whites we would not have been able to boast of those fine housing schemes, we would not have been able to throw out our chests and say, “That is our achievement”. This Government will continue to create a future for both the White and the non-White in this country of ours without the assistance of the United Party as surely as the sun will rise to-morrow morning and as surely as hon. members opposite are now laughing and mocking. We have no apology to make to the United Party or the outside world. We shall implement our policy and when you ask us “When?”, we say “Watch us—we are going to do so!” We tell you that we do not need your assistance, because at no stage have you made any contribution to the development of this country. At no stage have you assisted us to overcome the difficult problems we have been experiencing from time to time. You have not assisted us. On the contrary, you have always put a spoke in the wheel.

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

The hon. members of the Opposition have always put a spoke in the wheel. The hon. members of the Opposition have resisted this Government from time to time. Would we have experienced this splendid development in South Africa had the United Party been in power? Would we have been a Republic now or would we still have been a member of the Commonwealth? If that Opposition had to govern this country, who of them would have been in Parliament at present? Would any of those hon. members have been representing constituencies here had the United Party’s policy been implemented consistently? Not one of them would have been sitting there—Coloured representatives would have been sitting there representing their constituencies. Would the hon. member for Houghton too have been enjoying the respect and love which she is shown by the Chair in this House had another Government been in power? Does the hon. member think that she would have been representing her voters in this Parliament if a black government—something she would very much like to see in this country—had been in power at present? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman said that after the war many ex-servicemen returned and were given farms with only separators and bulls. Well, I say that under this Government I think both the bulls and the separators are missing and the result is that we are importing butter and cheese, and even this year, with the wonderful rains we are having, it is estimated we will be 2,700 tons of butter short. [Interjections.]

Whose estimate is it—yours?

No, not mine, it is a very authoritative one. I will give it to you later. I was dealing with the position in respect of the Cape Coloured people and the necessity for good relations between the races, and I posed the question under whose policy the relationships …

Order! Hon. members must please give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a chance to make his speech.

I posed the question under whose policy the relationship between white and Coloured would be better. When I posed the question I could not help thinking back to the record of the N.P. in respect of the Cape Coloured people. You know, of course, Sir, what has happened. After a tremendous constitutional fight they were placed on a separate roll. We know what other disabilities they have suffered under, we know what has been their lot in the defence forces, we know what difficulties have been created for them in many other walks of life. We know, above all, in what a hurtful manner some of the petty apartheid provisions have been applied in respect of those people.

Such as?

Such as the cinema at Wynberg which was opened for multi-racial performances, the only one in South Africa; the question of exercising the privileges they had enjoyed traditionally in watching various sporting activities. We know also what the feeling of the Cape Coloured people has been. In 1948 when I first came to this House the N.P. were making big play of the fact that they had the support of the Cape Coloured vote. One knows that by the time the Cape Coloureds were placed on a separate roll not one single official N.P. candidate could save his deposit, except the one, Mr. Daantjie Scholtz, in the Karoo constituency who did not stand as the official N.P. candidate. We know that progressively this Government has become more unpopular with the Cape Coloured people. To-day one knows, of course, that they have taken up the attitude they have been in opposition so long, they have been bumping their heads against the stone wall, and some of them are beginning to co-operate. One knows what a farce the first election of the Coloured Council was. In each constituency there was nominated I think only one candidate and virtually no election took place. One knows of course that the debates of that council cannot be held in public and the Press is normally not allowed in because of some of the things no doubt they want to say.

Take against that the attitude of the Cape Coloured people had the policy of this party been applied. The Prime Minister has placed me in a difficulty. I suggested last night that we did not discuss Cape Coloured political rights because it was the subject of a commission. The hon. gentleman indicated his disapproval, so I indicated quite clearly what our policy was. I might have been talking to stone walls for all the hon. members in this House seemed to have understood of it.

I am sure I did not hear you state your policy.

I read it out to you from this document. Perhaps you were not listening. I am quite certain that 90 per cent of members on the other side were not listening. They were not listening not because they know what the policy is, not because they do not want to know what the policy is, but because they enjoy their particular brand of misrepresenting the policy. To have clarity on the subject again let me state that as at the present time and up to the finding of the commission—because the Prime Minister will also state his policy up till the finding of the commission—the position is as follows.

The position is quite simple. The United Party stands committed to restore to the Common Roll the Coloureds in the Cape and Natal. It is laid down that there will be qualifications for those to be restored, those who were on the roll before on the same qualifications and those to come on the roll since then with new qualifications which we have outlined and which are matters of detail. We have laid down that the Cape Coloureds in the Transvaal and the Free State, who have never had representation in Parliament before, unless they were prepared to be treated as Bantu under the 1936 legislation, will on a separate roll be entitled to elect one or more members to the Senate. They should have the right that that member should be a Coloured man. There is also laid down in this policy statement that Coloureds, if they can get themselves elected by a mixed electorate on a Common Roll, should have the right to sit in this Parliament. There is no dispute about that. There have been a lot of stupid questions asked by people trying to misrepresent the situation. But I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister and I understand each other. I want to take this matter a step further. The hon. the Prime Minister has placed the Coloureds on a separate roll. I think that he is finding that that is not working very well, as we warned him it would not. Now we hear from the hon. gentleman that he is not happy with that representation. I may say that I too am not happy with some of these things that have gone on. I thought a commission was necessary and so did he. We agreed on that and I think it would be futile to discuss what we should decide after the commission gives its report. I have been disappointed to find that the Prime Minister is expressing himself very firmly on the view that this type of representation is an “onding”—I do not think that one can translate that word satisfactorily.

I said so distinctly last year when my vote was discussed.

Fair enough. I had hoped perhaps that in view of the commission considering this matter he would have reconsidered his views. Up to this point then we are agreed. We have our differences. There is a commission sitting and what happens after the commission reports neither of us is prepared to forecast at this stage. Do we understand each other? Is there a measure of agreement in that regard that we are going to wait now until the commission reports and that we will then fight over the report? If hon. members on the other side want to argue about what happened before the commission was appointed, that is their funeral and they can waste the time of the electorate. We are both agreed that our policies as far as they are stated are up to the time of the appointment of the commission and we await the report of that commission to discuss further developments.

We will wait for the report but in the meantime life goes on. Changes are taking place, policies are being applied and there are many of us on this side of the House who are very unhappy indeed about many of the developments which have been taking place with regard to the Cape Coloured people. It may be that the hon. the Prime Minister will feel that this is a matter for the vote of the Minister of Coloured Affairs but I think that it is right that some of these matters should be drawn to his attention and the hon. member for South Coast will draw these matters to his attention as I think is only right and proper in a debate of this kind. When we talk of the security of South Africa I think that we must appreciate that if the white race in South Africa wants to be secure, then it requires the friendship of the Cape Coloured people. I think we want to remember also that when we talk of the Cape Coloured people, we talk of a section of the population of South Africa that has always been friendly disposed to the white people, the so-called European race of South Africa. I think we want to remember very carefully that they have developed in the direction of becoming a western group, most closely associated with the Afrikaans-speaking Christian group in South Africa. They have supported our church through the years, they have spoken our language, they have accepted many of our customs and any suggestion that there is any remnant of tribal life amongst them, or anything of that kind, is naturally ridiculous. [Time expired.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is now beginning to wake up. He has now gotten round to giving us a policy statement in regard to the Coloureds.

He has done so a hundred times before.

No, I have been sitting in this House for many years and this is the first time I have heard that there will be three kinds of Coloured voters. There will be the old Coloured voters with certain qualifications in the Cape Province. There will be new Coloured voters with certain qualifications in the Cape Province. The remaining Coloureds are the few in Natal. I think there is still one survivor. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition now wants to create three kinds of Coloured voters in South Africa. I now ask him, what is more calculated to create ill-feeling amongst the members of a population group than to divide them in that way for the sake of mere political expediency? How can one expect anything but ill-feeling to be created in that group? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went further. He made out that relations between the Coloureds and the present Government were so bad in contradistinction to those between the Coloureds and the old United Party. How short is the memory of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? Can he recall the debacle Mr. Harry Lawrence, as Minister of the Interior, had with his Coloured Council of those days? Perhaps he will recall what debacles Mr. Harry Lawrence had with the then Coloured Affairs Council. Can he recall that there was so much disagreement and ill-feeling that the then Government had to do away with that Coloured Affairs Council? Let me now put it very clearly to the hon. member. Our standpoint is well known to the Coloureds. I personally have repeatedly put our standpoint to them, and that is that we believe that dividing lines must be drawn throughout between us and the Coloured community I have gone further. I want the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to listen to me now in this regard. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has always been very eager to say—I wonder whether he still says so—that the Coloureds are only an appendage of the Whites. I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to the fact that I stated this pertinently in my meeting with the Coloured Council the other day. Has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition seen any reaction to that? That was published in the Press. Has he seen one single Coloured taking exception to that? I told the Coloureds that I did not believe that they were an appendage of the Whites. I said to them that they were a population group in their own right. That is what I said to them. They appreciate that, and they appreciate not only that, but also the facilities which this Government has created for them as an individual minority population group. What is more, not only their leaders but the masses of the Coloureds accept the standpoint and policy of this Government, because they know that we are not just buttering them up because we want their votes and that we are not just making them promises once every five years in order to have their goodwill at the polls. That has so often been debated in this House; and the present Minister of Defence, who was formerly Minister of Coloured Affairs, has so often stated in this House that the relationship between White and Coloured has greatly improved since the very time that we removed the Coloureds from white politics and since an end was made to the Coloured being a football of the white man in his political manoeuvres.

Why do you not hold elections for the Coloured Council?

But you know very well that I told the hon. member for Houghton this afternoon that we could not hold that election until this commission, to which hon. members opposite are a party, had reported. A solemn agreement has been entered into that we cannot hold that election until that commission has reported.

You could have held it before the commission was appointed.

We did not do so for the very good reasons with which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition agreed.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, I am glad the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that you have spoken out of turn. I am glad that your Leader has told you so.

Can the hon. the Leader of the Opposition deny that relations between the population groups, White and non-White, have never been better than a* this very moment in South Africa’s history? I make bold to say that I know what I am talking about, because I have had occasion to meet these various leaders and because I have had occasion, like the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs, to make contact with these people. But it is for the very reason that we did that in a fair and honest way that such relations have come about. The Coloureds know precisely where they stand with the National Party and the Government. But has it not been their very complaint throughout the years that they did not know where they stood with the United Party? I do not think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has improved the position by his announcement here in regard to three kinds of voters. But, while we are on that point, that is a completely different policy to that advocated by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Surely the standpoint of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout does not tally in the least with that of the Leader of the Opposition.

As you predicted would happen after the commission.

No, nothing the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said related to what would happen after the commission. The standpoint of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was that he believed that that was what had to be done at the present time. He did not take the commission into account when he spoke. As a matter of fact, he advocated that standpoint even before there was ever any mention of the commission. Yes, that is so. Even before there was any mention of a commission the attitude of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was that Coloureds were to be represented in this House on separate Voters’ Rolls and by Coloureds. [Interjections.] It will not help the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to try, even by way of insinuation, to make out that the intentions of this Government in regard to the Coloureds, the Coloured population, are not sincere because the actions of this Government in regard to that and every other population group speak for themselves.

I would like to say a word or two in regard to this particular matter, starting from where my hon. Leader ended. The hon. Prime Minister referred just now to the use of the term which he denied recently he used when he met a group of the Coloured people, the Coloured Council, which was that they had been classified as an appendage of the white people. That, of course, was a phrase first used by the late General Hertzog. He was the man who first used that phrase. He used it to a deputation of Coloured people who came to him in connection with certain discussions that were taking place at that time in regard to their political rights. He used it in the sense that they were closer to the white man than other racial groups who have no association with the white man. They stem from the white man. The Coloured people were in South Africa because the white man had come to South Africa. That was the meaning of General Hertzog’s words at that time. The hon. the Prime Minister says that he told the Coloured Council at that meeting that they were a separate group in their own right. True enough, the Prime Minister is quite entitled to tell them that. He goes on and says that he challenges the Leader of the Opposition to deny that the feeling between the Whites and the Coloured people was never better than it is at the present time. I want to deal with this for a moment, if I may. I want first to pose a question to the Prime Minister, and I want to pose this question, on a matter of policy. We have now seen the Bantu policy, the Native policy of the Nationalist Government, gradually being moved, twisted and turned, and we see in the Western Cape to-day action being taken by the Government through the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration to get rid of the Bantu in this area. The point I want to put to the Prime Minister clearly and plainly is this: When he tells the Coloured Council that they are a separate group in their own right, and the Government's policy of apartheid stands for that, is the policy of the Government then to have complete and utter apartheid between the Whites and the Coloureds?

Yes.

The Prime Minister answers “yes”. Let us move forward from that point, because I now want to come to the question of the Coloured people in Natal. The Prime Minister told the Coloured Council that they were a separate group in their own right. What separate group? The Prime Minister should go into the derivation of the Coloured people and see how many Coloured groups there are. What kind of a policy is it that the Government is following when the Prime Minister can go to a Coloured Council and tell them that they are a separate group in their own right? The present Minister of Bantu Administration and Development three years ago said that they were a separate nation in South Africa. Those were the words he used. He said there are eight separate nations; a white nation, a Coloured nation, an Indian nation, and then he named the various ethnic groups of the Bantu. Yes, the hon. the Minister said that. I have his Hansard here.

How many nations are there in South Africa?

Never mind about that. You can regard yourself as lucky that you are one of the white nation, and that should suffice for you, my friend. Keep your trap shut. As far as the Prime Minister is concerned, when he says to the Coloured Council that the Coloured people are a separate group I say to him again that he must study the issue. What is there in common? There is no language in common. And it is no good saying that they are a small group. There are probably 40,000. How are they being treated? What ground is there for better feeling to-day?

There are probably 40,000 Coloured people in Natal at the moment. Just let us look at them for a moment, Sir. When the Separate Representation of Voters’ Act was passed the Coloured people in the Cape were put on a separate roll by this Government. How did they treat the Coloured people in Natal? They left them on the Common Roll and they are still on the Common Roll. Sir. what is all this talk on the other side? All this talk on the other side about their policy is the most arrant nonsense; there is no substance in it whatsoever. All their talk about the danger of this and the need for that and the virtue that they claim because they give the Coloured people their own separate roll and their own parliament hereafter and all the rest of it, is a lot of arrant nonsense. Why did they not treat the Coloured people in Natal in the same way as they treated the Coloureds in the Cape? They left the Coloureds in Natal on the Common Roll. What was the principle which guided them in leaving the Coloured people on the Common Roll in Natal and taking them off the Common Roll in the Cape? Why did they treat them like that? The Coloured people in the Cape, as they become qualified, can go on to the separate roll, but there was no registration of people who qualified in Natal with a view to going on to any kind of roll. They have less political rights to-day than the Bantu in Natal have, Sir, let us look at one group of the Coloured people. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development knows about it because on two occasions in this House over the last five years I have raised this matter pertinently with him. I refer to the Dunn family. Twenty-six or 27 years ago the Dunn family had farms surveyed for them pursuant to a promise made to them by the Government of South Africa, a solemn promise that they would get their farms and those farms were surveyed. The diagrams were placed in the deeds office but they were never registered and the deeds were never issued. Why? Because there were Bantu living on those farms. Separate land was set aside. A resolution was passed by both Houses of Parliament that the Bantu were to leave those farms and go on to the other land specifically set aside for them so that the members of the Dunn family could have the land allotted to them. Sir. they have not got it yet and the· Bantu still reside on those farms. What have they got to thank the Government for? Sir. I stood guarantor for the then secretary for Coloured Affairs and the under-secretary for Native Affairs, who occupies a very prominent position to-day, when they met a deputation of the Dunn family. Dominique Dunn, the head of the clan …

When was that?

About six years ago. I will give the Prime Minister the actual date. I can tell him who was present, I would give him the names of the officials.

Where do they live in Natal?

That hon. member from Natal ought to know where they live. Sir, I stood guarantor when that deputation came down to see the secretary for Coloured Affairs and the under-secretary for Native Affairs, who assured those men that they could go back satisfied that they would get their title deeds. The matter was settled; the Government gave its word. They were disinclined to accept it. They said, “We have been promised too many things by officials in the past; we are not accepting this”, and foolishly enough I stood guarantor. I said to them: “You must trust the word of these two men. I know them both; they are senior officials. Don’t go away from here with doubt in your hearts; you can accept their word.” They looked at me and said, “Can we take this from you? Do you guarantee the word of these two gentlemen?” And I said, “I guarantee their word absolutely.” I said this five or six years ago. The hon. the Minister may correct me; perhaps it may be seven years ago. He knows the case that I am talking about; he remembers the deputation. Sir, it is 27 or 28 years ago since those surveys were made. What have those people got to thank the Government for? How have they been treated? What other group of people in South Africa would have been treated in that way? Do we expect them now to thank us for the way in which they have been treated? This is the way in which the Coloured people in Natal have been treated. Sir, the hon. member for Wynberg has kindly drawn my attention to the latest report from the Department and what is happening so far as education is concerned here in the Cape. The report shows that up to the time when the Union Government took over Coloured education the training colleges were filled to capacity and there were entrants waiting to come in for training as teachers. To-day since the Government has taken over, what is the position? In some of the training colleges up to a third of the seats are vacant. The Coloured people are not coming forward for training as teachers. How are We going to give education to the Coloured people?

The hon. the Minister says that there is complete and utter separation. He is obviously using the same concept as the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development—a separate nation. Are the Coloured people here and in Natal going to be given the opportunity to have industrial areas where they can develop their own industries? Are they going to be given the same rights in regard to the liquor trade, etc., without having white liquor stores established at the gateway into the townships which are being provided for them under the Group Areas Act? Are they going to have exactly the same rights in regard to all commercial and industrial matters? Sir, I should be very pleased to hear this because I would like the people in Natal to understand it. Mixed groups of people are called Coloured, people who come from many different stocks, from Griquas, Eurafricans, Mauritians and so forth, all these various people of different groups with nothing whatsoever in common and nothing in common with the Coloured people down here in the Cape. Sir, what is the position now when an Indian comes to the Cape? For the purposes of the Electoral Act he becomes a Coloured man and goes on to the Voters’ Roll, and the moment he returns to Natal he becomes an Indian and he loses his rights. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for South Coast has advanced an argument on Coloureds in Natal. I do not want to discuss the Dunn Group at this stage. The hon. the Minister has already indicated that he is devoting attention to that matter and that a satisfactory solution will be found. But the hon. member for South Coast asked what similarity there was between the Coloureds of Natal and the Coloureds of the Cape. As far as the political implications are concerned, I should like to hear from him what similarity there is between the Coloureds of Natal and the Whites of Natal. Sir, just as there are Whites in South Africa of English descent, of Portuguese descent and of Dutch and French descent, there are also different groups of Coloureds throughout the country. The fact that the Coloureds in Natal have no interests in common with the Coloureds of the Cape is no reason why they cannot have a common political future.

But I come to another more important matter. The part played by the Opposition in this debate to-day was nothing but a farce. We are eager to uphold the democratic system in this House, but the democratic system implies that two parties oppose their policies. If all we needed here was a group of representatives who would merely criticize, we would not even have to hold elections; then we could simply nominate persons to convene on certain occasions and to criticize the policy. Then there would be no need for having here a Party such as the United Party, which makes a farce of the democratic system. Lately the United Party has become more and more negative, because it is aware of the fact that it is no longer capable of ever recovering the reins of government in this country and, what is more, because the United Party realizes that, it is playing a game in Natal which in my view may be called a dangerous one. In recent times we have seen a renewed outbreak of jingoism of the worst degree we have ever had in Natal, and that is solely because the United Party realizes that in recent times it has been losing the votes of the English-speaking people. Now they are trying to instigate the English-speaking people against the Afrikaners by sowing fear and suspicion. Sir, I should like to prove that. I am not saying all members of the United Party are guilty of that; there are exceptions, but that is done specifically by certain members from Natal, under the leadership of the hon. member for South Coast, who in my opinion displays the symptoms of a somewhat schizophrenic personality. I appreciate that on the one hand he is a good conservative South African who will have nothing to do with the liberalists on his side, but on the other hand he displays the worst kind of jingoism imaginable. Only recently, when educational matters were under discussion in this House, he remarked: “This is the last phase of the Boer War.” But he is not the only one to foster and feed that kind of antagonism. In the Provincial Council there was also a discussion on the National Education Policy Bill, and there the banner headlines were: “Bid to kill English.” But that is not all. The hon. member for Durban (North) wrote an article on educational matters which appeared in the Natal Mercury on 7th April, and what was the attitude he adopted? It is quite clear that in that article he tried to drive a wedge between English and Afrikaans-speaking people, purely for political gain, in order to keep the United Party alive somewhat longer. I want to quote briefly from that article—

That kind of political spleen is vented in Natal with the sole object of driving a wedge between English and Afrikaans-speaking people. I say we cannot afford that. The United Party is playing a dangerous game, and if they have no more positive principles to advocate, they should disappear from the political scene, because instead of making a positive contribution they are bedevelling politics altogether. [Interjection.]

I said a moment ago that we are anxious to uphold the democratic system in this country, but a democratic system requires an Opposition capable of making a positive contribution. The United Party, as I have said, has so far in this debate adopted no positive attitude on any issue. Instead of opposing one policy to another, which is surely the object of the debate on the Minister’s Vote, the United Party comes here and talks commonplaces. That is not the kind of behaviour we expect of a responsible Opposition.

There is one other matter I should just like to mention on this Vote. I feel that the time has come, in view of the fact that South Africa’s position in the world is at stake, that we should make a very positive contribution to the cultivation of our nation’s cultural values and our national values in general. I want to go so far as to ask whether it will not be possible to establish a department which could give special attention to the promotion of the national values of both Afrikaans speaking and English-speaking people, in order that positive action may be taken to counter the adulteration of cultural values which is taking place daily, and the adulteration of the morals of the younger generation in particular. I therefore want to suggest that we should consider establishing a special department of cultural affairs to give positive attention to this matter.

You want another outlet for your political feelings.

The hon. member who has just sat down purports to come from Natal and yet he maintains, as though he knew anything about it, that the Mauritians of Natal are closer to the Cape Coloureds of the Cape than they are to the Whites of Natal. Does the hon. member know what he is talking about? Has he ever canvassed amongst the Mauritians, some of whom are classified as white and are on the voters’ roll with the Whites? Has he sought their votes, as he seeks the votes of everyone else, or does he say no, these people should not be on the white roll and he will not look for their votes? I maintain that he has looked for their votes.

I did not look for their votes.

He has, and he has looked for Coloured votes. In his own election he canvassed the Coloured voters. I do not say he did so personally, but they were canvassed for their votes on behalf of that hon. member. So their votes are good enough for him, but they are not allowed to be kept on the common roll.

But I want to turn to the other aspect raised by the hon. member. I want to deal specifically with two allegations made by the hon. member. The one was that this side of the House has run away from debating its policy. What has been interesting has been the panic, the absolutely panic-stricken efforts of the Government, to try to draw the debate away from their own policy on to ours. Now I want to say to the absent hon. member for Innesdal that I am prepared to do a deal with him or with any other Nationalist Party member in this House. I have here our colour policy in black and white and I am prepared to swop this with any Nationalist who will produce their policy in black and white. [Interjections.] When they produce their policy, I am prepared to discuss with them our respective policies, but until they do that, here is our policy in black and white, loud and clear. We are sick and tired of listening to those members’ interpretations of our policy when it is here clearly printed and unequivocal, for any person to read. If they want to, we will give it to a cartoonist so that he can draw pictures to explain it to those hon. members, who have tried to quote it out of context so as to give a false impression of what we really stand for. When they bring their policy in printed form, I will swop with them, and I am quite prepared to discuss our policy. But while they have a policy for every day and for every canvasser, making their policy mean exactly what they want it to mean to any group they can find to sell it to, until they get away from that multiplicity of presentations of their policies and ideas, I am not going to waste my time discussing policy.

But there is one argument which I do not believe it would be a waste of time to deal with. That is the statement by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that we on this side of the House and members of this Party have started a Jingo campaign to try to split English and Afrikaans-speaking voters in Natal. If there was ever a somersault by the Nationalist Party which we have welcomed, it was the acceptance of United Party policy of national unity. All the years we have fought for national unity on this side of the House, and that side of the House opposed us. There are those of us in the United Party who have lived and have fought for that one ideal. It is the foundation upon which the United Party was built, the golden thread running through its whole existence, the bringing together of English and Afrikaans-speaking people into one common South African nationhood. When the Nationalist Party accepted that United Party policy we welcomed it. When the Prime Minister last year stated that his philosophy was the same as ours and that he believed in a united people, we accepted and welcomed that undertaking. We accepted it unequivocally, and we believe that the Prime Minister was sincere. But it must be a unity without strings, and when that hon. member talks of a cultural indoctrination scheme, a department to deal with culture, to inculcate culture, I want to be quite clear that we are talking of the same thing when we talk of national unity and equality. When we talk about national unity, we believe that that means the coming together of the white people of South Africa into one nation, with two languages perhaps but with one loyalty and mutual respect for each other, and one endeavour towards one common patriotism. But that common patriotism embraces, and that mutual respect we see as a respect which recognizes, that both main language groups have the right for their languages to be used as they wish to use them, when and how they wish to use them. I believe that that is the Prime Minister’s approach and that he also believes that English-speaking South Africans should be entitled to use their language when and where they want to, and that Afrikaans-speaking South Africans will equally have that right. The reason why it is necessary to ask the Prime Minister this is the incidents that have been taking place in South Africa recently, incidents which the Prime Minister himself has condemned. He has condemned them and he has called the people who seek these incidents “sotte” worse than fools. I want to welcome that repudiation by the Prime Minister, but I want to ask him to repeat it here in this House, so that those who are seeking to sow discord between the language groups will know that in this House we, the Opposition, and the Prime Minister, and those of his followers who agree with him, are not prepared to put up with that sort of attempt to divide our peoples, attempts to try to force those of one language group to use the other language; trying to force people in commerce to serve and to provide documents in the other language. If we are to have equal rights, any person has the right to use his own language in his own home and in his business and in his daily activities. If anyone does not want to buy from his shop because he does not get addressed in his own language, then he need not go there. If he wants to buy from or deal with this or that person, he need not go there if he does not like the language which is spoken. But when there is a suggestion that people will be forced to use one language or the other, irrespective of what they wish to do and what their home language is, and that they will be forced to use the other language, then the time has come for us to raise this matter. We accept the Prime Minister’s undertaking that he believes in unity and in freedom and equality in the use of language, and that as he condemned those who tried to divide and to create incidents, so he will condemn any attempt by one language group to force that language on the other, whether it is an English-speaking person trying to force English on Afrikaans-speaking people or vice versa; and that he will not support but in fact will repudiate those who try to do that, whether they be cultural groups or not, and that he will say to them that there is no room for that sort of thing in this country. Then we will know where we stand, because there can be no equality on the basis of English being a “bywoner” of Afrikaans or vice versa. There can only be true equality when neither is the “bywoner” of the other. The English-speaking people are not prepared to be “bywoners” to anyone. But if anyone wants a “taalstryd”, they can have it. I hope that will not happen and that the Prime Minister will repudiate those who are trying to build up a language division in South Africa, those who are trying to create ill-feeling, so that true national unity may be built up and become accepted by all in South Africa as something for which we have all striven. [Time expired.]

On the one hand I am glad that the hon. member for Durban (Point) has entered the debate, but on the other hand I am sorry, particularly about the spirit in which he spoke. I expected more of the hon. member. Let me first contrast the attitude which I myself adopted in this regard with the speech by the hon. member who has just sat down. I want to analyse his speech a little.

Firstly, I expressed the hope in public and I made an appeal to our people, Afrikaans and English-speaking, to be as bilingual as possible. The hon. member did not do that is his speech. On the contrary, he did the very opposite, and I shall now tell him why he did that, or why I say that he did do that. If the hon. member, as an English-speaking person, had got up here and had appealed to our people to be bilingual, as I had appealed to them as an Afrikaner, I would have appreciated it. I wonder why the hon. member did not do that. Perhaps he could tell us why he failed to do that. The hon. member referred to incidents. What incidents were these? I am sorry that I have to refer to them, but the hon. member compels me to do so.

The incidents there have been were cases where people quite courteously used their language, Afrikaans, in public places and were rewarded with insults. The hon. member is now defending that.

That is not what I referred to. I referred to the two incidents in the hotels in George.

There a person spoke in his own language and did not receive a polite reply. The person did not tell him: “I am sorry, but for this or that reason I am not bilingual; I cannot speak Afrikaans.” He received an insult. [Interjections.] Surely the hon. member knows that that is what the whole quarrel was about? I have said in public, and I want the hon. member and his Party to say it too, because then it would serve the interests of South Africa, that every person in South Africa should be entitled to enter a business or a public place and speak his own language without bringing an insult upon his head. That is how one builds a nation. And if the person is English-speaking, he is entitled to walk into an Afrikaans business and be served in English, which is his language; and if he is Afrikaans-speaking, he should be entitled to enter and be served in Afrikaans, if he asks to be served in Afrikaans. That is how one serves national unity. That should be possible in every town, in Pretoria, Bloemfontein, Durban, or wherever it may be. I expected the hon. member for Durban (Point) to make such an appeal, but the hon. member is first asking for instructions on what he should do now. [Laughter.] I expected the hon. member to make such an appeal to people, and I regret it very deeply that it was not forthcoming from him.

I want to repeat here what I said in public. I shall be sorry if any Afrikaans-speaking person arouses ill-feeling against the English-sneaking people. I shall also be sorry if any English-speaking person arouses ill-feeling against an Afrikaans-speaking person. That is bow one builds national unity. But now the United Party boasts that it is the Party which stands for national unity in South Africa. Surely the United Party has had its opportunities in that regard? There was a time when it took its stand on that platform. There was a time when it gathered the people of South Africa under its banner, when it was sitting here as the most powerful political party ever to be represented in this House, apart from the National Party at present. What became of them? What became of the 111 members the United Party had once upon a time? A meagre 38½ are left in this House.

If we come to national unity, then there is no need for this side of the House to hold demonstrations in that regard. It has proved in practice that it stands for national unity. Not only has it proved in practice that it stands for national unity, but what is more, it has achieved it in practice. It is no longer possible for the hon. members to hide behind delimitations. I ask the hon. member for Durban (Point) just to consider Natal. How has it come about that since the referendum the National Party has almost doubled its number of votes—if I am correct—in Natal? That has come about as a result of the fact that English-speaking people who had initially been stirred up in opposition by the United Party’s propaganda because they were brought under the impression that their language rights and other interests were not safe in the hands of the National Party, experienced a change of heart as a result of the actions of the National Party. Last year, after assuming office, I told the Opposition—and I now want to repeat it to the hon. member for Durban (Point)—that they should report to me any case of an English-speaking person’s language rights being disregarded, then I would take action immediately. Hon. members have not brought one case to my attention. Nor do I know of one single case.

What about Mr. Goosen, director of the Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns?

In the first place. Mr. Goosen is Afrikaans-speaking; therefore I do not think his English language rights were disregarded. The hon. member for Wynberg is quite off the mark in this connection. The hon. member for Wynberg is the person—while we are talking about that—who. before the election, propagated crass racialism by saying that in South Africa English-speaking people would commit treason if they voted for the National Party. Does she remember that? Does she remember how she propagated crass racialism on language grounds in South Africa? The hon. member is the kind of person who should rather stay out of this debate.

I make bold to say—and I say this for the edification of the hon. member for Durban (Point)—that there is no need for us to steal a march on one another or to make debating points on this matter. We can argue about it because it is a fact. I want to submit, and I challenge the hon. member for Durban (Point) to deny this, that relations between Afrikaans and English-speaking people in South Africa have never been better than they are at the moment. Will the hon. member contradict me when I say that? I have experienced that everywhere in South Africa. I reiterate tonight, because the hon. member for Durban (Point) is making an issue of it, that the language, cultural and other rights of English-speaking people will be absolutely secure under my regime as an Afrikaner. I could not say that of my people when those hon. members were in power. I could not say that because there was too much that proved the contrary. But I renew my challenge to hon. members to bring me English-speaking people whose language rights have been disregarded by this Government. Now I want to warn hon. members not to make the same mistake they made last year when their Chief Whip entered this debate in an attempt to impair relations between Afrikaans and English-speaking people. Hon. members may still remember what happened in that debate.

Mr. Chairman, it is typical of the National Party and its tactics, that, when I appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister to condemn incidents of racialism, he should get up and attack us for raising the matter and attempt to make out that we are raising racialism. I specifically, clearly and deliberately stated that we accepted the Prime Minister’s assurances. I referred to some of the incidents which had taken place, and welcomed the Prime Minister’s repudiation, but we felt that it was a matter of such importance that we should like that repudiation repeated here in the House. I did not accuse the Prime Minister or the Government of anything whatsoever. I referred to incidents. The Prime Minister has challenged me, and therefore I am going to tell him of the sort of incident which the Nationalist Party lets go and apparently makes no attempt whatsoever to repudiate, the sort of incident which is creating ill-feeling and friction. I refer to a report on 22nd February, of this year reported by SAPA from Virginia where Dr. H. J. Terblanche, Chairman of Die Genootskap vir die Handhawing van Afrikaans, stated that there was every indication that eventually Afrikaans would become the national language of South Africa. He went on to state that the non-Whites of South Africa, if they were not prepared to learn Afrikaans, should not expect to receive higher education, that if they wanted higher education in English they could do without it, and if they wanted higher education then they would have to expect to get it in Afrikaans. These are his words: “If these people want to receive university training they can receive it in Afrikaans.” That is what he said, the words are in inverted commas. He also said, “If they do not then they can leave it.” I am now referring to an attitude of mind which creates ill-feeling and friction.

The Prime Minister has asked us whether any English-speaking person’s language rights have not been respected. I want to give him an example of just that. Here is a letter from one of the Government departments dated 3rd April of this year to an English-speaking person. It is headed, “Bilingualism at licensed premises.” It is written in English because the person is English-speaking. The letter states that the writer is enclosing a copy of a Press statement by the hon. the Minister of Justice in connection with the use of both official languages at licensed premises. Here is the statement but it is set out in Afrikaans only. It is not set out in English. The statement makes it a condition for a man to continue his business that anyone shall be served in either or both languages if they so demand. That statement is sent out only in Afrikaans, yet the person to whom it is directed is told that he must serve in both languages! But that is not the point. The point is this: What right has this Government, or anyone else, to say to any person who is running his own business, “I insist that you be bilingual.” If he is Afrikaans-speaking, how can the Government say to him, “I insist that you shall speak English”, or vice versa? Otherwise there is no freedom of choice in the use of language. The Government has the right to demand this of the public service but when it comes to a business, a man’s livelihood, to demand that he shall use a certain language,—in many cases foreigners who do not speak English either but only a broken sort of English,—to demand that he must serve in and speak Afrikaans otherwise his livelihood will be taken from him …

Quite correct.

Hon. members say quite correct! That is, in my mind, not equality in the use of the official languages and the right to use whichever language a person may wish. It is an imposition by the Government upon the rights of private enterprise, of free enterprise in South Africa. If it can start in respect of one sort of business then it will continue into other sorts of business. The Prime Minister attacked me because I did not appeal for bilingualism. That indicates the difference in our thinking. To us in the United Party appeals like that do not have to be made. It is part of our thinking, it is part of our philosophy. Every leader of this party through the years has come of Afrikaner stock. In our ranks are English and Afrikaans-speaking people. To-night the first time English was used from this side of the House was at 9 o’clock, after an hour of debate. Can I say that for that side of the House? Can I say that throughout this session? We do not have to make appeals. We believe—it is part of our existence, our life—that we are English and Afrikaans-speaking together, one nation with two languages. So those appeals to us are unnecessary. When one starts to appeal then one is emphasizing the difference. We do not appeal—we live it. We are not going to see the Government interfering with the rights of either language group when it comes to the earning of their daily livelihood—we are certainly not going to stand by and see a man’s livelihood taken from him. Particularly, in the case of an immigrant, he comes here and, according to National Party supporters, he must in future be forced—unless he is English speaking—to be educated in Afrikaans. I hope that the hon. the Prime Minister will repudiate that as well, and that he will say it is not their intention to force children who are not English-speaking to be educated in Afrikaans, and that, if they are making a contribution to our national life and economy, no particular language will be forced upon them.

Now, Sir, I have here a report of a speech made by the hon. member for Primrose. In fairness I want to say immediately that the alleged maker of this speech—the hon. member for Primrose—has told me that he has repudiated this report and has denied that he said it. What I want to know is: What did the hon. member deny saying? This report is a whole column in length. The hon. member has denied to my knowledge only the headline which reads, “Blanke integrasie is ’n vloek.”

I never said it and I deny it.

Yes, the hon. member denies the headline. I want to ask him if he denies this: “Eenheid tussen die blanke rassegroepe moet geskied sonder dat een sy identiteit prysgee. Die Afrikaner moet Afrikaner bly en die Engelsman Engelsman.” Did the hon. member say that or not?

I said that.

The hon. member says that he said it. I want to be quite clear—did the hon. member say that?

Yes, I said that.

The hon. member says he said that. I am not arguing about the headline, I am arguing about this statement that Afrikaner must remain Afrikaner and Englishman Englishman. Now, I want to fling it back in his face again in the name of every South African in whose children run the blood of English and Afrikaans-speaking forebears. In my own children’s veins, in the veins of many members on this and that side of the House, runs the blood of English and Afrikaner. They are not “Engelsmanne”, they are not Afrikaners, but they are South Africans. Their roots go back to both the great language groups, to the McLachlans and the other people bearing English and Scotch and other names. Their language may be Afrikaans today, and vice versa, and yet a leading member of Parliament, a member of the Prime Minister’s party, says that he is opposed to the integration of these two great language groups into one South African people in which Englishman becomes South African and Afrikaner becomes South African. He says that they must not lose their identity. I say: Let us become South Africans, let us stop talking of Engelsman and Afrikaner, let us talk of South Africans.

Do you want only one language then?

Mr. Chairman, I have said, and we have always said: One nation with two languages. The hon. member says that the English and the Afrikaners must not integrate—I repeat the words: “Eenheid tussen die blanke taalgroepe moet geskied sonder dat een sy identiteit prysgee … Ons begeer geen Afrikaanse en Engelse integrasie nie.” [Time Expired.]

Mr. Chairman, what an example we have once again to-night of a United Party which, after we have been trying all afternoon and evening to force and drive them in this debate to talk about the most important issue in the country, namely their colour policy, conduct a racial debate on English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people in the late hours of the evening. Now I want to tell you, Sir, of the tactics used specifically by that hon. member who has just spoken. He is like a dung beetle, as the United Party in fact also is, which is always pushing an evil-smelling little ball, and he is now pushing the worst one of all. He approached me in the Lobby to-night and told me that he was going to launch an attack on me in the House to-night. I asked him why, and then he said about a speech I had allegedly made, in which I had said that white integration in South Africa was a curse. I then told him: “Mr. Raw, I just want to point out to you that in the Other Place, after one of the United Party speakers had referred to this allegation and to the headline to the report, Senator Trollip spent more than 20 minutes repudiating the matter.” Now I am also going to use the few minutes at my disposal to explain to the hon. member what the position is. He need only have gone to the Senate Hansard, then he would have known what the position was. It is scandalous that he should try to sow suspicion in this manner, whilst knowing what the facts are, and to start a racial debate, and that while the hon. member dare not say what his own policy is because the caucus of the United Party decided that not one of them, except the Leader of the Opposition, dared speak about their colour policy in this debate. Only the Leader of the Opposition may speak, I ask you!

Now I want to point out that on 7th November, 1966, I addressed the following letter to the chairman of the John X-Merriman Branch, with reference to the report quoted by the hon. member—

Two nights ago I addressed the Chamber of Commerce banquet in Germiston, on which occasion I said the following, as reported very prominently in The Star and the Rand Daily Mail—

I also want to mention that in pursuance of this letter which I wrote to the John X. Merriman Branch, that Branch adopted the following unanimous resolution at their next meeting, on 8th November, 1966—

The largest branch of the National Party in the Republic of South Africa—

Surely this is blatantly clear. They cannot come and say that the report was not repudiated. In the Other Place more than 20 minutes was spent on repudiating it. If the information the chairman of the John X Merriman Branch furnished to me is correct, they wrote three letters to the Star with the object of repudiating this report. The last time I saw the chairman of the John X Merriman Branch he told me that he had heard nothing further about the letters he had written to the Star, and could therefore do nothing more about the matter. But I am not levelling any accusations at that English-language newspaper. I cannot vouch for correctness of the account given to me by Mr. Williams, chairman of the Branch.

Did you repudiate it in the Transvaler?

Yes, immediately. After the report had appeared, I went to see the editor of the Transvaler. He is up there in the Press Gallery and can confirm this. I went to see him and I told him that it was a great pity that the report had appeared. He said that he had also felt sorry about the matter when he saw the report, but that it was then too late and that he could do nothing about it. My reasoning is quite correct: There is no need for me to go and repudiate this kind of report in an Afrikaans-language newspaper, but to the English-speaking people, amongst whom the report could do damage. That I did immediately, but the newspaper concerned did nothing further about the matter. I regret that that was the case. Allow me to say that I find it reprehensible that the hon. member for Durban (Point), whom I rather like and whom I respect, should be guilty of this kind of meanness, to try to hold a racial debate with the object of sowing racial antagonism among Afrikaans speaking and English-speaking people, and that while they are too hopeless to state their policy in this House. In recent years I have spent more time working amongst English-speaking people and amongst new South Africans than among my own people, and allow me to say this … [Time expired.]

I am rising to take part in this debate in view of the attack the hon. member for Durban (Point) made upon the hon. member for Primrose, and in view of an article written by Mr. Mike Mitchell. United Party member for Durban (North), in the Natal Mercury on 7th April, 1967. I want the hon. member for South Coast to listen to this. He and I understand each other—as a matter of fact, we have accepted each other’s bona fides across the floor of this House. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition should also take note of this. I want to link this up with the attitude the hon. member says Dr. Terblanche adopted. I do not know what he said, but I want to put it this way, and I think the hon. member will be satisfied with it. The attitude is that we have two official languages in this country —Afrikaans and English on an equal footing. Any person—no matter what his name or surname is—who says that there should only be one official language in South Africa, I repudiate entirely. I am doing that because there have to be two official languages here in South Africa. The hon. member must listen to me now and tell me whether he is prepared to repudiate the hon. member for Durban (North) when he says, “And so it becomes clear that the future of the English language and the heritage of English-speaking people are at stake in South Africa.”

Disgraceful!

I want the hon. member for South Coast to take note of this. But the hon. member for Durban (North) continued as follows—

I regard this as a disgraceful action on the part of a member of the House of Assembly. [Interjections.] I have just told the hon. member for Durban (Point) that if anybody said what the hon. member said he had said, then I repudiate him unconditionally. But the hon. member for Durban (Point) should tell me now whether he agrees with the hon. member for Durban (North). I would also appreciate it if the Leader of the United Party in Natal, the hon. member for South Coast, under whose jurisdiction he falls in politics, would tell me what his attitude is to this statement which was made by the hon. member for Durban (North). Then I would know what my future relationship with the Opposition should be. He has to tell me, therefore, whether or not he stands by this statement which was made by the hon. member for Durban (North). I do not expect a reply tonight, because I think it is a matter which the hon. member for South Coast has to consider first. I therefore think that he should be given a reasonable opportunity of reading the article first. But to-morrow, when this debate will be resumed, I should like to hear from him whether or not he agrees with this accusation against the National Party, particularly now that I and the Government of which I am the head are involved. Mr. Chairman, I hoped that, as far as this House was concerned. we had already progressed beyond that sort of pettiness, but to my regret I find now that it is not so. In due course I should also like to hear from the Leader of the Opposition, who is the Leader of the United Party, what his attitude is in this regard.

Without wasting any words I would like to say that I wish to deal with precisely the same subject as that which the hon. the Prime Minister raised just now. I want to say that we regret very much that this whole matter should have been given the prominence that it has in the newspapers recently—with far more prominence, may I say, in Nationalist newspapers than in any of the English language newspapers. On the 18th March, when the hon. the Prime Minister addressed the graduation ceremony of the University of the Orange Free State he said—

The hon. the Prime Minister was perfectly correct but unfortunately his warning appears to have gone unnoticed by a great many of the people to whom it was specifically directed. [Interjections.] I do not intend saying anything to encourage this unpleasant business of provocation and counter provocation. However, in all fairness I think we should get the record straight. So far there have been a certain number of quotations from the one side and a certain number from the other side of the House. But let us get the list straight. Between the 16th March and the 1st April—exactly a fortnight—there appeared no less than eight provocative statements on the subject of language incidents in the Press. I have them all annotated here in order of the dates on which they appeared. But before these specific incidents there had been the occasion of the M.P.C. in the hotel at George and the incident of a young Afrikaans speaking girl who was repudiated because she spoke Afrikaans. I agree that this was a most unfortunate incident. In any; event, both were very ostentatiously given medals for the demonstrations they made. So with these two we have had ten incidents altogether within the short period of about a month and a half. Of these ten incidents—let us get this straight—nine were caused by Afrikaans speaking people who chose to make a demonstration, and only one by an English-speaking person. I merely want to mention this in order to get the facts straight.

First of all, there was Mr. Twakkies du Toit. I am not going to enlarge on what he has said apart from the fact that he made a very insulting statement about immigrants in this country. Then there was the speech by Mr. Daan Goosen. Mr. Daan Goosen is not just a nobody—he is a director of the Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns. He made a speech which was republished in the Onderwysblad in the Transvaal, a speech which absolutely bristled with provocation and unpleasant statements about integration with the English-speaking people in South Africa. We too have our pride, Mr. Chairman, in this matter. During the last week in March the hon. Senator Jack Loock informed an Afrikaans Sunday newspaper that all non English-speaking immigrant children should be obliged to attend Afrikaans-medium schools. On that same Sunday Dagbreek en Sondagnuus, a paper with which the Prime Minister is connected, appeared with an article in which they said that 65 per cent of all immigrant children in South Africa should be educated through the medium of Afrikaans—in other words, they should be obliged to be educated through that medium. We hardly had a breathing space when three days later Die Burger came out with what it described as “another unpleasant language incident” in which it was alleged that nurses in the Johannesburg General Hospital refused to speak to an old lady in Afrikaans. It was said that she could not speak English. Well, an investigation was carried out and the charge was found to be totally unfounded. But the fact remains that feelings had been exacerbated and the damage had been done. It was superficially blown up in the Press. On the same day we had the City Council of Pretoria making a formal statement. Well, let the Pretoria City Council hold its meetings in Afrikaans. That is perfectly in order.

There are other places in the country where meetings are held entirely in English. Nobody has any objection to that. However, what was objectionable was the fact that this again was blown up in the Press as a language incident. To what purpose? Three days later a well-known Nationalist from East London, Mr. Robbie de Lange, got up in the City Council and spoke in Afrikaans—something he is entirely entitled to do. However, he went on to add a rider, also with provocation, that in future he only intended speaking Afrikaans at all council meetings. His opposite number to that is just as bad—I refer to an English-speaking member of the Klerksdorp City Council who got up and said that he was going to demand that in future all minutes and reports and agenda be sent to him in English. So the one balances out the other. These things are most unfortunate and we regret them more than I can possibly say.

But the two remarkable things about these incidents, are, firstly, that they followed so promptly the one upon the other. Why? Do not tell me that this was not a deliberate campaign from one quarter or another.

What an extremely stupid thing to say!

The second remarkable thing about them is that of these ten provocative instances nine were created by Afrikaans-speaking people and only one by an English-speaking person. It is always stated with a great measure of piety by hon. members representing Nationalist Afrikanerdom that when these pro-Afrikaans demonstrations are made they are never really meant to be anti-English. Well, I should like to say that I consider that to be less than honest because if they are not meant to be anti-English, why bother to make them at all? That is our problem. It also seems to me that there is a slightly petulant note—a note of unreality about these provocations appearing in the Press. You see, Sir, there is no danger of South Africa being “anglicized” at this particular stage of our history—the immigrants notwithstanding. So, that is an absolutely futile argument. In any event, let me say that when people talk about anglicization of South Africa we resent it very much indeed. We do not consider ourselves to be English people and resent the implication. We are South Africans; what are you?