Before calling for notices of motion I wish to announce that I shall allow private members to give oral notice of only nine motions which can be dealt with during the next fifteen sitting days. Other notices of motion by private members must be handed in at the Table and will appear on the Order Paper for Friday, 1st March.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to.

With your leave, Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform hon. members in connection with the business of the House for next week. On Monday we shall begin with Orders of the Day Nos. 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 appearing on the Order Paper for to-day. I do not know how much time these Bills will take up, but Ministers who have Bills standing on the Order Paper and hon. members must be prepared in the event of other Bills perhaps being dealt with. On Wednesday we shall start on the Part Appropriation. That will occupy the House on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday morning as well as part of Monday and Tuesday of the next week.

†Then I want to inform hon. members that it has been decided to adjourn the House on the evening of Thursday, 11th April, for the Easter Recess. The House will resume again on Monday, 22nd April. I also want to inform hon. members that it has been decided that the inauguration of the new State President will take place on Wednesday, 10th April. Further details will be issued in due course.

I also wish to inform hon. members that the Railway Budget will be presented on Wednesday, 13th March, and the Budget of the hon. the Minister of Finance on Wednesday, 27th March.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to discuss agriculture, but before I do so, I want to say that I am not quite certain whether I should congratulate the hon. the Minister of Agriculture on having acquired an additional post or whether I should sympathize with him. I would like to remind him that a former colleague of his had his portfolio taken away from him as the result of criticism fom this side of the House on the ground of his incompetence. Similarly another Minister was deprived of one of his portfolios yesterday as a result of criticism from this side of the House.

The hon. the Minister, as Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, has already come in for considerable criticism from this side for the unsympathetic manner in which he has been treating the farming community of this country, especially for the methods used in price fixation, methods which have caused them great hardship. I am not certain whether the hon. the Minister will not perhaps find himself holding the Forestry portfolio in the near future, with the present Minister of Forestry and Tourism only holding the Tourism portfolio.

Sir, I should like to confine myself to soil erosion, or perhaps I should say soil erosion and soil conservation, but so little is being done in connection with soil conservation that there is not much to say about it. Of course, we realize that the present Minister is not directly responsible or has not up to now been responsible for this state of affairs as he only took over this post quite recently. The Department is in a shocking condition as the result of neglect and bad management in the past. Sir, I want to say straight away that that is no reflection on any of the officials. They can only carry out the Minister’s policy, and they are doing their best under almost impossible conditions. In the past we have focussed the attention of this House and the Government on the deterioration that is taking place in this country in regard to our soil. We maintained and I still maintain that our soil is deteriorating at an increasing tempo. Our soil is deteriorating at a faster rate than the rate at which we are rehabilitating it.

I would like to remind the House that some 12 to 15 years ago it was estimated that we were losing our soil at the rate of 300 million tons per annum, and some three years ago the Deputy Minister of Agriculture told us that we were losing our soil at the rate of 400 million tons per annum. Since then we have had a drought. The veld has been denuded to a large extent; there is less grass and bush; the veld has become more bare, with the result that wind erosion and storm erosion are causing far more damage than in the past. The Government has not taken our warnings to heart, and I should not be at all surprized if the loss of soil to-day amounts to 500 million tons per annum. They have failed to tackle this problem seriously; they have failed to show drive, and we on this side and the vast majority of farmers outside have no confidence in this Government’s effort or lack of effort in connection with this national danger. The soil will continue to erode until this Government is eroded away. Sir, in the past and again fairly recently, we put up a very strong case for a greater effort on the part of the Government to combat soil erosion. I pointed out that the Government effort was so puny that damage by soil erosion was getting more and more each year. I quoted authority after authority, the authority of leading farmers and farmers who hold positions in agricultural associations and the authority of senior officials of the Department to show what retrogression was taking place. I should like just to quote a few of these authorities. Mr. Coertze, the chairman of the Midlands Agricultural Union, said—

A conservative statement. Mr. Bennie van der Merwe, chairman of the Cape Woolgrowers, said: “No increase in wool production during the past 30 years due to the deterioration of pastures. We have a case for serious attention.” Dr. Verbeek: “No improvement in practice of over-grazing. The positon is now worse than before.” Mr. Wouter van der Merwe, head of the Free State Agricultual Region: “Natural grazing in North Cape in quality and quantity has deteriorated and damage will be irreparable.” Then I quote the Soil Conservation Board: “Gravely concerned about the destruction of these vitally important resources; it endangers the future of our country as a whole.” Mr. J. P. van der Merwe, Director of Soil Conservation: “The soil generally is in a worse condition than it was 20 years ago.” Sir, so I could go on quoting prominent senior officials and prominent farmers who warned this Government as to what the position was with regard to soil erosion. Last year and the year before when we quoted these opinions, which are not our opnions, but the opinions of people who deal with this question continuously, the Minister’s reply was: “It is possible to exaggerate the dangers to agriculture.” Sir, am I to believe that prominent, senior officials of the Department and prominent farmers would exaggerate the dangers to agriculture? The Government is not prepared to face up to the realities in connection with this most important question. I do not think that the Government fully knows what is really taking place. In the past they have always blamed the droughts, but if these problems had been tackled in time, the effect of the drought would have been less severe than it actually was. That was the position two years ago. What is the position today? I believe that it is still deteriorating at a much faster rate than the rate at which we are rehabilitating the soil. Sir, I want to read out a statement which was made only a matter of a month ago in this connection—

A very important report is that of the Soil Conservation Board, and I quote from the Annual Report of the Board for the period 1.7.1965 to 30.6.1966 (final paragraph, page 1)—

I think the hon. the Minister knows what happened at Lindley recently where there was a conference attended by 150 delegates representing soil conservation committees. According to a newspaper report I have here “Feelings sometimes ran high.” Why? Because these people are so frustrated. According to the report a certain official said he “wanted to express his displeasure and frustration at the slow pace at which progress was made with soil conservation. He said this was mainly due to the scarcity of manpower.” This is the position after all these years. Progress is too slow. We are losing the battle against soil erosion at a fast rate. I also have a very important report which appeared in a recent edition of an agricultural periodical which reads as. follows—

The report continues as follows—

I say I think this report is particularly important. Further on the article reads as follows, referring to a speech made by a certain person at Middelburg at the end of last year—

The article quotes him as using the following words—

All these things were said by the former Minister of Agricultural Technical Services. He said that action must be taken now. I say that action should have been taken 20 years ago, and continuously since then. We have already lost for all time 25 per cent of our original soil fertility. That has gone, we can never regain it. It is estimated that the cost to our country in loss and damages amounts to R300 million per annum. Erosion and desiccation of the soil do not stand still and wait for conservation to overtake it. There can be no more tragic mistake than to assume that conservation campaigns can be planned on a long-term basis of unlimited time. We all realize a little footpath to-day may become a small sluit next year, and in ten years’ time it can become a huge donga. These things have to be tackled in time in order to save a tremendous amount of money.

What is the position to-day? In a speech made last month an appeal was made to other bodies to follow the example of stimulating an awareness of the vital role of the country’s soil. According to the report of the speech I have here, the speaker—

The report continues by quoting the speaker verbatim—

It is clear we have to speed up this type of work. Mr. Speaker, do you know who said all these things at the meeting last month? Nobody less than the present Minister of Agriculture. At last he has realized that something has got to be done to speed up this most important work. I wonder how “kragdadig” they will be about these matters. For 20 years they have shown no force, no drive whatever in this matter. What is more, the hon. the Minister has to a large extent been the nigger in the woodpile in this matter. The farmer cannot afford to withdraw grazing under the present scheme, because the hon. the Minister has been responsible to a large extent for the low incomes of many farmers due to his price fixation. He fixed the prices too low. the farmers do not possess the capital, and consequently they cannot undertake the soil conservation works in order to qualify for the subsidies. Their incomes are so low that they cannot even go in for loans, because with high bond rates of interest they have to pay, high overdraft interest rates they have to Day, and with redemption on the bonds having to be made, it is impossible for them to undertake additional loans which will mean long-term results, and they will not be able to meet their commitments. Therefore they cannot go in for loans to enable them to tackle these problems.

Has that been the case for 20 years?

Well, it has been the case for quite long enough. Ever since this Government took over, the farmer has been in trouble. My experience is that every time we have a Nationalist government, the farmer is in trouble.

The crux of the matter is that the farmer cannot generate sufficient funds through his own operations to undertake the necessary work. We all know what a tremendous shortage of staff there is. I do not want to read out what the position is in that regard. Complaints are contained in the last annual report of the Soil Conservation Board. I want to say that the hon. the Minister must make greater use of farmers who are prepared to assist the extension or field officer. I know they do that to some extent, but the extent of their assistance is far too small. I remember the old soil erosion scheme of the 1930s under which farmers did the work. They went out, they planned the contour walls, took the necessary levels, they did all that work for a very small remuneration. Similar activities can be undertaken again on a much larger scale and it will be of tremendous assistance in getting the work done.

With regard to the scheme introduced some two years ago under which portions of a farm can be withdrawn from grazing, I wish to say that to my mind this is a good scheme in theory, but in practice it is not working out. I do not think that under present conditions a farmer can afford to withdraw a large portion of his farm if all he receives as subsidy for the withdrawal amounts to something like per cent on his capital investment. This applies particularly to the farmer who is bonded— and most of them are bonded—and who today has to pay very high rates of interest, owing to this Government’s policy. He has to pay tremendously high rates of interest on overdrafts because of the Government’s policy. He finds it impossible to come out on the subsidy being paid to-day. Now this scheme was introduced in September, 1966, for the first time, and the first applicants were accepted for a period of 20 months, two growing seasons. Last year when we discussed that, I warned the Minister that I did not think his scheme was going to work and I asked him how many farms were under the scheme. He replied that it was 1,000. It is 1,000 out of 120,000 farms. I made inquiries recently as to what the position was now. There are now, including those former farms, 1,160. In other words, during the year that started September, last year, only 160 have applied and have been accepted.

What do you think the reason is for that?

The reason for that I have already stated. The reason is that the scheme is not working properly.

We had good rains after that.

The fact that there were good rains afterwards, is all the more reason why one should withdraw a portion.

Will you say that to the farmers?

Of course I will say that to any farmer and any farmer knows that. The fact that we have had good rains is all the more reason why they should withdraw it. Otherwise, when there is no rain, there is no object in withdrawing, because rehabilitation cannot take place.

Would you withdraw if there are good rains in your area?

I withdrew.

Would you participate in a scheme like this when there are good rains?

I withdrew a portion in spite of good rains.

Do you want the Government to pay the farmer more than he can make out of his farm?

No, I do not say that. But one must give him enough to encourage him to withdraw.

Why are we not making the necessary progress? The primary function of a government in this case is to play its part at all times and to give the financial aid and technical assistance to the farmers. The delays are so frustrating that they are damping the farmers’ enthusiasm.

Let me read from a speech made by Mr. J. B. van der Merwe at Grootfontein:

That is an official of the Department. That is what he blames for the slow progress. The administrative duties, the extremely limited number of field officers leave little time for planning and instruction. I repeat, Sir. More farmers should be employed under the guidance of these extension or field officers and then more will be done. But there is a tremendous leeway that has to be made up. Let us take the Boland—

In the 1966 report of the Soil Conservation Board of the Highveld region they point out that in 1957 they had 34 active officers. In 1966 they only had 16 and there were 57 positions that should have been filled. They have 16 officers to fill 57 positions. The position is getting worse and there are more and more resigning. In a small sub-region, the Middle Highveld, resignations took place at the following places: Heilbron in April, Senekal last August, Kroonstad last November and there are more to follow. So what use is it that we propagate amongst the people conservation methods, for example, by “The festival of the soil” which would normally be a good thing, if the work cannot be carried out? We had a field officer for 700 farmers. I think there is now only one for about 1,000. The Government must get down to finding out where the bottlenecks are and replan and remove them.

I have said before that we must declare war on soil erosion. We spend round about R250 million annually on our defence—we have no objection to that—to prevent attacks from the outside enemies of our country. At the same time we are losing the battle against this dangerous enemy inside our country. [Time expired.]

This side of the House to-day expected, since the United Party has these past few days tried to show how badly the National Party has governed the country over a period of 20 years …

And proved it very effectively!

They proved it so ineffectively and found it so hot to handle that they suddenly dropped it and to-day moved onto less contentious ground. We admit that soil conservation is extremely important and that this House and this Government give all the attention they can, and spend all the money that is available, to tackle the problem of soil conservation to the best of their ability; it is a long-term problem which cannot be solved overnight.

But, Mr. Speaker, the United Party could not more clearly have shown its inability to make a success of the no-confidence debate over the past five years than by concentrating their attack on no more than 10 to 20 per cent of the aspects of Government policy. The entire balance they have left virtually untouched. [Interjections.] Their concluding statement last year was that the Budget solved no problems —note carefully what they said—and that this Minister would not be doing his proper duty until he had put a stop to the deterioration of the rand, in other words, of our entire currency. That was the hon. member for Pinetown. “The deterioration of our entire currency” were the words used by that side of the House in the last days of the debates. They omitted to say something about the improved international political image of this country, of this Government and its policy. I think, Mr. Speaker, that everyone who goes abroad will have to admit that not only has the political image of South Africa among its own inhabitants improved considerably in the past years—the numbers on this side of the House prove it—but its international political image has improved considerably and markedly and has never been as good as it is to-day. This is particularly the position in unofficial circles. I am referring to persons who do not move in Government circles, because these persons can often not do otherwise. I am speaking of the man who thinks for himself and is not led by particular circumstances in other countries which he has to take into account. I want to begin by just reading to you what has appeared in the Spectator. The writer wrote as follows from America—

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House may safely say, if we consider how South Africa has fared in the past 20 years, that there are few countries in the world where the people have succeeded to such an extent to co-exist and to maintain prosperity as in South Africa. And in South Africa there are greater problems, on account of the composition of the population, than in most other countries of the world. Our political image is stronger and is as good as can be expected in the circumstances in which South Africa finds itself. The United Party’s political image is internationally at the lowest possible ebb. [Interjections.] Everyone knows how we are entering into relationships with the rest of Africa, for example with Malawi and with the Protectorates. Even the Star of 30th October said: “Uganda softening towards Southern Africa.” We are constantly improving our relationships with the rest of Africa.

But that is not all. Let us consider our military strength. No one has mentioned the work done by this Government to make South Africa militarily strong. No one has criticized it. It is one of the cornerstones of the policy of any government. They have kept silent about it. We all know what it is. But, Sir, let me read to you what has appeared in an international publication sponsored by U.N.O. They had this to say about South Africa—

But that is not all. One of the results of good government is sound labour conditions—the contentment of the employees and the sound labour relationships of a country. What are those labour relationships? Can the United Party name me any other specific countries in the world where labour relationships are better than in South Africa? Can they? They cannot.

What about the Post Office?

I am not talking about the Post Office. I am talking about labour relationships. Can that hon. member not understand Afrikaans? Sir, let me read to you what a vice-president of the Federated Chamber of Industries, Mr. Alan de Kock, said about labour relationships. He said—

He then goes on to say that there were very few strikes in 1958. But in 1965 there were even fewer strikes than in 1958. Let me repeat what he said:

When was the Industrial Conciliation Act introduced?

Sir, a great deal of the legislation introduced by hon. Ministers on this side of the House to place labour relationships on a proper footing was fought tooth and nail by that side of the House. Now they claim the credit for themselves. They were too lacking in good deeds when they governed. But I shall come to that later.

I want to read something else to you, Sir. Mr. De Kock goes on to say—

This is what Mr. Alan de Kock, who is an industrialist, said about this Government’s handling of labour relationships. Sir I can also show you how this Government has laid sound foundations and done sterling work in the development of infra-structures which that side of the House shamefully neglected in the years from 1938 to 1948. Those infra-structures are the foundation upon which private initiative helped to bring about the great economic progress made in South Africa. Sir, I need not refer you to the great economic progress that has been made—I shall come to that later, and I shall in particular compare the progress made under this Government with the progress made under that side of the House. One of the most important tasks of the Government was to regulate human relationships in this country, to place on a sound footing the co-existence of all peoples in Southern Africa, and as far as possible to provide a decent living for each population group. Members on that side of the House have in the past few days laid special emphasis on economic apartheid or economic integration. But they forget what the Government has done to bring about political apartheid in the country. It is a difficult task. Tremendous progress has been made in spite of the greatest opposition from that side of the House. They also forget the progress and the achievements in the field of social apartheid. Now they are tackling the question of economic integration. But the difficulty is this: They cannot understand the concept of “economic integration”. They see economic integration purely as a matter of numbers, as the presence of an increasing number of Bantu in the white areas of South Africa in recent years.

Give us your definition.

Previous Prime Ministers and the present Minister of Bantu Administration have told us repeatedly that the presence of Bantu in South Africa does not constitute economic integration. If we afford the Bantu an opportunity of climbing to the same labour stratum as the white man, then it is economic integration. That is what that side of the House wants. This side of the House has made arrangements not to allow it.

You are playing with words.

I am not playing with words. The non-Whites, too, do not have the right to own and cultivate ground along with the Whites. If those things are done, then it is economic integration. But the fact that workers come from the reserves and from other countries, as is the case in Europe, to work here, is not economic integration. This Government does not accept that. The United Party is endeavouring to create an image of economic integration totally different from the actual position and they will not bluff anyone with it.

You just close your eyes and all the Bantu disappear.

No one said that. The upliftment of the underdeveloped areas of a country is a world-wide problem. There is at present a conference abroad where the developed countries are expressing their concern about the widening gap between the developed areas and the developing areas. It is a worldwide problem. It is a problem in South Africa as well and it is a difficult one, but if you compare what South Africa has done to develop its underdeveloped areas with what has been done in the rest of Africa and in other countries, then South Africa stands at the forefront.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, that is a ridiculous figure. That hon. member ought to be ashamed to use such figures. They ask what it will cost, but they ought to know. When they declared war in 1939, did they not tell the country what it would cost in lives and money to win the war. They did it from year to year, as this Government is also doing. They should understand the language of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration. It is everyday usage. Why do they now want us to give something which they themselves did not give? It is an equivalent case. This side of the House is waging war against poverty in the underdeveloped areas. This side of the House is waging war against any attempt by that side of the House to integrate the Whites and the Bantu politically and economically in this country. Listening to them I can imagine what will happen if this Government should do what they say. They think that one only has to pump a lot of money into the Bantu areas and that there will then be development. That is what they think. Have they not learnt from Great Britain’s experience? What did Great Britain experience in Africa when she wanted to take that course? It was the greatest economical débâcle you could imagine. Great Britain found that you must first have the material development of human beings. You must develop the human being, because human development must be coupled with material development. That side of the House wants to build the walls without laying the foundation. They want to erect a roof before the walls have been built, instead of laying a proper foundation. This Government is laying that proper foundation and it takes time to lay that foundation. That side of the House also fought the border areas development policy of this side of the House tooth and nail. They are virtually alone in that. The Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber of Industries, Tucsa and other labour organizations accept the development of border areas and the development of under-developed areas in principle. They differ here and there as to its implementation, but that is understandable. They accept it. I can mention many other instances where it has also been accepted. Let me read to you. Sir, what the Witwatersrand Christian Council says, according to The Star of 4th January, 1967:

The Star even contains a report which reads as follows: “Sudan sets up border industries.” That is not all. Members on that side of the House do not always agree with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I can mention at least four members on that side of the House who have declared themselves in favour of the development of border areas, including the hon. member for Hillbow. Let me read what one of them, the hon. member for East London (North), said. He said in the House of Assembly on 16th September, 1966—

The hon. member gave that advice to the wrong side of the House. It is advice he should give to his hon. Leader and to several of his frontbenchers. I should like him to get up and repudiate what he said here. On this matter there is dissension in that party.

I should like to refer to one further aspect, and that is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said about the border areas. According to the Cape Times of 6th February, 1967, he said, while opposing the border areas, inter alia, the following—

This is one of the reasons they advanced against the development of border areas. I want to refer the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to none other than Lord Keynes, the great English economist, who said—

I hope that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will stop using that foolish argument in connection with the development of border areas.

I want to suggest that this Government accomplished one of its greatest feats in the economic field. We know however since 1948 the United Party has proclaimed from the rooftops that the Government has too many ideologies; it only gives attention to ideology, but not to the basic needs of the people. The economic achievements of this Government are far above the average of the Government of that side when they were in power. I want to mention a few figures. One concerns inflation. The average depreciation of money during their period, from 1938 to 1948, was 4.75 per cent per annum. Under this Government it was 4.3 per cent per annum, an improvement of 10 per cent per annum. Work it out over the number of years. From the end of June to the end of December last year there was only a rise of .002, from 1.126 to 1.128, and then those hon. members speak of the deterioration of the rand. That has been their story all these years, the deterioration of our economy, the collapse of our economy. Up to last year they said so, but this year they conveniently kept silent about it in this debate. Then Minister Hofmeyr said that, as past experience had shown, the danger of inflation tended to become greater in postwar years than in war years. Their own Minister said that. Mr. Oppenheimer has said, according to the Cape Argus: “State hailed for inflation fight.” He praised the Government for its fight against inflation. Here is a comparison drawn by the Financial Times, under the heading “Prices in Great Cities”, in November, 1967, and according to that statement the conclusion is “Johannesburg a cheap city still”. Then the hon. members opposite speak of the deterioration of the rand. Where has there been any deterioration in our currency? Under their Government the value of money depreciated more rapidly than it has done under this Government.

But let me take the standard of living, the increase in our standard of living. It is the sum total of all our economic activities. In the past few years since we became a Republic, the average increase in the Republic was 4.3 per cent per capita per annum, after provision has been made for all increases in the cost of living. Under their Government it was only 2.95 per cent per annum, an improvement of 46 per cent on their performance. Where does the ideology come from which they talk of? We have an ideology and we are proud of it, but in spite of that the National Party has raised the country’s standard of living considerably, compared with what it was in the time of the United Party Government. There are the gold reserves. When this Government came into power in 1948, it had to take action to check the drop in the gold reserves. In 1948 the ratio of statutory reserves to total commitments to the public was 31 per cent. It was very low. In 1967 it was 45 per cent. This shows how much better this Government has governed than that one did. Our exports are another factor. In 1948 the export of goods, excluding gold, represented only 30 per cent of the total imports. We know how that side of the House stresses the importance of exports. In their time it was only 30 per cent, but in 1967 it was 70 per cent. It has more than doubled. Take the national debt, the last example I want to use. In 1938, when they began, the relevant figure was 70.4 per cent. In 1948, when they went out of office, when the people rejected them, it was 71.6 per cent, that is to say, the ratio of the national debt to our gross inland revenue. In 1966 it decreased to 46.9 per cent under this Government. What has this Government, with its ideologies and all, not achieved for South Africa in the material field? I can quote many examples in this way. Here in the Financial Mail of 14th July, 1967, it is stated—

In the Financial Times of England we find the heading “Strength in Isolation”. So I can go on and refer to France, America and England. Here they say: “South Africa is Britain’s best investment,” and in America they say: “South Africa safe for investment”. This is the image of South Africa which the National Party has built up over a period of 20 years. I believe that the population of South Africa, on the basis of the achievements of this party, will have the fullest confidence to return the National Party to power for another 20 years, and that for the next 20 years the Opposition will find themselves in even greater darkness than they do at the moment.

The hon. member for Florida has certainly disappointed me this afternoon. I have great respect for his views normally as an economist, but to-day he spoke as if he was trying to say something in which he had no belief at all. He talks about the war, but he knows very well that the one debit factor about a war is the expense involved in it and the accompanying inflation, as America is now experiencing, and he also knows that the only credit there is from a war is the subsequent development which takes place after a war. as happened after the last war, which are now reflected in the figures given by him. He also knows very well that the success of South Africa is due to the very failure of the Government to carry out its policy. He talks about labour relations and industrial legislation. Where does that legislation come from? From the United Party when it was in power. No, I think, quite apart from the speeches made from this side of the House, if any further justification were required for this motion, it could not have been more clearly given than by the floundering of the Government members. It is quite amazing, even amongst senior members and Ministers, to see how they do not even know their own policy. They do not even know how its development to Self-Government has taken place. That has been debunked completely, and not only has that been debunked but also the illusion that the general public, and even those hon. members, know what their policy is. I think it is most important that we understand and always remember that these portions of South Africa which are going to be cut away are going to become independent. They are not going to remain reserves or homelands, but they are going to become independent states. Our South African Bantu labour will therefore become foreign labour, and that is the crux of the whole matter. I have to quote none other than the hon. member for Heilbron, who said, when he was in charge of the commission into foreign labour—

He is the very man who does not even know what a migratory worker is, who says they will keep them in the white area; they do not have to go back to the homelands; they do not belong there. How can a man be a migratory worker and how can he serve a contract for 12 months and then have to return somewhere if he does not have to go to his homeland?

I will not deal with the ideology. That has been amply covered by the hon. members on this side. I do not want to deal with the policy. I think that has been more than covered by hon. members on this side. But I do want to deal with some practical results, something that is happening in a true homeland. I want to talk about a homeland, a true homeland, and not one that by a trick of fate happens to be a developing area such as we have in the case of Rosslyn or the whole of Natal, but the land of the Amaxhosa, the Ciskei and the Transkei and the Corridor, the border area between the two. We have there the two areas, the Ciskei and the Transkei, and between them we have this corridor, the northern boundary of which is the Kei and the southern boundary of which is goodness knows what, because we cannot get the Government to determine it. However, let that be beside the point for the moment. What is the position in that area? Because this is a true example of a true homeland, one half of which already has self-government. You have 1.8 million Bantu living in that area, giving it a density of over 85 per square mile, the highest density in South Africa, barring only the Witwatersrand and the Orange Free State goldfields. That is the first point. The second is that there are over 3,000,000 Xhosas in South Africa, of whom only 1.8 million live there, which means that 1¼ million are outside. We know that it is in such a state at the moment that that area cannot even cope with the people who are there, excluding the natural growth, and according to Government spokesmen we are still going to see that these people who are outside are put back there, almost doubling that density. Sir, we have heard from my hon. Leader about the necessity for consolidation. Of course, the hon. member for Heilbron suggests that consolidation is no longer necessary and he quotes of all places Britain: Britain with her islands is not consolidated and she controls her outfit very well! After all, why then cannot Matanzima control his outfit and the Ciskei and everything else that goes with it—Whittlesea, Glen Gray, Herschel etc.—and then I do not even mention the minor ones like Goshen, Lesseyton and Mgwali. How are those islands going to be controlled in South Africa—all in white South Africa? Sir, one just has to look at the map to appreciate the absurdity of that statement. I will not even ask what the cost is going to be. We have been told that the cost does not matter, but I would like to have at least an estimate of the cost.

We have been told that homeland growth is dependent on agricultural and industrial development. A failure in either of these is going to be a brake on the other. We are all aware of the low development in the Kei area, primarily in the Ciskei. Agriculture in all its spheres, fishing, mining, all the primary industries constitute the fundamental weakness because through it we have the low purchasing power and the low division of labour and hence our small markets and low level of trade. The result is the low opportunity for investment in secondary industry. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has given the figures of development in the Bantu areas. We must remember that those figures are for all the Bantu areas in South Africa and therefore relative. We can say that the Ciskei, for example, produces 131,000 bags of maize annually, but we must not forget that there are half a million people, which means that there is not even one bag of maize annually for an individual.

Not even half.

Not even half. Sir, I endorse the comments of my Leader that the officials in the Transkei and in the Ciskei are doing their very best to help the people along but they are completely hamstrung by Pretoria with too many ministers and too much red tape. Despite all their efforts, productivity is still standing still there; the graph is a straight line, and the population is increasing all the time. Sir, every economist has told us that in order to effect development we have to have capital. We want to know what amount is available and where it is going to come from. We have to improve the productivity of this capital by an increase of the ratio of Land to labour which means either increasing the land or reducing the labour. The Bantu have by natural means tried to improve this ratio by going out of the land themselves. We have been given the figure for the Transkei migrant workers. The position in the Ciskei is even worse because it is in a worse condition. But, of course, now the Government is even changing that and going against economic theory. Then they think that they are going to put the matter right. They are prepared, as we have heard, to inhibit the growth of South Africa, to give these people no outlet at all. and what amazes me even more is that they then talk about respect. The Bantu must have his own area for development where he can give full expression to himself so that he can have self-respect. Employment, which means being paid for what you do, which gives you self-respect, is being taken away by moving a man from his employment and putting him where there is no employment for him. They put him in an area where they have to provide the housing and where they have to provide the subsistence as well, and then we expect self-respect to be maintained.

Sir, our danger is not what the hon. member for Florida suggested, namely Communism, and that therefore we have to build up our defence so terrifically. Our biggest danger is this poverty encouraged by this very policy that we are stuck with here. They say that the way to solve our problem is to establish border industries. What success has been achieved in this regard? The hon. member has quoted the success achieved in Pretoria at Rosslyn and in portions of Natal, but what is there in the Ciskei, the one area where there must be border industry development? Virtually no development. I can do no more than to quote a statement made at a farmers’ association meeting in the Kei by a farmer from Kei Road who said: “We were promised that there would be industries established for these people. Where are these industries? I am sure that even the Government is not aware of the influx that is taking place here.” Sir, that is quite clear. The Government has no concept of the influx that is taking place. We have heard the discussion here about these different villages. Let us start with Mdantsane. Mdantsane is a closed township which is only there to replace Duncan Village, and now it has been opened for the returnees from the Western Cape as well. Five per cent of the houses have to be allocated for them. Last year when we asked the hon. the Minister what the population of Mdantsane was he said 5.300 families because there were 5.300 houses. Sir, there are 6,743 houses now. Does he still say that there are 6,743 families? Because if he does, I can assure him that I will give him the population figure for Mdantsane, a figure of 67,000, which will be nearer than any official figure that he can give. In the same way I can give him a further shock. They say that there is no unemployment or that there is very limited unemployment. In Mdantsane certainly there is unemployment. But I will give him my figure. My figure is 30 per cent unemployment in Mdantsane and he cannot deny it. Whatever figure he may give, my figure will still be closer to the factual position.

Then, of course, we also have the statement by the hon. the Deputy Minister who says that he will not return anybody to the Ciskei if there is no employment for him. Can you imagine it. Sir? He will not return anybody to the Ciskei who has not got employment, when all this unemployment already exists. Why these villages therefore—Sada. Ilige, Mngqesha? These villages are all being developed at the moment, and they are not just for pensioners as was mentioned by the hon. the Deputy Minister. Great exception was taken to the fact that they were called refugee camps. Why the exception? Are they not villages established primarily to accommodate people who are taken from here and who are kept there until they can be placed, if ever? They are border refugee camps. Are they not housed there and are they not fed there? Some of these villages are planned to hold more than 20,000. I ask again: What must these people do? Of course, the hon. the Deputy Minister says that there are going to be 108 of these villages by 1970. They are going to house more than three-quarters of a million; that is his figure, and we know that we can add to that. What are they gong to do? He goes on to give detailed figures as to the requirements of these different villages in the commercial field—the number of butchers, the number of general dealers, the number of cafés etc. Sir, does he not know what is going on in South Africa? Does he not know of a Bantu Investment Corporation and of a Xhosa Development Corporation, which are buying these very places from the Whites for the Bantu and whose big problem to-day is that they have not even got managers for those places, let alone owners?

They have to re-employ the former owners.

Employment without houses is bad enough, but housing without employment is catastrophic. Is it any wonder that we are called the most depressed area in South Africa? Sir, I just want to say that we have a subsistence economy. On top of that there are the droughts and you can see to-day what they are like. You have a falling death rate and a population growth—growing naturally and, by Government pressure, too high for a revitalized or extended rural economy to absorb. That. Sir, means that the concealed unemployment is becoming overt unemployment. That is why we find people roaming the streets, and burglary, stock and produce theft fast developing into an explosive situation. Sir, the Government is giving effect to a policy notable for its exemptions and exceptions, unproductive expenditure and lack of appreciation of priorities. The hon. the Prime Minister has said: Let us see what the people say in Bloemfontein, Pretoria West and Swellendam. My Leader challenged the hon. the Prime Minister to give us figures as to the cost of implementing their policy. Let him give us those figures before these by-elections and let us then see what the people say.

In the main I want to confine myself to the charge made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that the measures taken by this Government in the monetary, fiscal and economic fields were unsuccessful, and that they are going to lead to our downfall and economic deterioration. I want to point out that South Africa has experienced a period of economic growth which has been unparalleled in the history of the country. It is no wonder that periodicals have even referred to “the five fabulous years since 1961”. But it is not only in periodicals that statements of this kind are being made; that fact is also being emphasized by overseas businessmen coming to this country. There are visitors almost every day who are interested in investing in this country. They are interested in investing here because they know that our economy is growing and that the prospects here are very favourable. In addition, they know that they are dealing with a stable Government, which is a very important factor. They also know that we have had industrial peace in this country, something which is practically unknown, and also unparalleled in many other countries. The same confidence which is being displayed by countries abroad, is also being expressed by domestic entrepreneurs in South Africa.

It is after all the main task of the Government to try and maintain a high rate of development here so that we can provide work for our large and growing labour market, but at the same time we must also raise the standard of living of our population. When we consider that the real net growth during the past six years, even after the rate of inflation and the increase in prices has been taken into account, has been 6 per cent per year, we have reason to feel satisfied. It is higher than that of any country in Europe for example, in fact, it is higher than the figure in any comparable country. It has been calculated that our growth during the past six years has been between 6 and 7 per cent. It is high, even higher than we calculated in the economic development programme. In that programme we envisaged that with our available capital, with our manpower and with the utilization of our production sources, we would have been able to maintain an average rate of growth of 5½ per cent. Even this figure is higher than it has been in the past. I want to concede that agriculture has played an important role as far as the growth during the past few years is concerned, a role which has perhaps been greater than it was in the past. We hoped that the rate of growth would be less. This year it may even be less than in the past.

It is clear that this rate of growth of 6 per cent is too high, and this Government did in fact take deliberate steps to try and reduce the tempo of this rate of growth. That is why it is to be welcomed that there is a deceleration in growth in certain sectors of our economy. This is what we want, so that the pressure on labour and capital in this country can decrease and so that we can once again develop a regular and average rate of growth. There are, as I have said, healthy signs in various sectors that the rapid growth and the pressure are diminishing but an even further improvement has to be made. A phenomenon which I want to refer to specifically is that although the Government has taken steps to try and reduce the pressure on prices, there has nevertheless been no unemployment. The country’s unemployment figure is practically the same as it was at the beginning of 1967, after which the Government adopted strict measures. It is clear therefore that we have in fact succeeded in our aims. We were able to maintain this high level of development although drastic fiscal and other measures were adopted to curb this rate of growth. We also succeeded in reducing the rate of increase in the cost of living considerably. It is quite obvious therefore that the Government has been successful in its measures. That is why I want to refer specifically to what happened in regard to the cost of living. The fact is that although there has been a major increase in the price index during the past three to four years—in 1964 it was 4 per cent, in 1965 3.2 per cent and in 1966 3.8 per cent—it appears that the increase in costs last year was only 1.8 per cent.

We have therefore succeeded—and this is really an achievement—in confining the increase to 1.8 per cent, i.e. less than the 2 per cent which is normally considered to be a reasonable increase in a growing country. We are therefore in the position that the cost of living is not increasing nearly as rapidly as in the past. When we consider the price index since June last year, we see that, even if we calculate it on an annual basis, the increase in our cost of living has been a mere .3 per cent. That means that the increase is less than that of any other country in the world. As far as our wholesale prices are concerned, too, we find that there has in fact been a decrease during the past six months. It appears therefore that as far as the combating of the increasing cost of living is concerned, the Government has met with considerable success. Whereas the price of housing increased considerably in 1966, it was only about one third as much in 1967. We find the same trend as far as transport and foodstuffs are concerned. I must say that in this period of increase, our industries, particularly the manufacturers of clothing and footwear, have made an important contribution to keeping the cost of living down. In that sector there has been practically no increase.

The Government also took steps to relax import control. This has contributed to the development of keener competition in South Africa. But the striking fact is that our imports have decreased over the past few months, in spite of the above-mentioned relaxation. This is an indication that the domestic buying power and consumption are decreasing. Our exports are still increasing considerably.

Reference was made here to wage claims. It is true that appeals were made to workers and trade unions to manifest responsibility as far as their wage claims were concerned. It was requested that increased wages should be accompanied by greater productivity and that workers should not be unreasonable. The Government has been reproached for having taken these steps, but it was essential to have made that appeal. That appeal was successful and contributed to the fact that new factors, factors which could have had the effect of increasing the cost of living, were not introduced into our economy. Wages were not frozen, as in other countries. It was also said here that it should be noticed how the worker’s position has deteriorated under this Government. That was part of the charge made here. The fact is that even if we go back as far as 1958 and draw comparisons between the average income of the factory worker, the mine worker and the Central Government employees and the increase in the consumer price index, we find that the factory worker’s wages increased by 47 per cent, that of the mine workers by 44 per cent, and that of the Central Government employees by 41 per cent, whereas the consumer price index increased by only 18 per cent. That indicates that the worker in this country, in spite of increases in prices, also received his fair share in regard to increased wages. I went even further and tried to determine what had happened during the past few years.

The latest available information indicates the wages paid in these sectors up to September of last year. When we compare those wages with the number of labourers, then it appears that the average wage in the mining industry, and that includes White and non-White, up to September of last year, increased from R494 to R557 in comparison with those of 1966. In the mining industry this figure is lower than the figure in other sectors because there is so much Bantu labour in this sector. For the worker in the mining industry this did mean an average increase of R61 however. In the manufacturing industry the corresponding figures are R1,063 and R1,160, an increase of R97 per worker. In the construction industry we also find an increase: There the average wage of the worker increased by R147. This is an indication that during this period, while there was inflation, the position of the labourer did not deteriorate; on the contrary, his position improved considerably. It appears therefore that we were quite right in making an appeal like that to our workers, and that the worker in South Africa played a part in enabling us to return to this measure of normality. He helped to curb effectively these abnormal price increases with which we have had to deal during the past few years. The Government is determined to continue with these steps which it took to keep that rate down. These steps may not be popular ones. In fact, they have already been exploited by the Opposition for political gain. But they were aimed at obtaining a greater measure of price stability, and the indications are that the Government’s measures have been successful.

I also want to refer to another aspect mentioned here, i.e. the devaluation which has taken place and its possible effect on certain sectors of our economy, particularly agriculture, as well as certain industries. We have been asked here what we are going to do about this. It is well known that the Opposition has lent its support to the Government in regard to its decision on the British devaluation. According to them that was the right step to take. Nevertheless they referred to the sectors which are suffering as a result of devaluation and how they may perhaps have been better off if we had also devalued. The hon. the Minister of Finance announced immediately that investigations would be made into those sectors which were being prejudiced. He made the following statement in that respect (translation)—

This was announced a day after the British Government decided to devalue. Since then we have been determining which of these industries and agricultural sectors are being prejudiced. The effect of devaluation could not have been foreseen and determined immediately. The degree of adjustment or assistance necessary could not have been determined at that stage. That is why negotiations have subsequently taken place with the bodies concerned and they have submitted their problems to the Government. I do not want to go into detail. The canning industry, the canners of fruit and vegetables, are faced with serious problems. Perhaps this industry is responsible for having created its own problems because the various concerns in the industry could not work together as far as their overseas markets were concerned. Most of their exports go abroad, and now we find that the independent canners in this country are competing and undercutting one another in the overseas markets. By doing so they are undermining the economy of their own industry. They, too, are faced with particular problems as a result of devaluation. I have held discussions with them. We have passed an Act to establish a board for the canning industry. At the request of the canners this Act has not yet been put into effect, but as a result of the discussions, they have now agreed to this Act being put into effect. This board will be constituted as soon as the commencement of the Act is announced. Unfortunately this board cannot do anything about this year’s problems. The board will first try to reach an agreement as far as next year’s marketing is concerned. The canning industry is therefore faced with a major problem this year. They are faced with this difficulty because they have sold this year’s crop in advance for sterling. The result of devaluation has been that they are suffering major losses because they are being paid in sterling.

They are not the only ones to have been heavily struck. Quite a number of other exporters also sold in sterling instead of stipulating that they be paid in rands and cents. They even sold to Europe and stipulated that they be paid in sterling. Consequently they are suffering considerable losses. They could have protected themselves against this commercial risk. They could have insured themselves against possible changes in the exchange rates.

Problems are also being experienced by the sectors concerned with fruit juices, frozen vegetables, meat products, yeast, deciduous fruits, sugar, liquor, coffee, molasses, sweets, starches, certain metals, etc. I have here a long list of firms which have already discussed their problems with us. The merits of these representations are now being investigated in conjunction with the Departments of Finance, Agriculture, Trade and Industries, as well as Forestry in order to see what can be done to help them in their particular situations. I can therefore give the assurance that, as far as these bodies which have in fact been prejudiced are concerned, thorough investigations are at this stage being made into their problems, the extent of those problems, and what can be done to support them. Devaluation has confronted us with problems, but I am convinced that it was a step which is in the interests of most of South Africa. And that is why it has been supported to this extent by the private sector, as well as by the organized bodies. Britain was forced to devalue in order to try and restore its unsound economy. It had problems with its balance of payments, and a great measure of unemployment. When it was forced to negotiate large foreign loans in order to rectify its position, speculation against the pound took place. This assumed such proportions that Britain was obliged to devalue in order to rectify its own position. South Africa, as was not the case in other years, did not follow suit. And I think it was a step forwards towards freeing our rand from the chronically sick British pound. I hope that Britain will succeed in recovering, because there are already speculations as to whether she will be able to remain on her feet or whether a further devaluation will not be necessary. But we also know that this effect and the advantage devaluation gives Britain will have been wiped out again within two or at the most three years. Then the position will be equal again. The fact that it was not necessary for us to devalue and that our economy was strong enough to allow us to refrain from following Britain is proof that we have come of age in the economic sphere as well. The rand is standing on its own feet and it is a rand and a monetary unit in its own right. I also trust it will be accepted to an increasing extent and that in future our exporters will compete and that they will stipulate that payments should be made in rands and not in the monetary units of other countries. It is the normal custom for exporters to stipulate that they be paid in their own monetary units. That is an example which we can definitely follow here. It is important that certain or our competitors did not devalue. That strengthened our own position. But we were in this strong position that we were one of those countries which decided at an early stage what we were going to do, and our decision had a good effect on other countries and perhaps contributed to the fact that they did not devalue.

South Africa’s exporters have therefore found themselves in an unfavourable position in certain respects. But it is an unfavourable position which will soon disappear. I am convinced that the steps which we have now taken to refrain from devaluing were in the interests of South Africa and that is the very reason why we are experiencing such a great measure of confidence in our own future. That is why we see headlines such as: “South Africa heads for boomlet”; and, “Optimism sweeps industry, says reporter”. These are only a few of the indications. They are to be found at home as well as abroad. We know that if we continue to strengthen South Africa economically, in order to establish stability here, it will not only be to our advantage at home, it will also strengthen us in more than one sphere. I want to refer here to the Financial Times’ Survey of South Africa of 25th September, 1967. Here the following is said, under the title: “Strength in Isolation”—

That is the finding overseas. And I am convinced that nothing has as yet happened here —in spite of the strict measures which the Government had to take in order to rectify our economy—to undermine the confidence abroad as well as at home, in the economic and financial policy of this Government.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has just told us a few things in regard to the effect of devaluation on some of our export produce, particularly agricultural produce, etc. We want to thank the hon. the Minister for the fact that he stated that each case would be considered on its own merits and that they were already aware of the problems confronting those people. Of course that is nothing new. The hon. the Minister of Finance has already made an announcement to that effect on a previous occasion. Nevertheless we owe the hon. the Minister a vote of thanks for the fact that he stated that they would investigate those matters thoroughly. But there is no doubt that these people are going to be confronted with problems and that they will have to suffer losses. And I think that the fruit farmers, the exporters of grapes and the canners, are all tremendously concerned at the fact that they are going to suffer losses. But the hon. the Minister told us that they had succeeded during the past year or two in bringing down the upward trend of the cost of living. Well now, one is satisfied with the small things which are received from time to time. But the hon. the Minister did not deny that the cost of living had in fact increased and had increased considerably during the past few years. We are glad that it did not increase as much as it did on previous occasions. But the cost of living is still being felt to-day. And it was this very Government which promised the South African nation in 1948 that they were the people who had the solution to the increasing cost of living. And since that time not one year has gone by in which we have had a lower cost of living in South Africa than we had in that year when they took over. The hon. the Minister was also forced to tell us that he welcomed the fact that there had been a downward trend in the development of South Africa. There must definitely be a downward trend in the development of South Africa if we want to combat inflation. But, would a downward trend in the development of South Africa have been necessary if this Government had paid early heed to the advice of this side of the House and if they had not given the nation of South Africa ridiculous advice by saying, “Spend for prosperity,” when they knew that there was insufficient manpower in South Africa? And the hon. the Minister knows that. It was one of the fundamental reasons why we have inflation in South Africa. It is because the possibilities for development in this country could not be adjusted to the quantity of manpower and trained manpower in South Africa. And the hon. the Minister and his Government will in future have to struggle with inflation again unless they pay attention to this problem, namely whether South Africa will have sufficient trained manpower for future development. That is the position, and unless the Government gives some attention to that problem, we will never solve the problem of inflation in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

But, I should like to return to a matter mentioned here in this House here yesterday afternoon which upset me, and I believe myself to be a good South African, a little. It is the fact that we are and have been forgetting our isolationist politics. But yesterday afternoon we had to hear from the former hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs that he would continue with his attacks on the American Field Service. He would continue to warn the nation of South Africa against the dangers to the country inherent in that service.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. Chief Whip must please give me a chance now. The hon. the Minister of Health then quoted to us from a book by Professor Edwin Munger in which it is stated what a danger it would be to South Africa if we should continue to participate in that service. That service has been in progress in South Africa for quite a few years now. We have already sent quite a number of young Afrikaans and English speaking men and women to America under this scheme. We have also had a number of their young men and women in our country. Now I wonder in how many cases the hon. the Minister of Health has held discussions with those young men and women who have had that experience and who have participated in the American field Scholarships. He quoted what Professor Munger said, but I can quote what Mr. Barry Goldwater said. And Mr. Barry Goldwater received a great deal of support in the person of the Minister of Health when he was a candidate for the American Presidency a few years ago. What did Mr. Barry Goldwater say when he was in South Africa a few weeks ago? According to Die Burger of 12th December, 1967, he had the following to say (translation)—

He said it would be a good way.

What is wrong with that?

Precisely, there is nothing wrong with that. That is the whole argument. But the hon. the Minister quotes to us what Professor Munger said about the dangers inherent in this scheme. But we on this side of the House are much more inclined to accept the words of Mr. Barry Goldwater in regard to such a scheme, than I am prepared to listen to Professor Munger.

He was just confirming what Munger had said.

Shall I read it to the hon. member again?

Yes.

Mr. Goldwater stated: “I should like to see …” Mr. Goldwater is defending the A.F.S. Leadership Programme.

No, he does not mention it at all.

Order! Would hon. members give the hon. member a chance to continue with his speech.

I quote: “Mr. Goldwater defended the exchange of students and the statements between the two countries in terms of the American Field Service and the South African American Leader Exchange Programme strongly.” Do you want more than that? [Interjections.] Very well. The hon. member does not want to accept Mr. Goldwater’s words. He is accepting Professor Munger’s word. Now I want to ask the hon. member: Will he accept the word of Advocate Dawid De Villiers? I think every South African should be extremely proud of a man like Advocate De Villiers, because he was the man responsible for and who helped us to win the South-West Africa case. I think he rendered just as good a service to this country as a man such as Professor Chris Barnard has done. And what did he say about this scheme? He said the following (translation)—

The people found it necessary to defend South Africa, and here they are being granted an opportunity to do so, whereas that party on that side of the House, which is always so eager to defend South Africa, refuses to avail itself of such an opportunity. But I feel sorry for the hon. the Prime Minister of South Africa. It is his point of view to-day that we should move outwardly, and he is quite correct. We in South Afirca have nothing to be ashamed about. We know that it is so—except of course the Government. But the Prime Minster is being thwarted, and a search is in progress for the people behind S. E. D. Brown. He is one of the chief propagandists against the American Field Service. I am afraid it is the hon. the Minister of Health who is sabotaging this outward tendency of South Africa. I believe that the Government is not trying to avail itself of its opportunities. They maintain that it would be wrong for something to have been created here which would have enabled our young people to be sent overseas where they would have come under foreign influences. Now I want to put the question: Would it also be wrong—let us forget for the moment about our young men and women going there—for the young American men and women to come here. Sir, it is after all not a one-way stream.

But surely we are not stopping them.

Surely we can offer them a proper opportunity so that they can realize and see what is taking place in South Africa and so that we can teach them as well. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I really hope that South Africa will not allow the propaganda which is being made by the hon. the Minister of Health to deter it from participating in this exchange programme. It is definitely in the interests of South Africa and it affords us a golden opportunity to tell our story, as somebody put it, to countries abroad.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, it would probably do that hon. member a great deal more good to participate in something like that than it would perhaps do me. We moved this motion of no confidence firstly because we have no confidence in this Government’s policy of separate freedoms. We do not believe that it is a solution to the racial problem of South Africa. We believe that it is a perilous policy, and we believe further that it cannot be applied to all race groups. Secondly we moved a motion of no confidence here because, if it is the considered opinion of the Government to apply a policy of separate freedoms, they must proceed to do so, but they are moving in an opposite direction. Actually this is a two-sided motion of no confidence. In the first place it is the wrong policy to apply in South Africa, and in the second place, the Government is not prepared to implement it. In reality they on that side ought themselves to vote for this motion of no confidence, because they themselves are not prepared to implement that policy. That, and the fact that they are applying economic integration in South Africa, where they ought to be segregating, proves that they do not have much confidence in their own policy of separate freedoms. One cannot bring, about a separation unless one develops the possibility of the homelands. One would be inclined to say that the Government thought that the Bantu were not capable of developing. Why are they not prepared to allow white capital in those areas? If they listened to experts like Dr. Eiselen they would see that the Bantu is even better suited to secondary and tertiary industries than he is to the agricultural industry. They have all the possibilities, but the Government is not prepared to avail itself of that opportunity. No, they say, our solution lies in border industries.

Border industries may perhaps take one half way, but in the long run industries within the reserves are a number one priority in order to make those areas viable. Hon. members on that side ought to realize that. Border industries are nothing else but a transference of economic domination. What one fears in your own area and what troubles you in your own area, that you are prepared to go and do only a few miles further away. Hon. members on that side of the House maintain that the White cities cannot be allowed to become integrated. But what is happening now? The more the white cities become integrated, the more one also finds that Whites are coming to the white areas. But what is the position to-day in the country areas, where this problem is at its worst? They are luring white people away from those areas. The place of the white people is being taken up by an increasing number of Blacks. Apparently the Government welcomes this. I have never heard them express concern at the fact that tens of thousands of black people are taking the place of the white people in the rural areas. Apparently they are blissfully unaware of that.

That brings me to the position of our agriculture, which is one of the reasons for the increasing depopulation of the rural areas. It is because the agricultural industry is to-day no longer receiving the attention it ought to receive. Secondly it is because those people can no longer make a decent living. Hon. members on the opposite side can argue as they please now, but I will furnish the hon. the Minister with just one quotation. This is a statement made by the S.A. Agricultural Union itself, which was submitted to the commission, and which appeared in Die Landbouweekblad. This is what they said (translation)—

For the entire national economy the increase per annum is 1.55 per cent, but for agriculture the decrease is 0.67 per cent per annum. I shall furnish the hon. the Minister with many more examples.

[Inaudible.]

This is an extract from Die Landbouweekblad of a memorandum submitted by the S.A. Agricultural Union itself to the commission of inquiry in regard to agriculture. The hon. member for Christiana has always had the habit of asking: “Where do you get that from?” In other words, he is creating the impression that what an hon. member on this side of the House uses is usually not authentic. I want to read to the hon. the Minister what one of the members of the Wool Board said a short while ago in regard to our agricultural industry. What does Mr. Sarel Hayward say? Mr. Sarel Hayward is a member of the Provincial Council, a Nationalist M.P.C., as well as a member of the South African Wool Board. According to Die Landbouweekblad he said the following—

This was not said by a United Party supporter, but by the National M.P.C., who is also a member of the South African Wool Board. [Interjections.] No, I do not believe he will be next to be nominated. He continues—

If such an assertion is being made, how can a Minister still try and create the impression that everything is going well with the agricultural industry in South Africa? Is he surprised that the people from the country areas are going to the cities and that they prefer to seek refuge there? I can also quote what Mr. A. Paul said. He is also a member of the Wool Board. He said that farmers would have to be helped with subsidies for their interest. That is the situation to-day. I want to give the hon. the Minister another quotation. Apparently he will never take our word for it. I am sorry. Sir, that we have to use these quotations every year, but apparently the Government is not prepared to understand our representation. They do not believe it. This is what Mr. G. R. Pauw, assistant chief manager of Federale Volksbeleggings, has to say—

Mr. Speaker, if that is not a serious state of affairs, then I do not know what is. Recently I read an annual report of the company of which Dr. Piet Neethling is one of the directors. He states in that report that they want to limit the capital which they are going to spend on agriculture as far as possible. The reason he gives is that the profits made on agriculture are too small, and that the company’s money, which it needs, cannot be invested profitably enough in agriculture. But hon. members on that side of the House are apparently satisfied. One can continue in this way and mention one point after the other. Whether it be technical matters, or production costs, or increased staff, or better prices, or soil conservation—there is not one single problem which the farmer in South Africa has come up against during the past 20 years that this Government has solved. There is not one. I am giving the hon. the Minister, or anyone speaking after me the opportunity of mentioning to me one problem that they have solved in regard to the agricultural industry during the past 20 years. They are prepared to say that they will use all the money, it makes no difference what it is going to cost, in order to implement the Bantu homelands policy. But what was the reply to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition two years ago when he stated in the House that we should help the agricultural industry whatever the cost? He said that he realized it would cost a great deal of money. Was the Government right to adopt that kind of attitude? No, Sir. When it comes to separate freedoms, to ideology, they say that it makes no difference what it is going to cost. To-day the opportunity is there for the Government. They are experiencing difficulties in the agricultural industry. They should be prepared to reveal precisely the same sentiment in regard to the agricultural industry in South Africa as the one they revealed there. Then we will believe that they are prepared to do something for the agricultural industry. In regard to the statement that this Government is the friend of the farmer. I can only say that they have never been. They tried to create that impression before 1948, and subsequently they have forgotten the farmer of South Africa. Any farmer who still believes to-day that they are in fact his friend, is living under the greatest illusion which anybody in South Africa could live under.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down, spoke about a topic on which I am not an authority, namely farming in South Africa. The hon. member made the statement that this side of the House was doing nothing for the farmer.

I said that you had not solved any problems.

The farmers themselves solved a problem. Of the 71 constituencies situated in the rural areas of South Africa, that party has only six. They only have three in the whole of the Cape and three in Natal. They do not have a single constituency in the rural areas of the Transvaal, nor in those of the Free State. In South West Africa that party does not exist at all. That is what the farmers of South Africa think of the United Party and what they still remember of the time when Mr. Strauss was Minister of Agriculture. The hon. member made the statement here that the rural areas were being depopulated. That is true. There is a gradual decrease in the number of farmers in the rural areas. That is a world-wide trend and it will not be possible to prevent it anywhere in the world. But now he also makes the statement that the Blacks in the rural areas are steadily increasing in number. I find it a strange situation that the white farmers, as he has said, are becoming fewer. This Government is doing nothing or very little for the farmers, but more and more labourers are being employed in the rural areas.

Who said so?

Those were his very own words. That is the sort of illusory argument raised by that side of the House, and that is why the rural areas and the farmer will never return the United Party to power. I just want to mention a third point in regard to farming. During the past seven years South Africa has been experiencing extensive droughts, such as virtually never before in its history, and these are apparently continuing this year. Yet South Africa has, in spite of those droughts, not only kept its rate of growth, but also its economic position so sound that we are to-day, as has been pointed out, one of the countries with the highest rate of growth. If this Government is doing nothing for the farmer, how did our country manage to survive these seven years of drought? We shall not settle this matter across the floor of this House. I want to extend an invitation to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. There is a golden opportunity for asking the farmers of South Africa to state what they think of the National Government and specifically of my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, and how the farmer in South Africa is being treated. There is to be a by-election in Bethlehem. Will the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tell us in his reply to this debate who the United Party candidate in Bethlehem will be? From the nature of the case the United Party cannot win the constituency of Bethlehem, but in Bethlehem the United Party can try to put to the test what the hon. member has tried to say here in words. But I shall leave the matter at that. Our problem is that we have too many candidates. In fact, we have too many members and too many votes. We have too much of everything. Do you know who gives us that? The electorate of South Africa gives that to us because they have confidence in this side of the House.

We have now come to the end of an entire week of so-called no-confidence debating, a no-confidence debate introduced by the Leader of the Opposition and his lieutenant, the hon. member for Yeoville. I am not going to read it here, but I nevertheless want hon. members and the public outside who are interested in these matters, to read the Financial Mail of 2nd and 26th February, because then they will also have read both speeches made by those members. We have an Opposition that does not think; the Financial Mail thinks for them. I do not know whether to-day’s Financial Mail is on sale yet, but if it is the reply to this debate will most probably appear in to-day’s edition of the Financial Mail. But it was a good thing that we had that. This no-confidence debate took place after and against the background of 20 years of National Party régime. I have worked it out, and I think that since 1948 this is the 26th motion of no-confidence in the National Government. It is also taking place after 18 months of leadership by the hon. the Prime Minister and after a recess of six months. Then the hon. the Leader introduced the motion of no-confidence, and a wide field was covered. What has happened now?

You got a hiding.

The hon. member says we got a hiding. There are some families where the little girl should get more hidings. In the first place there is the economy. What has become apparent? It has become apparent that this Government has governed in such a way that all the attempts at applying the brake to the economy, have not been quite as successful as we would have liked them to be in order to combat inflation. We want to maintain the rate of growth at 5½ per cent, but we have not quite managed to do so. It is weak government that allows an economy to grow to that extent. Sir Alec Douglas Home is a cautious person and a person I know well, a person who, quite rightly, does not want to give an opinion on South Africa. But, after all, if the sun is shining he cannot help saying that it is a clear day. Having said these things, he could not help saying, “What I will say is that South Africa has a thriving economy”. In the third place I want to say the following. We are speaking against a background of 20 years of National régime. This is the Government which would supposedly have caused all the banks to close down, and so forth. This Government has governed in such a way that within an hour or an hour and a half it was possible for us to decide with ease that we would not devalue, because the position of the rand was strong enough. Since we are talking about the economy, I just want to mention a few points in this regard. During the 20 years of National régime, and this is the question that should be asked in 1968, the total production of our country has shown an increase of 376 per cent, i.e. 18¾ per cent per year. As much as that over a period of 20 years.

On what are those figures based?

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to allow myself to be side-tracked by that hon. member. He should ask the Bureau of Statistics of the University of Stellenbosch about these things, because they are the people who work them out. There is not one single branch of industry in our economy that has not shared in this great prosperity. Our manufacturing industry has quintupled itself. But what is more important is the fact that we are living in a developing world, particularly as regards the manufacturing industry. Over the past ten years the total increase in the manufacturing industry all over the world, amounted to 70 per cent. In Canada it was 61 per cent. In the mighty U.S.A. it was 57 per cent, in Britain it was 36 per cent, and in South Africa under the National régime, with the policy of separate development and all those things those hon. members do not like, it was 93 per cent. This is what has become apparent in this motion of no-confidence. I wonder whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition really wants to avail himself of the opportunity of replying to this debate. I think that it would be amiss to reply to a motion of no-confidence if these are the facts that have become apparent. Let me mention a few things in respect of agriculture, about which that hon. member had so much to say. In 1948, when the National Party came to power, the total agricultural production was R376 million a year. Last year it was R1,307 million. That is the agriculture in respect of which that hon. member wants to give out that this Government has not lifted a finger to stand by the farmer in difficult times. I just want to furnish one last figure. After 20 years this is what South Africa looks like under the Government in which no-confidence is to be expressed. In 1948 62,000 new motor cars were sold in this country. Last year 185,000 were sold.

What do these figures prove?

They prove one thing, namely that the on. the Prime Minister has acted sensibly and correctly by not even moving an amendment to this motion of no-confidence. But other matters were also touched upon. Reference was made here to labour, and my colleague, the Minister of Labour, replied to them. I just want to emphasize a few of these matters because the United Party is trying to make the white worker fear this Government, particularly in respect of the presence of Bantu labour in the border areas. My colleague pointed out that since 1954 there had been an increase of 80,000 white workers in our factories. Under the National Government no danger was created for the employment of the white man in South Africa. Let me say this immediately. The numbers of the Bantu in South Africa are increasing at present, and have always shown a far greater increase than those of the Whites. If we in South Africa want to create a safe future for all of us, we shall have to see to it that the numbers of the non-Whites who are to be provided with employment will always in the future be greater—in numbers, not in ratio—than those of the Whites, otherwise we shall have unemployment and then we shall have to contend with problems. The first priority of this Government is, inter alia, to see to it that not a single man or woman in South Africa is begrudged a decent existence. That is where our task lies. But the fact of the matter is that percentage-wise as well, the Whites in industry in South Africa have remained constant. The figure in question was 28 per cent and then it rose to 30 per cent, and for the past four years it has remained constant at 25 per cent. I repeat this because these are the things in which we are interested. These are the things this Government is doing. As regards artisans, the number of Whites in 1958 amounted to 88 per cent, as my colleague said. In 1967, after nine years, it was 87 per cent, a constant figure. The working man in South Africa has nothing to fear under a National Government.

References were also made to non-White affairs. What has become apparent from this debate? One thing has become apparent, namely that the policy of separate development is not only a policy, but also an accomplished fact in South Africa, something which nobody can ever again undo. Separate development has taken its course, and I challenge any member on that side of the House to go to the Bantu in the Transkei, for instance, and to tell them that you want separate development to be undone. You may also put this question to the Whites in South Africa. But what has become apparent from this debate? It has become apparent from this debate that we are right in saying that the price it will cost does not matter. We know that there is one price we shall not have to pay, namely the survival of our Whites. Secondly we said, “Both feet on the ground”, as the late Oom Serfie said, because we are moving along as the development can be absorbed by the Bantu, who will have to take care of it eventually. What has come to light from the other side? More light was shed for us upon their point of view. Our standpoint is separate freedoms and separate development and having a white Parliament here in Cape Town. It is pure white and so it will remain as long as the National Party is in power. But we are making progress as far as the United Party is concerned. As far as they are concerned, we know now that in Parliament there will at least to begin with be 25 people representing the non-Whites. Every voter in South Africa knows now that it is that party’s policy that in this Parliament there will be 25 people representing the non-Whites, and at least eight of them may be non-Whites. Is that correct? That is six here and two in the Senate. But the United Party has also made sure of one thing, and for that purpose they are using a measure which we, the National Party, introduced virtually over their dead bodies, so to speak. They want to make sure that Coloureds will be sitting in this Parliament as soon as possible, and that is why they want the separate voters’ roll. That is why the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has succeeded in making them abandon their basic stand against a separate voters’ roll and having it accepted as part of the policy of the United Party; because the separate voters’ roll ensures that those voting are Coloureds only, and as is the case with every other nation in the world, Coloureds will naturally vote for Coloureds. Using our measures you want to make absolutely sure that at the first election there will be at least eight Coloureds in Parliament.

But you are now taking that measure of ours a little further, because you want to do something that we would never have done. You want a separate voters’ roll for the Indians as well, a second separate voters’ roll, a second classification. By those means you are making absolutely sure that in this Parliament there will be 25 people representing non-Whites, and if that is not a balance of power group, then I do not know what it is. The hon. member for South Coast quoted somebody who had said, “The point of contact is the point of friction”. Let me state clearly that we disagree with him completely. The more points of contact it is possible to have between the various peoples in South Africa, the better, but this principle would be valid in South Africa if it read as follows: “The point of rivalry or contention is the point of friction.” And do you know where that point of contention will be? Those 25 people, including the eight Coloureds, whom you want in this Parliament. Such is the progress we have made, and now the voters of Pretoria (West) and of Bethlehem and of Bloemfontein know that this is the policy of the United Party.

But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his members gave out dramatically that little was being done and that much more should be done for the scientists in our country and for education in general. Let me just tell him that I agree with him that more should be done, but I am at least saying this with the pride we can justly take in the almost superhuman little niche South Africa has, taking into account our small population, gained for itself in respect of science in the comity of nations. The contribution made by this small country in the field of science—be it in the field of medicine or in the field of atomic energy or whatever—is proportionately greater than that of any country in the world of which I know. But we may not leave it at that. We cannot merely say that more should be done; we must state what has already been done. The C.S.I.R. is a body which has grown in South Africa under the National Government, and it is esteemed in the world as being one of the greatest of its kind. We have the Atomic Energy Board, which was established by this Government. We have the National Institute for Metallurgy, but in addition to that, do you know that this small country has five medical schools? We have ten universities, including two new ones which were established under this Government; and in addiition five university colleges were established by us, also for the non-Whites. With what justification can the Leader of the Opposition point his finger at the Government and say that not enough is being done in respect of science?

A few words were also said about justice— just a few words about the calm and order and peace in this country. It was said that we were doing too much to take the agitator and the communist by the throat if necessary. That is the total contribution made by the Opposition in respect of the calm and order and peace in this country. As far as my own Department of Planning is concerned, did you suggest to us a comprehensive plan? Did you help us with our water plans? Did you help us in connection with the planning of our economy? Did you give us any assistance in respect of the planning of education; any assistance whatever in respect of the planning for the lower income groups and the aged in the country? This happened to strike me. This is the Party that is attacking the Government. In all the private motions introduced here, this side of the House considered those groups and the aged, and that side did not introduce a single private motion to that effect. This is how it goes with a party that has become like that Party. But do you know, Sir, why this is so? Because, in the first place, the United Party is un-national. [Laughter.] Hon. members are laughing now, but let us just test this as from 1910.

Start with 1939.

I do not want to be personal. I am only taking the leaders of our nation in order to test one thing, namely that what is national in character grows and becomes stronger, and what is unnational falls into decline and disappears. In 1910 we had General Hertzog and General Botha, both Boer generals, and the idea I am now going to express as to what is national, is not my own; it originated with ex-Minister Serfontein. In 1910 two generals served in the Cabinet at the same time, and simply because one of them was national and said “South Africa first”. he was expelled. Only twelve years went by and by that time that which was national had grown to such an extent that General Hertzog became Prime Minister and the other one was no longer there.

Along with the Labourites.

Yes. Let us test this against two other leaders the people had, namely Dr. Malan and General Smuts. They attended the same university together. General Smuts was the mighty leader in the war years. Only ten years went by after 1938, and he who was national, became Prime Minister, and that Party which was un-national is now sitting over there. Let us take a third example, the late Advocate Strijdom and Mr. Strauss. They were admitted to the Bar in the Transvaal at the same time. They had the same opportunities, except that Mr. Strauss had an advantage in that he was a member of that mighty war cabinet of General Smuts’, whereas in 1938 Advocate Strijdom was the only National member in the whole of the Transvaal. But he who was national became stronger and gathered people around him, and in 1954 he became Prime Minister here, and at that time Advocate Strauss was not even the leader of the United Party any more. And as far as the present situation is concerned, has a Prime Minister ever been in a stronger position in any country after 18 months than the present Prime Minister? Let us bring proof. There are no politics involved at present. There has not been any by-election lately. This is a valley period in politics. There have been five National Party congresses. Better South Africa has never seen. I attended each of them. But the Prime Minister went to Nelspruit for an ordinary meeting, and that was the greatest meeting Nelspruit had ever seen. The Prime Minister went to Vryheid in Natal and the same happened there, and then the impossible came about. The Prime Minister went to Rustenburg for an ordinary political rally. The people did not come in order to complain, but do you know how many people were there? There were 12,000 people. Has a party and its leader ever been in a stronger position in this country than that? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will soon rise in order to conclude the debate on his motion of no-confidence, and against what background is he going to do so? His Party is 33 years old now.

It is rather small for its age though.

What has happened to that Party, in contrast to the National Party? In the course of 33 years the National Party has gained 77 seats from the United Party, and it has retained them all without losing a single one. In the course of the same 33 years the United Party has gained six seats from the National Party, but it has not retained one of them. I am not even mentioning the total number of votes, because that is old news. We are not only taking their seats from them, but their people are also deserting them and becoming angry with and ashamed of them. But do you know how bad it is? In the course of 33 years 49 United Party people went over to the National Party, in the House of Assembly, and another 14 left them and joined other parties. Fifty-three of them have therefore left them in 33 years’ time. This is the Leader and the Party that is introducing a motion of no-confidence. The United Party has at least had two gains; in the course of 33 years they gained two members, Mr. Sutherland of the Labour Party and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, but they did not make a gain in his case; he merely returned. But let us look at the Party as it is at present. That Party does not represent a part of the nation; they represent a part of a part.

Forty-five per cent of the nation.

If we have an election to-morrow, what will happen? That Party represents a part of a part, 33 out of 89 urban seats, and only six out of 71 rural seats. If I get into my car here and I drive until I reach the centre of Johannesburg, I do not enter a single U.P. constituency. I can make detours, but those detours must at least be wide enough to include Port Elizabeth on my way to Johannesburg before I can drive through a U.P. constituency. This reminds me of the chief warden of the zoo on the slopes of Table Mountain. He told me that the local climate does not agree with zebras, and at the moment there is only one zebra here. Nor does it seem to me as though the zebras are going to increase in number. It seems to me as though the Party over there is the zebra party of South Africa.

In conclusion, before the Leader of the Opposition rises, I want to say this. In its 33 years of existence that Party has fought seven elections. It started in 1938 with 111 seats. In 1943 they lost 22—then they only had 89; in 1948 they lost another 24—then they only had 65; in 1953 they lost another 8—then they only had 57; in 1958 they lost 4—then they had 53; in 1961 they lost 3—then they had 50, and the year before last they lost 11, and now there are only 39 of them. That is a Party which shows a deathly downward trend in every sphere, and it is the Leader of such a Party who now has to rise and reply to a debate on a motion of no-confidence in the Government.

Sir, when I saw that the hon. the Prime Minister had chosen the Minister of Planning to reply to this debate, I felt like offering hom my congratulations. The Minister of Planning has been away overseas: he has learned a little bit about what goes on in the world and he is in a position to judge pretty accurately just how much good and how much harm the outbursts of the Minister of Health about the A.F.S. scheme in this House yesterday could have done South Africa, and I felt sure that the hon. the Prime Minister had selected the hon. the Minister of Planning with his experience overseas, to tell us what the Cabinet’s attitude was in respect of that outburst But, Sir, the hon. gentleman did not tell us whether he agrees with what the hon. the Minister of Health said here yesterday about the A.F.S. scheme. Perhaps he will tell us whether he believes that it is doing our relationship with America a great deal of good.

Sir, the hon. gentleman over there got up and made a speech but unfortunately he forgot that some of us have long memories. It was much the same speech as the speeches which he made before he went overseas.

He was talking about the same party.

He has changed a few of the figures, but what did he do to refute the arguments which have been advanced on this side and to deal with the criticism which has been levelled at the Government? Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister was silent; the Minister of Planning did not deal with the subject. Must we assume that the Cabinet associates itself with the statement made here yesterday by the hon. the Minister of Health? Or is it that this great strong party opposite, about which we have had the Minister of Planning patting himself on the back for so long, is led by a Prime Minister who cannot control his own people? Sir, in opening this discussion I made mention of my satisfaction with certain aspects of the opening speech made by the Acting State President. I drew attention, inter alia, to the fact that the Government had given itself a pat on the back for not having followed Britain’s devaluation policy and complained that there was still vagueness and uncertainty as to the position in respect of certain primary producers and those who processed their goods for export to Great Britain which had devalued. When the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs came into the debate this afternoon, I was sure that he was going to make the position absolutely clear. What did we get? We had more vagueness; we had a reference to the original statement which says—

I thought that at least we would hear what a deserving case is, but not a word from the hon. gentleman. He tells us he is having discussions, three months after devaluation. He spoke about the canners and certain others and their difficulties. Does this hon. gentleman realize that the Australian Government has already made the position absolutely clear to its canners and that they are already in the market and undercutting us? Not a word about this from the hon. the Minister. We still do not know what the position is. The public does not know where these people are and they do not know where they are: how can they plan ahead? What is the position with the wine exporters? Sir, the whole position remains vague and uncertain, and after a four day debate, in which we have drawn attention to this matter and responsible Ministers have spoken, we have no further idea as to what the position is and it is as uncertain as it was before.

Have any of these people said that they are uncertain what the position is or is the position that you are uncertain?

I have had conversations with many of these people.

Have any of them made statements to that effect?

I do not know whether they have made public statements. I know what they have told me; I know exactly what they have told me.

When?

On Monday. I took the trouble to find out. I do not come to this House and make assertions that I cannot prove. I would like to know from the hon. the Prime Minister whether he has seen these people. Have they come and expressed their dissatisfaction to him?

They have not expressed any dissatisfaction about the arrangements which have been made.

All I can say is that the vagueness and uncertainty still remain. These people do not know where they are.

They know exactly where they are.

I can tell the hon. gentleman right here and now that a large number of farmers and a large number of canners are very dissatisfied indeed. Sir, I went further in opening this debate. I complained that it was an illusion in the minds of the public that this Government was good at managing the economy of the country. Sir, what did we have this afternoon? We had a penegyric from the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs as to how strong the economy was, but he did not tell us that it was strong because this Government was not carrying out its policy and he did not tell us that it was because of their misjudgments and their bad management of affairs that they have had to take such drastic measurer to deal with the cost of living and with inflation in South Africa. That charge was never refuted by the hon. the Minister. He knows very well that they have had to take drastic action. He knows very well that that is due to the fact that they delayed too long and did the wrong thing. And what is happening now? There has been a check in the rising cost of living but at what level has it been checked? Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister challenged us to give an example of any group that is not better off than it was two years ago. The hon. member for Durban (Point) got up and gave him six or seven examples.

That the standard of living has not improved; that is what I said.

Yes, that the standard of living has not improved. The hon. member for Durban (Point) gave six examples, one after the other and the Prime Minister cannot deny one of them. I have not the slightest doubt that the hon. the Prime Minister thinks that the civil servants and post office workers are better off to-day than they were two years ago, and that is why there is the biggest agitation we have known in South Africa from civil servants for increases in salaries and wages.

That has nothing to do with your point.

It has everything to do with it. The hon. the Minister told us what; wonderful peaceful labour relationships we had in South Africa. I would have thought that he would have the kindness, the charity, to have acknowledged that it is due to the industrial legislation which the United Party put on the Statute Book, but not a word from him; he does not even say “thank you”. Mr. Speaker, what we see is an erosion of living standards as a result of misjudgments, as a result of taking wrong actions, as a result of this Government acting too late. When I dealt with those things I said to the Prime Minister that the Government was asking the people to make sacrifices. They are asking the people to make sacrifices, and I said that we were entitled to certain assurances. Those assurances were that efficiency in Government departments was being raised effectively, that Government expenditure was being cut and co-ordinated and selected on a basis of priorities to protect the best interests of the whole economy; that we are getting value for money with this very big Defence spending and, lastly, that the Government has used all the means at its disposal to reduce the cost of living, for example, by reducing tariffs, costs of transport and by the removal of duties which put up costs. I did not get these assurances. I am not surprised that I did not get these assurances because the Prime Minister knows as well as I do that the hon. the Minister of Transport is sitting with a vast surplus on his transport charges, and I do not believe the hon. gentleman can give me those assurances in respect of any of those requests. Is he surprised that I have no confidence in the Government? I go further, Sir. I did not speak of agriculture but the question of soil conservation and agriculture has been raised here. Sir. a more miserable record than this Government’s record in regard to the management of those affairs we have never had in this country.

Have you ever heard of Strauss?

Sir, I dealt with education, technical training and research and I said that I felt that too little was being done. The hon. the Prime Minister agreed with me. Indeed, the Minister of National Education agreed with me. The Minister of Planning got up to-day and said, “How dare you say that too little is being done?” I say again that too little is being done.

Do not misconstrue his words.

He admitted that too little was being done.

He said that they had established certain new universities.

[Interjections.] Sir, we spoke to the Prime Minister about this question of funds for education and gifts for educational institutions. We raised the question with the hon. gentleman as to the conditions under which gifts can be given by private people to those institutions. They get no tax rebates for gifts of that kind; there is nothing to encourage them. I believe that there are essentially three problems to which we have to have regard here. The first is that we have to train the white people for leadership in South Africa. The second is that we have to do what we can to prevent the brain drain, and the third is that we have to improve the educational qualifications of all our people. I believe that only in that way are we going to have a strong economy, and that is why for 20 years on this side of the House we have said that we believe that the provision of adequate educational facilities is something that should be given priority in South Africa.

Why did you not do it when you had the opportunity?

Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister goes back 20 years and says: “Why didn’t you do this?” and “Why didn’t you do that?” Has he forgotten the difficulties that this country went through during the war years?

Not made easier by them.

Will he tell us what he did to help? Sir, we have said that the provision of proper educational facilities should be a prior claim. One of the difficulties we have to-day is that there is such a shortage of trained teachers. It is no good shilly-shallying about this; we have either got the teachers or we have not, and at the moment it seems that we have not got the teachers and that we will not get them unless we pay them better and unless we give them better opportunities. That is why I have said that I believe that expenditure on education will have to be doubled. I go further Sir. I believe our universities are in grave danger of becoming fifth-rate teaching institutions because of the way in which we fail to support them. I believe our professors and lecturers are the worst mid in the English-speaking world and we are not going to keep those people, good South Africans though they be, if that position is going to be allowed to continue. People do not take the momentous decision to leave their country unless they are so frustrated because of lack of facilities that they do not get a chance to live out to the full here.

I want to say something else, Sir. We are a young country; we have to compete in world markets without the opportunities of mass production. Our dependence on the scientists and experts we have is something that is becoming daily more obvious, and that is why we have said on this side of the House and invited the Government to support us, that every white child, regardless of its parents’ financial position, should be educated up to the maximum of his ability free of charge. We have said that. We received no support from the Government for those appeals.

When you were in power you did not even provide education facilities in the primary schools.

The hon. gentleman really must not think one’s memory is so short.

Every child went to school; not a single child was not at school.

I go further and I say it is not going to be enough only to educate our Whites but we have to educate our non-Whites to higher educational standards so that they can be more productive in the interests of the whole country. An illiterate untrained man in the modern world is no good to you. I know the number of non-Whites in higher education is very limited indeed. There is only an infinitesimal number. I know that expenditure on non-White education has been stepped up very much in the last 20 years. But we are still in the position that the per capita expenditure on Bantu in schools, on Bantu education, is R13.5 per head against R74.5 for Coloureds and Indians and R114.1 for Whites. I want to say that a policy of encouraging self-help and co-operation amongst the Bantu is a good one, but we cannot hope for one moment that they are going to be able to come out within the limits of that R13 million fixed ten years ago for Bantu education. I do not believe it is fair that what is by far the poorest group in the country should not be assisted more by the state in order to try to attain higher standards. I know we cannot afford free education for everybody up to Matric because there are too many non-Whites. But we can do a great deal more than we are doing at the present time. It is with those objects in view that we on this side were so much in favour of free education for Whites, that we have encouraged large white families, that we have stood for family allowances through the years, that we have stood for subsidized housing schemes. I know I will be asked, “Where is the money going to come from?’’. I believe that with higher productive capacity this country will find the money and be wealthier than it is at the present time as a result.

Then I have had to deal with the protection of the white worker. I dealt with the illusion that this Government was the friend of the white worker in South Africa. We drew attention to the threat of the border industries and queried whether the workers in those industries were all working under wage determinations. I wanted to know whether they were working under industrial agreements negotiated with the trade unions. I pointed out that there was this wage gap, that there was wage differentiation which the department said was due to lower living standards of the Bantu working in the border industries. Now, what has been done to close the gap? There have been a lot of figures given, by my hon. friend from Yeoville and by the hon. the Minister, and I see there were some more figures in The Star of the 6th of this month. The report reads as follows—

The fact of the matter remains that the Bantu are pouring into our industries three times as fast as the European, and it does not matter whose figures are right or whose figures are wrong. It shows that economic integration is still continuing at a very high pace. It shows that the Government is not able to do anything to lessen the interdependence upon each other in the economic sphere of the different races. They still work together in the same industries, whether they are in Rosslyn or whether they are on the Witwatersrand. White and Black are still working together in the same industries.

I am sufficient of a realist to accept that the employer must be prevented from exploiting the opportunity to employ non-Whites in white jobs at a lower wage, at a lower rate of pay. Unfortunately job reservation cannot protect the white worker as long as there are too few Whites to do all the jobs that are available. The Government’s policy, their Bantustan policy, is creating jobs for Blacks in white areas and reducing job opportunities for Whites in the existing industrial areas. Border development is actually encouraging the recruiting of non-Whites to do white jobs and under-cutting the Whites. Many industries are lost already to the White worker. The whole province of Natal is probably lost. Industrialists cannot be blamed for taking advantage of the opportunities that the Government gives them. But the upshot of it all is that the white worker is being left high and dry. An experienced trade unionist at the moment said that the white worker “is fighting for his very existence against this state of affairs being created by the Government”. These people are demanding a solution from the Government. What is the solution they are demanding? I believe the solution they are demanding is the solution the United Party has been offering through the years, namely the rate for the job. Here is what Mr. Murray, the president of the TUCSA said. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister said they do not want it. Let me read what Mr. Murray said, president of possibly the biggest trade union council in the country and general secretary of the Boilermakers’ Society. He predicts that the coming year will be “the turning point in the affairs of the white worker in South Africa”. He says—

Then he goes on to deal with mechanization and automation, which we hear so much about from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. He says—

Is “the rate for the job” enough? I do not believe that “the rate for the job” is adequate protection alone, because one has to accept that there are a number of white workers who will fall by the wayside. I believe there is a very small number. But I believe there are a number who will fall by the wayside. Therefore, I believe we have to go back to our old civilized labour policy. I believe that we have to be prepared to accept a national minimum wage for the white worker in South Africa.

I go further. I believe that the Industrial Tribunal, whose function it has been to issue job reservation orders, has been kept equally busy with exemptions. I believe there are over 800 different exemptions already. I believe that that tribunal should be kept busy formulating proposals which will enable it to act as a sort of court of appeal or an ombudsman for any section of the white labour group who feels that their jobs have been threatened by competition from non-Whites at a lower standard of living. I believe that has got to come. I want to say I have great faith in our trade unions in assisting in adaptations which will be necessary. They have a lot of experience, and they have done it so far on terms that have been acceptable to themselves. I suggested some time ago that there should be a national convention on labour matters. I believe it is even more urgent to-day than it was then. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Labour whether in border industries the industrial agreements are operative at all? Will he tell us whether, where there have been re-allocation of jobs, they have been done with the consent and approval of the trade unions concerned?

When there is a reclassification of jobs in a border industry it is done in conjunction with the white trade unions. [Interjections.]

There is unhappiness about this. I believe the Industrial Tribunal could play a real role as a court of appeal in order to ensure that the white worker has proper protection.

If I could sum it up, I would say that we are not going to solve our problems until South Africa is ensured of a sufficient supply of trained labour by the provision of better education facilities and technical training. We are not going to get a solution until all race groups know that they will get an improvement in their standard of living when changes in the labour pattern are made. I have said already there must be special attention paid to the education of Whites. Special attention has also got to be paid to the training of non-Whites and more attention to management and productivity. I believe that the trade unions must be entrusted as far as possible with the task of smooth adjustment to changing labour patterns and that we must give consideration to a national minimum wage for the white worker in South Africa. I believe until those things are done the white worker is not going to get protection. I do not believe he has adequate protection under this government. I believe that this story that the Government is the friend of the white worker is not being proved to be the position and that the white worker is faced with a crisis to-day more serious then at any time in his history.

I raised a fourth matter, and that was the illusion that the separate development or non-European policy of this Government was giving a solution to Black-White relations in the Republic. What is the yardstick, what is the test of success? Hon. members opposite have made it quite clear what their test is, namely that the reserves should be able to absorb the natural increase of their inhabitants and give them jobs at a decent standard of living. They also hope that the reserves will be able to absorb those whom the hon. the Deputy Minister hopes to send back from the white areas. What success have they had? If one looks at the figures, if one sees what has been happening then one cannot help using the phrase of which General Smuts was so fond. He said, “Hulle retireer vol moed—maar hulle retireer.” That is what is happening with these people.

The question is, can this policy of theirs be made into a reality? That is the question with which we are faced. I gave certain figures as to what it has cost to create jobs in border industries. I gave figures of what it had cost to create jobs inside the reserves. Despite the fact that we have had the entire talent of the Ministry of Bantu Administration and Development, not one of those figures has been challenged. It is quite clear from those figures that it looks like something of the order of R800 million just to resettle the 400,000 families in agriculture. It looks as though jobs shall have to be found for a natural increase of 39,000 males alone in the reserves every year, and it looks as if there is no hope whatever at the moment of the measures they have taken being adequate to achieve their objective, let alone give work to the Bantu they intend sending back to the reserves. They are spending something like R100 million per year on the reserves at the moment, but just to get work for the 39,000 will probably cost R195 million a year more. It is quite clear that in order to bring about a change that will give them a chance of success is going to cost thousands of millions of rand.

We had great claims from the various Ministers that there was development in the reserves. We were told what tremendous improvement there was there and what vast progress had been made. Well, I took the trouble of finding out what the average income per head was of a Bantu in the reserves at the time the Tomlinson Commission sat. That commission found that for the year 1950-’51 the average income per head of the Bantu in the reserves was of the order of R48. Dr. Adendorff, the chairman of the Bantu Investment Corporation, gave the figure for the period 15, 16 years later and according to this the average income per head in the reserves to-day is R53. Having regard to the decrease in the value of money since 1950-’51, can any Minister get up here and tell me that those people are to-day enjoying a better standard of living? Can they get up and tell me that there has been any improvement? On the contrary—there has been a deterioration. It is for this reason that I pointed out that the Bantu themselves would be able to give very little help financially with the result that that financial help would have to come from the white economy. And what is happening about it? Of course, we are being told by Ministers that we ought not to worry, that we should be proud of the fact that the income per head of the Bantu in the reserves is higher than in any Bantu state in Africa. But let us accept Dr. Adendorff’s figures—R53 per head, R22 of which is earned in the reserves and R31 being contributions from relatives outside the reserves. Let me say here that it gives me no pleasure at all to quote these figures because they prove that the Minister’s statement is totally incorrect. I have the figures here of the average income per head in certain other states in Africa, figures supplied by the Africa Institute. In Zambia it is R139; in Senegal, R146; in Rhodesia, R153 (including the Whites); in Liberia, R175; in Lesotho, R70; in the Ivory Coast, R99; in Gabon R227; in Egypt, R97; in Angola, R66; in Botswana, our neighbour. R70; in the Congo, R99; and in the Congo (Kinshasa), R66. This then is a comparison of the average income per head of the Bantu population of those countries with the average income per head of the Bantu in the reserves in South Africa.

You are comparing the Bantu in the reserves on the one hand with the total population of these countries on the other hand. These are two different things.

But we have been told in this House that the standard of living of the Bantu in the reserves in South Africa is higher than in any emergent State in Africa.

But you are comparing the population of the reserves only with the total population of the countries you mentioned.

I have compared the income of our Bantu in the reserves with the income of Bantu in the countries I have mentioned, where there are practically no Whites whatsoever. And I have proved that what we have been told is entirely incorrect. It gives me no satisfaction to have to prove this. It gives me no satisfaction at all—it is a tragic state of affairs. So, this is the progress we have been told about. This is the measure of the Government’s failure to develop the reserves. This is the illusion that they have the solution. I have asked the Government what it is going to cost to make their policy a success. Well, either they do not know, or they are afraid to tell the people of South Africa. The truth of the matter is, I think, that they are afraid to tell the people. I believe they are afraid that the people of South Africa will say that the sacrifice they are being called upon to make makes the Government’s policy entirely unrealistic.

Never!

The hon. gentleman says “Never!” Can he then tell me what it is going to cost?

I have told you already.

The Minister says he has already told us. But what he did tell us was that no price was to be regarded as too high. As a matter of fact, it did not matter what it would cost. But he never told us what the cost would be. And he will not tell us. Next year we shall ask him again and he still will not tell us. He is afraid to tell us what the cost will be because he is afraid to let the people of South Africa realize how unrealistic this policy is.

Now, Sir, what can be done to improve the situation? We want to see the reserves developed just as much as the Government wants to see them developed.

Apparently it is not going to cost you anything to do that.

What we believe is that it can be done much more cheaply. We believe it can be done much more cheaply if private white capital, properly controlled, is allowed into the reserves.

What are we spending there now that you will not spend?

In the first instance, we do not have the same objective as you have. If the Prime Minister’s policy is to be a success he has to spend ten times as much as he is spending now—he has to spend thousands of millions of he is to connect his policy to reality at all.

What money are we spending there now which you will not spend when you come into power?

That is not the point at all. The hon. the Prime Minister is trying to drag a red herring across the trail, and he is doing that because he is going to spend R491 million within the next five years and he is afraid the people will jib at it. Therefore he wants me to say that it is necessary. I believe that if private white industry is allowed in he could get away with spending a good deal less. But I want to take the matter further and draw his attention to what Professor Sadie, the professor of economy at the University of Stellenbosch, has to say. I think it is vitally important that this be drawn to the attention of the Government. Professor Sadie said this—

He says that in terms of developing the reserves the border industry policy is utterly misconceived. He proceeds to deal with the criticism of that policy, the suggestion that it is colonialism in a modern form. Then he says—

In regard to the development of the reserves he says—

For how long has the United Party not been saying this? For how long have we not been pointing out how vitally important it is that the reserves should be developed? You see, Sir, this Government is still sitting under its policy with one unanswered problem—how to cope realistically with the Bantu outside the reserves, increasing at the moment faster than the Bantu inside the reserves. If the Prime Minister’s policy does not work—and it cannot work because he cannot spend the necessary money on it—what is he going to do about this problem? He cannot continue with what he is doing at the moment. He cannot continue in that way because that is going to lead to political insecurity in South Africa. Now I believe that there is an alternative. I believe that if you want political security, it must guarantee white survival and give us the assurance that we will live in peace with the non-Whites in South Africa. I think that if we are to live in peace with them, they must feel that their demands will be satisfied and that they will be given a square deal, and they must believe that they also have a great future in the Republic. I think that securing these aims means many problems because we are outnumbered so much. It means protecting the Whites against the undermining of their standards on the one hand and it means helping the non-Whites to realize their aspirations on the other. All South Africans have a reasonable fear of being swamped by sheer preponderance of numbers. I think that fear persists in white South Africans. They have it about their homes, about the conditions where they work. They have it about their schools and their children’s education. They have it about places of recreation. They have it about this House, Sir. They have those fears. We recognize those fears, and instead of offering the doubtful security of a smaller, poorer and defenceless white South Africa surrounded by eight independent black states, we believe we can offer real security and prosperity and happiness for a far greater number of the people. This is how I believe the excessive movement of the Bantu from the reserves into the white areas can be checked. I believe that that means that those reserves have to be developed far faster than at the moment I believe that we have to retain reasonable and necessary influx control and that the only Bantu allowed into the white areas must be those for whom there is work. I believe there must be a stronger white nation built by encouraging an increase in the white birth rate, with adequate family allowances as I have indicated, and by immigration.

“Botha-Botha-babas”.

Yes, “Botha-Botha-babas”. I believe that the quality of white leadership must be maintained by the best possible education for the Whites in South Africa. I believe the unlimited growth of South Africa will ensure higher living standards for everybody. I believe that race harmony can only be fostered by maintaining separation in residential areas, at schools, by respecting the sanctity of family life, by applying the pass-laws in a just manner and by building up a stable middle class of Bantu. I believe unfair competition for jobs will be eliminated by ensuring that there are civilized rates for civilized jobs. I believe that we can improve the economic position of the country by developing new industries not only in border areas but also in new areas on the basis of a sound system of decentralization.

As regards border industries I want to say that we in the United Party have never been blind to the advantages of decentralization for economic, sociological and strategic reasons. But care and attention must be given to that. It is not right that for strategic reasons all our development should be in half a dozen highly developed areas. It is true that the urbanization of the Bantu people brings many problems in its train. But at the same time there may be cases where there will be an advantage in moving a factory to the worker rather than the workers to the factories. The paramount consideration remains that the policy of decentralization must not be carried out in a manner that will lead to the disruption of the economy as a whole. It must have regard to what industry can bear and the costs of production and productivity. I have listed several important points to which I believe the Government should give attention. But I believe that the security of the Republic and loyalty to the Republic can only be ensured by establishing a federal form of government here in South Africa. I believe that a federal form of government will allow for group differences and varying rates of development and will provide the protection of one authority over the whole country. The fundamental principle in the race federation scheme is that each group administers its own affairs through its own institutions of Government as far as possible. In order to elect representatives to such communal institutions or councils there must logically be separate voters’ rolls. But equally fundamental is the principle that each race must be representated in the body that deals with matters of common concern and exercises sovereignty over all South Africans, that is the central Parliament.

Will that policy affect the Provincial Council of the Cape as far as the representation of the Coloureds is concerned in any way?

It will affect the Provincial Council of the Cape in that the Provincial Council will be the white communal council and the Coloureds will have their own Coloured Council.

In other words, you will take away the two representatives in the Provincial Council.

That is right, but representation here in this House will not be taken away.

You have always had the Coloured and the white representative in one council. That is stated in your booklet.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows that there have been certain variations. He also knows that those variations carried the support of every single man on this side of the House.

You did not announce that before to-day.

Oh yes. I do not think that the hon. the Minister paid sufficient attention to what was going on in Bloemfontein.

I have noticed that hon. members opposite have been very quick to seize upon the figures of the number of representatives for the Coloureds, Bantu and the Indians, both in this House and in the Upper House. They have been particularly anxious to seize upon the fact that Coloureds will have the right to elect their own people. But they have been very disappointed to find that we did not think it was right that the Bantu should be represented by Bantu. The hon. the Prime Minister particularly has criticized me very severely for having changed my mind on that subject. Just to put the record right I want to read to him what was said by the late Prime Minister on the issue of sovereign independent black states. This is what he said in 1951:

Then a pamphlet was written at the time of one of the previous elections. This is what it said:

Mr. Speaker, do you know who was the author of that pamphlet? It was the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. There later came a change in that policy, because that is not their policy at the moment.

That pamphlet states that only Parliament can change it, if necessary.

It is not their policy to make them sovereign independent states. It makes that quite clear. I now wish to quote a part of the speech of the late Prime Minister when he announced the change—

In other words, Sir, the policy has been changed, and changed as a result of pressure from outside, since the announcement on the 10th April, 1961 (Afrikaans Hansard, Vol. 107, Col. 4277). The hon. the Prime Minister is welcome to study it. He will find that the whole basis of his policy to-day, is a change brought about by pressure from outside. Then he complains, Sir, that I have changed my mind and say that there is no pressure for Black to sit in the House. The point I had wanted to come to is this. While hon. gentlemen have paid so much attention to the representation of Bantu and other non-Whites in this House, they missed one of the essential [inks in the policy we have outlined. That is that there should be a link by way of a committee of this House with a committee of each of the communal councils, and that that joint committee should be bound by Statute to consult on matters affecting the non-white people dealt with in this House. In other words there would be a link with the Coloured Council, a link with the Indian Council, and a link with the different Bantu Communal Councils, which would result in their being able to discuss matters of importance to the non-European people. It would result in their being able to get a clear idea of each other’s point of view. We would not be faced with the position that when we came to this House we had to rely on what the Minister says the non-European is wanting; there would be people in this House who would have discussed the matters with them and had their point of view. But I am not going to deal with the representation of the various groups. It has been set out in every Nationalist propaganda newspaper and every nationalist organ. What I am going to say is that the picture of federation emerges clearly. A separate role for each group; a communal council or councils for each group; defined representation for each group in the central Parliament; and links between the various groups and the central Parliament by a system of linking committees. On that road I believe lies future development in South Africa. By way of the linking committees we can get the position where there will be a greater understanding of each other’s desires, aspirations and needs. I think, Sir, that the concept of apartheid fails, because it is utterly impracticable. We are not separated economically, territorially or politically in South Africa.

May I just put another question in this connection at this stage?

With pleasure, let me just finish this section. You see, Sir, we can practise conventional separation on social levels; that is sensible. But to think that we can live in separate states divorced from one another, I believe, is an impossibility. Nor do we think of an integrated society, we are against that. If we were to do that, we would ignore all the facts of the situation as they are at the present time in South Africa. I give way to the hon. the Prime Minister now.

May I, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, put the following question to the hon. member: If he has now given these different groups different numbers of representatives, what will the attitude of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition be if pressure is once again brought to bear for the numbers to be increased or the colour of the representatives to be changed?

The attitude of the United Party in reply to that question is that we have stated the numbers that we are prepared to give, and we believe that we are strong enough to resist any pressure … [Interjections.] We believe we are strong enough, Mr. Speaker, because we know that we will have the support of that side of the House. They have four representatives of the Coloured people in this House. Has the Government given them more when they were asked for? They have had three representatives of the Bantu people in this House, and the Government did not hesitate to take them away.

But the member for Yeoville stated that the representation in numbers will depend on the degree of civilization that they have reached.

There was no question of degree of civilization. The numbers have been laid down by the congress and by those numbers we stand. We will go further and change the Constitution to provide that their representation cannot be altered without a general election or a referendum of the white voters at which there is a substantial majority to protect the limitations. [Interjections.]

Order!

You are repudiating the statement made by the hon. member that I have on black and white.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a party to the decisions in Bloemfontein, they had his full support and he stands completely with me on this issue.

The hon. the Prime Minister has been giving guarantees, but I can give guarantees too. They can rely on my guarantees. I believe that this is a development on the basis of which we can have progress in South Africa, and that the federal concept is the only basis on which the races can live together within one state in South Africa. Thereby we can channel the individual abilities and the contributions of each race, to the best advantage of all. In a nutshell, if I may put it this way, the United Party policy, I believe, will strengthen and protect the role of the Whites in South Africa; will develop the country’s resources in order to strengthen its economy; will improve continually the standards of living of the people of all races; and will establish a system of government that will ensure that all races cooperate harmoniously to their mutual benefit, freeing other groups of the fear of being swamped by a black majority, by providing opportunities for the full development of the Bantu people themselves. We maintain naturally traditional, social and residential separation. I believe we can make South Africa stronger than it would ever be under divided authority, by keeping it under one authority. I think it is right, after all that we have heard of the criticism of this policy on the other side—very ill-informed criticism—that I should quote from a body of opinion, which I know hon. members opposite do not regard as being English Press. There was an evaluation of that policy by an organ of the English Press—

That is the Cape Times of 30th October of last year. Hon. gentlemen opposite will know that the English-language Press has often criticized the United Party, just as the Nationalist Party Press has criticized the United Party. They have the courage to come out and say when they believe we are right and when we are wrong. But that has not been the attitude of the “slaafse Pers” of the Nationalist Party. “Slaafse Pers” is not my phrase, it is the phrase of the Chief Editor of Dagbreek, Dirk Richards. He wrote a most interesting article on the 21st January in which he said some remarkable things.

I repudiate it. [Interjections.]

It could not worry me if the hon. the Minister decides to repudiate it. Here is a gentleman who in a rather touching way has at last seen the light, and he asks where has the Afrikaans Press failed in its duty by not showing what the iniquity was in the High Court of Parliament Act, by not pointing out the difficulties of the Group Areas Act? He alleges it failed in its duty by not getting proper support for the Tomlinson Report. He says it failed in its duty by not drawing attention to the implications of the speech by the former Prime Minister at the Loskop Dam. This is a touching article. It is interesting that it should have appeared in a newspaper of which, I believe, the hon. the Minister of Transport is a director. I believe also the hon. the Minister of Health is a director.

That is a personal opinion and not the policy of the newspaper.

The hon. gentleman says it is a personal opinion and not the policy of the newspaper. This is the Chief Editor of that group of newspapers, who through the years has loyally supported the Nationalist Party. I believe the time is coming when gentlemen like this are going to realize that what this Government is doing now is wrong, and I believe they are going to come out in due course and say, “We have supported you to the point where our consciences no longer allow us to support unrealistic policies which have no hope of bringing peace and happiness to South Africa.” They found it once before, and they are going to find it again. I forecast that the time will come when people like this will be supporting this side of the House and they will appreciate the sound grounds on which we lack confidence in the present Government.

Motion put and the House divided:

Tellers: A. Hopewell, and T. G. Hughes.

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe, and H. J. van Wyk.

Motion accordingly negatived.