I move—

The Revenue Laws Amendment Bill, which is of a highly technical nature, as hon. members can see, amends a number of taxation laws, in the first place, to give effect to taxation proposals which have been laid upon the Table and, in the second place, to provide for the imposition of certain taxes of the Republic, namely transfer duties, stamp duties, and marketable securities tax in South-West Africa, with effect from 1st October, 1969.

In addition, certain other amendments are proposed which relate mainly to the said taxes. Some of the amendments are of a purely administrative nature, for example the amendment effected by clause 2 to the Marketable Securities Tax Act, which provides for an extension of the period in which the marketable securities tax is payable; or the amendment effected by clause 8 to section 12 of the Transfer Duty Act, in which a change is made in the duties of registration officers in order to relieve them of the unnecessary work involved in the careful checking of transfer duty receipts—something which is done by the Revenue Department and audit inspectors; or the amendment made by clause 21 to section 24 (4) (a) of the Stamp Duties Act in order to lay down an alternative basis for the preparation of the quarterly statements of shortterm insurers.

Other amendments effect certain changes in the taxes. For example, provision is made for exemption from the stamp duty on the transfer of marketable securities by a foreign parent company to a South African subsidiary company in the case where such a transfer takes place at the transfer of a branch of the parent company in the Republic. This exemption may be compared to a similar exemption from transfer duties which was introduced in the Transfer Duty Act in 1964.

The amendment made by clause 26 (1) (c) to Item 18 (7) of the Stamp Duties Act with reference to cessions of insurance policies may also be mentioned. The stamp duty on a cession of an insurance policy is only applicable to life insurance policies at present. In terms of the amendment all insurance policies, for example fire insurance policies, will also be subject to the stamp duty on cessions. This amendment reinstates the position as it existed under the Stamp Duties Act of 1962. Cessions of policies are usually made in order to provide security for a money debt and it is found that such cessions often have to be stamped in terms of the higher stamp duty under Item 20. As a result of the amendment of Item 18 (7) a lower stamp duty will be payable in the cases which I mentioned.

Important amendments are made by clauses 20 (1) (h) and 25 (1) (b) in order to combat evasion of the stamp duty in respect of the registration of transfer of marketable securities. By making use of the provisions of the Companies Act the shares of a shareholder in a company can be cancelled so that his interest in the company automatically passes to the remaining shareholders without registration of transfer. Stamp duty is levied on cancellations of shares (with or without return of capital) where the shareholder is also compensated in another way, for example where shares in another company are issued to him (with or without subscription).

The provisions relating to cancellations of shares, as well as the other provisions of the Bill, are dealt with in the explanatory memorandum which is in the possession of hon. members.

As the hon. the Minister has pointed out, the principal purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the Budget proposals in regard to stamp duties and the marketable securities tax and to bring South-West Africa within the scope of certain Acts. For the rest, there are mostly administrative amendments and, after examining them, we have no comment to offer.

Clause 6 of this Bill makes provision for the authorities to impose transfer duty in respect of a property where a transaction apparently has not taken place at arm’s length and a valuation has to be made by the officials concerned for stamp duty purposes and transfer duty purposes. Now, it has always been the position in the past that where a property or a piece of land has been sold and the price is not a fair value the Commissioner or the Receivers of Revenue have had the right to fix what they consider to be a fair value, but that has been the end of the transaction. The value has been fixed, the duty has been paid and the transaction is complete. Now, in terms of clause 6 of this Bill, the authorities take unto themselves the right to further revise the valuation within a period of two years, and this is going to create an enormous amount of uncertainty in regard to transactions. In other words, one sells or buys a property to-day and one pays the transfer duty on the value assessed by the authority concerned and then within a period of two years there is a possibility of that value being revised. I think it is wrong that we should have this type of uncertainty in our legislation. After all, the official, whoever he may be, who fixes the valuation is an official who is operating under delegated authority so to do and I do not think it is correct for the hon. the Minister and the Department to come to us and say that when it is reviewed by the inspector he shall have the right to make a change. Surely when an official makes a valuation for transfer duty or stamp duty purposes, that should then be the valuation. The Department should not be able to come back within a period of two years and say that they now want to revise the duty and you will have to pay more, particularly to-day when land is changing hands so rapidly. Over a period of two years you may find that there have been two or three owners and that the value even in a year’s time or six months after the transaction has taken place may be so enhanced as the result of circumstances that it might affect the basic valuation of the original sale retrospectively. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister why this clause is necessary, because once an official of the Department has made a valuation we believe the Department should stand by it.

The hon. member for Parktown mentioned the uncertainty which exists in regard to a transaction when the Department is able to review the valuation again later. Of course, this uncertainty exists in any case at present when a transaction takes place and when a valuation is placed on the transaction. The Department can at any time go back and re-examine that transaction. Hon. members will know that in the case of such a transaction there are two prices in the first place, the buying price or the compensation which is paid, say, for a piece of land and, secondly, if no compensation was paid, there is the declared value. On one of those two values the duty is paid. The Department can now at any time go back and query either of those values and place a higher value on it. Now, the Act states that once the Department has placed its own value on it, it is final. According to a court decision, we cannot do it a second time, but now it often happens in practice that a transaction takes place and that stamp duties are paid either according to the declared value or according to the selling price. Then, in practice, an official of the Department goes and attaches another value to it, the fair value. In practice you often find that this official is an ordinary clerk who has little or no knowledge of that kind of thing and who places a completely wrong value on that item. If these were all senior officials who determined this fair value then it would have been a different matter, but in practice this is not the case. The magistrate’s office may be situated in a Small place and the representative of the Department may be a completely junior official who places a value on it which is a completely fictitious value. That is why we ask that the Secretary may go back within two years; where he has an unlimited period in other cases, we ask him to be allowed to go back in these cases within two years only. It is in order to protect the Department in cases where it does not get enough transfer duties. I think this is quite fair.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, in the circumstances I shall reply very briefly. I just want to refer to a few matters. The hon. member for Constantia raised the point that there were very few data available on which we based this sales duty, and he also said that the data that were available, were outdated. As regards the second aspect, the question of the data being outdated, I just want to say that it can at least be accepted that we adapted the data on a percentage basis to bring them into line with the position in more recent years. As regards the incompleteness of the data on which we based this sales duty, I just want to say that the matter was very thoroughly investigated and that the data were not as incomplete as hon. members might think. Hon. members must bear in mind that the Franzsen Commission went into this matter very thoroughly and that the commission had experts before it to calculate how much this sales duty could possibly yield, and the evidence, data and statistics that were at the disposal of the Franzsen Commission have admittedly not been published, but they were also available to the Department, which continually had some of its best officials with the Franzsen Commission, and which co-operated with the Franzsen Commission. For that reason I can only say that the result we arrived at on the basis of the figures we had available, was arrived at to the best of our ability. This is, if I may call it thus, a pure calculation, a pure assessment, on the basis of figures we made as reliable as possible, but to conclude this point, I just want to point out that there are no statistics in South Africa in connection with the introduction of a sales duty. We will now for the first time be building up statistics in respect of sales duty in South Africa, and we shall have statistics in this regard at the end of this year and at the end of the next few years, so that in future this House will be able to base its policy and the implementation of its policy on scientific grounds.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) referred to the initial confusion, the initial uncertainty and the problems that initially arose in connection with the application of the sales duty as it was introduced. The hon. member admitted that one could not consult people or negotiate with them beforehand, because it was a duty which had major implications at introduction, because it took effect from the moment it was tabled. That is why initially there were many problems and even a measure of confusion. We were entering a totally new field, but I want to repeat that I think that in two months’ time we have made excellent progress in introducing order into this whole situation. Before leaving this second point, I also just want to mention that it was decided that it would be a duty that would be introduced in respect of commodities at varying rates and that the duty would be levied at the starting point. It must be very clear that it is not a general turnover tax, and because it is such a tax, it is in my opinion a tax that cannot be handled in any way than the way in which we are handling it, i.e. through integration with the Customs and Excise Act. The practical problems mentioned by the hon. member we can discuss separately under the various clauses of the Bill in the Committee Stage.

Then the hon. member for Durban (Point) referred to last year’s legislation. He repeated what he said last year, i.e. that the legislation was unnecessary, that it was too wide and was put through too hurriedly. I just want to tell the House that all the clauses but one of the legislation we passed here last year, have been implemented, and that they are working well. It is my conviction that the legislation was necessary to the better administration of the Customs and Excise Act. The hon. member also said that the impression had been created that the entire trade had been involved in fraud. I want to tell the hon. member that this is a totally wrong statement. I cannot accept this; I reject that statement. Neither the hon. the Minister nor the Deputy Minister nor the Secretary created that impression. It may be the hon. member’s personal impression, and if he repeats it, which he is free to do, I shall be glad if he will substantiate it with quotations from the speeches or statements of the responsible people, i.e. the Minister, the Deputy Minister, and the Secretary, because we have never stated or implied that the entire trade which is connected with customs and excise is not to be trusted.

The hon. member also referred to the court cases that took place, and said that the small number of court cases was proof that the mountain had brought forth a mouse. I just want to tell the hon. member that the court cases that have already been heard, are only those that were heard in the Cape Division of the Supreme Court. My information is that other cases will follow in other provinces.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, we have come to the final stage, the Third Reading, of the Appropriation Bill, where it is customary not to move an amendment because if the amendment is successful, nobody will get paid. But that does not mean that we are satisfied with the administration of the country by this Government. Far from it. I want to say in the first instance that we are disappointed that the Minister in moving the Third Reading, did not give us an indication of his final surplus. I think we should at least have the final figures because we have only had estimates submitted to us so far and some of these estimates are not very well calculated guesses. We would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether the surplus is bigger than he indicated in his Budget speech, and, if so, how much it is bigger so that the country may know to what extent it has been overtaxed by this Government for yet another year.

Sir, there still remain some problems which worry the people concerned with finance in this country. The Minister has indicated that he is trying to get an increase in the price of gold. We wish him well in that task, but his predecessor, the late Dr. Dönges, also indicated that he was hoping to get an increase in the price of gold; his predecessor, the late Mr. Havenga, also indicated that he hoped to get an increase in the price of gold, and we are still looking for the pot at the end of the rainbow and wonder when that increase is coming. I do not suppose the Minister will be able to tell us, but year after year we are kept alive with this promise and with the suggestion that when this problem is resolved, then all our difficulties will be over. Of course, that is far from being the case. All our difficulties will not be over when the price of gold is increased.

But meanwhile we have had a further difficulty in the past year and that is the difficulty of selling gold. The Minister knows that he has had difficulties overseas with the International Monetary Fund. He prefers this matter not to be debated in detail in this House and we respect his request; we realize his difficulties, but on the other hand we realize that South Africa, while it is still the biggest producer of gold and is still the biggest possible seller of gold, is still kept at bay because we cannot determine the price of gold by putting it on the free market in large quantities, because it will have the effect of depressing the price of gold, and a depression in the price of gold will add to the difficulties of this Government.

Sir, we find that the difficulties in regard to the sale of gold on the free market have brought with them a further problem and that is the problem of Special Drawing Rights. The Minister has indicated in the Other Place that he expects shortly to resolve these difficulties with regard to Special Drawing Rights and the difficulties with regard to the sale of gold to the International Monetary Fund and on the free market. But our doubt is this: Is that promise going to prove to be as optimistic as the promise with regard to an increase in the price of gold? Are we going to be kept on the end of a bit of string for another session or another two, three or four sessions? It is guess work all the time, but meanwhile can we be satisfied that the Minister has control of the situation? So far as the International financial situation is concerned, the Minister has no control over it; he is entirely dependent upon his negotiations with the banking members of the International Monetary Fund; he is dependent upon his success in his negotiations with overseas bankers and with international organizations, and there he is very much in the minority. The indications are that he has received a certain amount of support in recent months, but he is faced with the real difficulty in this country that while he has very high gold reserves, he is short of foreign exchange for the requirements of the country. He has been able to make an agreement recently which has tided him over his immediate difficulties, but we do not know to what extent this is a temporary patch-up and how far it is going to carry him between now and the next session. Whether the Minister can give us any information at this stage, I do not know, but so long as this matter is in doubts, so long will we have the present difficulties in the international field, which in turn have their effect on the local field.

As far as internal finance is concerned, I think the Minister will agree with us that we are very much out of balance. The Minister is uncertain as to whether to have fiscal or monetary control; whether to have the discipline of the one or the discipline of the other or the discipline of both, but we have the unusual position that to-day in South Africa it is easier to get an overdraft to buy shares than to get a loan from the building societies to buy a house. That is the position; it is easier to get a loan or an overdraft to speculate on shares or to buy shares than to get a loan from the building societies, and it is almost as difficult to get a loan from the building societies as to get a loan from the Land Bank. That is a ludicrous position. Sir, when things go well financially, the Government takes credit for it, and when we are in a financial tangle, as we are at the present moment, then the Government must take the blame for it.

I would like to know from the Minister whether he sees any daylight as far as the building societies are concerned. He introduced a Bill this Session, which was passed the other day, which indicated that the Minister hoped to resolve some of the problems of the building societies. But will this new legislation cure those difficulties, or will the borrowing rate of the building societies be increased. If the borrowing rate is increased, will the rate at which the building societies borrow from the public, i.e. 7 per cent, be increased to attract funds, and if that is increased, will the lending rate of the building societies be increased? Will it go up from 8½ per cent to 9 per cent or 9½ per cent? Because if that is the only way to attract funds to the building societies, what success will the Minister have with his RSA loans?

If the building societies increase their borrowing rate to more than 7 per cent, and increase their lending rate as well, they will experience further difficulties. To-day the public who are speculating are not interested in returns on their investments. They are more interested in growth, which will yield no tax to the fiscus, and which will help them to make a profit. The excess liquidity which we find at the moment in the banking sector is creating difficulties of speculation, a shortage of funds in building societies, and a shortage of funds in the Land Bank, as far as the general public are concerned. The Minister’s colleague in Australia said the other day that too much money is in circulation. He proposed that exchange control be relaxed. The Minister of Finance the other day indicated that, while exchange control was under consideration, it was not promised. Now who is right? Does the Minister foresee that there is going to be a relaxation of exchange control? If there is a relaxation of exchange control, will investment in other countries to the north of us be encouraged? If such investment is encouraged, how will the Minister answer those workers in South Africa, those ordinary people who wish to obtain loans from building societies? How will he explain to them that money is available for investment outside South Africa, but that it is not available for them to build their own homes?

These are problems of financial management with which the Minister is concerned. The problem I have just mentioned is one of those he will have to solve. He has my sympathy because of the difficulty of these problems. They are not easy to solve. However, it is our duty to show to the country that the problems are there. When we disperse in a few days time, the Government will be free to do as they like for seven months. They are then not subject to criticism, except at political meetings. The Government is then free to do as it likes. If the country then finds itself in a worse position than it is to-day, the Government will have to account for that position next session.

As far as the public are concerned, they will ask at the end of the session: “What has been achieved in five months?” There have been 21 years of Nationalist Party rule. This fact has been celebrated, but the ordinary man in the street has not yet seen his financial difficulties resolved. The ordinary man cannot understand why share speculators can obtain money easily and why money for hire purchase transactions is fairly easily obtainable. He has no difficulty in financing his car, his refrigerator, his radio or his washing machine, but he has very great difficulty in financing a new house and setting up a home. He finds that money will be easy to come by for outside investment, if the Minister relaxes exchange control, but he cannot understand why he cannot have his home built. We are concerned about this. The Minister of Community Development has indicated that there is a great shortage of houses. The building society movement is finding itself in great difficulties. They cannot lend money for the next three months. These are real problems which affect the ordinary man in the street, the ordinary voter in the country, the sort of person with whom the Government has lost touch after 21 years in power.

We find on the one hand that shares are oversubscribed many times over. Who do we find leading in this scramble for shares? The Government itself. The recent ventures of Iscor and the I.D.C. into the private sector have indicated that the Government is competing with private enterprise, and picking the plums of some of the bigger industries in the private sector. Industrialists are concerned about this. There has been criticism from leading industrialists about this competition from the Government. They have asked: “Where does it stop?” We have tried to get answers from the Government during the past session, and we have failed. Meanwhile the development is taking place and meanwhile the Government agencies are competing with the private sector. Does the Minister regard that as a healthy sign, especially when he talks of South Africa being a free enterprise country? Does he regard it as a healthy sign when Government agencies are competing with the private sector, and are encouraging the scramble for shares? The Government agencies are leading in the participation in growth funds. Is the Minister satisfied with the number of growth funds? We have heard that another three are to be established. Surely, the Minister, who on the one hand is trying to get money for the country’s development, should not on the other hand be encouraging the growth of mutual funds and the support of such funds by Government agencies. Has the price of shares not been artificially increased? Is the market for shares not a very narrow one? We have several mutual funds all competing for our industrial shares, with the result that many of our shares have a yield of as little as .6 and .3 per cent. When is the day of reckoning coming? The Minister talks about fingers being burnt. Is it only fingers that are going to be burnt, or is there going to be a real flare-up?

You are pessimistic.

The hon. member says that I am pessimistic, but perhaps he will remember Black Friday. Perhaps the hon. member knows what it is to walk the streets looking for work in a depression. Can the hon. member guarantee that the present state of affairs will continue for all time? Does he mean to say that for all time we must expect a yield of .6 per cent? Is that healthy? I am glad the hon. member made that interjection. He obviously knows what he is talking about. Can he assure the country that it is a healthy state of affairs when our leading shares give a return of only .6 per cent? Does he regard that as healthy? No wonder the Minister of Finance has warned the country that this is not healthy. He has said that people will get their fingers burnt. Who is being pessimistic? The Minister has warned the country of this difficulty. But are the warnings sufficient, because when the flare-up comes, more than fingers are going to be burnt. There are going to be very sorry faces in South Africa. The Minister will then say “I told you so”. I think the Minister should exert some discipline apart from giving warnings. That is his responsibility.

If we are going to have development in the private sector of this country, the private sector must know where it can develop. It must not be discouraged. Industries have for many years relied on wholesale merchants to take the bulk of their products. Wholesale merchants now find themselves discouraged by no less an organization than the Department of Bantu Administration. Wholesale merchants have been the sheet anchor of business for many years. Wholesale merchants have the experience to provide the necessary advice to the retailer. Right throughout South Africa, not only in the towns, but also in the country and the Bantu homelands, as they are called now, or the Bantu reserves, as they were called in 1948, the wholesaler could deal with these traders. Now we have the situation where the wholesaler cannot enter these Bantu areas without a permit. The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is deliberately discouraging the wholesaler, and in fact wherever he can prohibiting him, from dealing in the Bantu areas. He insists that the Bantu retailer should deal with the Bantu Development Corporation. The Bantu Development Corporation is now the wholesale organization for those areas. I have a permit with me now, indicating the extent to which the wholesaler is discouraged. The Minister of Bantu Administration said last November, when he addressed the National African Chamber of Commerce in Pretoria, that he took a very serious view of the threat posed by the development of shops not owned by Africans on the borders of the African areas. I have raised this matter before in this Session, and I have asked how far from the borders such a shop is allowed to be situated. A white shop is certainly not allowed inside the borders of a Bantu area. These shops are, however, now not even allowed to be near the border areas. The Minister has not yet replied to me. Wholesale merchants are concerned because they cannot plan ahead. Everything is now controlled by permits. The merchants’ travellers have to be subject to permits. Every obstacle is put in their way. Of course the industrialists, instead of having to look to a wholesaler, whose credit they know is sound, now have to give credit either to the Bantu retailers or to the Bantu Development Corporation. The Bantu Development Corporation can assure him that his account will be paid but many of the retail traders are saying that they prefer to deal with a wholesaler because the wholesaler can give them a better variety. Anyone who has been to a Bantu Development Corporation wholesale organization and has seen the selection there as compared with the selection of a modern sophisticated wholesale merchant will have no doubt at all as to why the Bantu trader prefers to deal with the wholesale merchant rather than with the Bantu Development Corporation. Trade can only be carried out with the retailer under restricted conditions. Here for 21 years we have dealt with a government whose internal financial policy as it affects the wholesaler, the industrialist and the retailer indicates beyond any doubt that Government interference, Government obstacles and Government red tape are curtailing the normal development which should take place in a modern sophisticated society.

The ordinary man is concerned because he realizes that inflation is still persisting. At the beginning of the Session the hon. the Minister indicated that he hoped to have inflation under control. He indicated in the Other Place recently that he hoped that inflation would be controlled very soon. But what do we find? The industrial organizations of South Africa have advised their members to give the Bantu an increase of R1 per week. Most industrial organizations have encouraged their members to give the Bantu an increase of R1 per week. That increase in industrial salaries of R1 per week is going to have an effect right throughout South Africa. That is an indication of the increase in the cost structure. The increase of R1 per week is deserved because the cost of living has gone up for the lowest income group. The introduction of the sales tax which has not yet been passed by this House will cover a range of commodities which is so wide that unless the hon. the Minister agrees to the suggestions we will make in the Committee Stage, it is bound to increase the cost of living, for the lowest section of the community. Industry has anticipated this and has forestalled difficulties by recommending an increase in the wages of its workers to the extent of R1 per week. It is not only the Bantu worker who has been affected by inflation and the increase in the cost of living. The old age pensioner has been similarly affected. Old age homes have been affected by the increased costs. Social welfare organizations have been similarly affected. Every facet of commercial and industrial life feels the effect of the increased costs, brought about by the Government’s failure to handle inflation and the increase in the cost structure. This is a state of affairs which is discouraging many of the poorer sections of the community who feel absolutely desperate but they cannot grumble, particularly if they are non-White because any kind of grumbling is treated as agitation. As I said, we will now disperse for seven months and go back to our constituencies. What do we tell the people when we go back? We tell them that taxes for the wealthy have been reduced and that taxes for the poor have been increased. That is the state of affairs. We finish this Session by telling the public that the taxes for the wealthy have been reduced.

Did you not plead for that?

We asked for a reduction in the taxes. We asked for the reduction of the taxes of certain people in the tax bulge. That was what we asked for but the taxes for the poor have been increased and the responsibility for that lies fairly and squarely on the shoulders of this Government. Throughout the recess we will tell the people of South Africa that this Government has been so long in power that it is only concerned with the wealthy, those in the know and those in the upper strata. The ordinary man has been forgotten, the non-European is being kept in his place, the poor have been ignored and the ordinary working man has also been ignored by this Government which is the Government of the big battalions. Having been in power for 21 years, the Government has forgotten the ordinary man.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made mention a few times that the National Party had now been governing for 21 years. He said that the financial position of the ordinary citizen was less favourable, that it was unbalanced, and his problems had not been solved. It is a long time since I heard such an exaggerated statement on financial matters as that the hon. member made. He was speaking completely at random. He adduced no proof of the statements he made. I know that the situation is just the reverse of what he said it was. He knows that the country has never before been in such a fortunate economic position, and has never been so prosperous as it is to-day. He knows that there has never been so much prosperity and the standard of living of the population has never been as high as it is to-day. Everyone in South Africa, responsible experts, and overseas experts, cannot stop talking about the tremendous economic progress South Africa has been making during the past six to seven years.

Does that include the farmers as well?

Yes, it includes the farmers as well. We shall come to that. Everybody is talking about the economic miracle of South Africa. The hon. member for Pine-town, however, states that economically things are going badly for South Africa. I want to reply that nobody believes him. He does not even believe himself. Not a single member on that side of the House, if he searches his conscience, believes that statement. If there is one thing of which the National Party can be proud then it is that it has brought about prosperity for the entire population, White and non-White. Nobody, not even the hon. members on that side of the House, can sketch a different picture. They make general statements and, as I said, nobody believes them.

I want to refer to a few of the matters raised by the hon. member. He asked the hon. Minister whether he could, at this early juncture, inform the House what he expected the surplus for the ensuing year to be. But the hon. member knows that only two months have elapsed, April and May. How could the hon. the Minister at this early stage give this House that information? What responsible Minister could at this early stage inform this House that he expects the surplus to be far smaller or far greater. Take the example of sales tax. The sales tax has not even been collected yet. The first sales tax will be collected at the beginning of July this year. This shows once again how unrealistic the point of view of that side of the House is. Would they at this stage, two months after the last Budget, inform the country that the situation is such and such, and that they expect a larger deficit or surplus? Surely that would be irresponsible. He knows it is impossible, and not only impossible, but unrealistic. I almost want to say that to a certain extent it is irresponsible.

The hon. member said something about a shortage of foreign currency which the country was supposedly experiencing. That is not the case. I think the position as regards the availability of overseas currency is still quite an easy one. I do not want to say that we have a great surplus, but at this stage the position is such that the hon. the Minister need feel no concern in that regard. He need not lose any sleep over the position.

The hon. member also mentioned the question of housing. This was the only example the hon. member used to show that economically-speaking the National Party was not governing the country well. That is not correct. 1968 was an exceptional year for the building societies. It was one of the most successful years in their history. I have the proof of this. The following report appears, for example, in the Cape Times of 10th June, 1969—

I can quote figures to prove that that hon. member is not correct. In January, 1969, the funds of the building societies in respect of deposits and shares amounted to R2.044 billion. In April, 1969, the figure was R2.2 billion. In spite of the speculation fever among the tax paying public, the building societies have, from January to the end of April more or less maintained their position. During the past month there has been a deterioration. We do not have the figures available yet, but that is the impression which is being created. We want to accept that this is the case. But it is as a result of extraordinary speculation and special circumstances arising out of the need of the public to participate in the speculation in order to acquire a certain shareholding in one of the growth funds. That is one single example at the present moment. About a week ago the hon. the Minister announced certain measures in the House to alleviate the position of the building societies. There are, for example, debentures which will be negotiable on the exchange. Would it not be fairer to first wait and see what the results of the concessions are which the hon. Minister made? Must the one measure after the other simply be taken if the situation is a merely temporary one? Consequently that appears to be the position at this present stage. It cannot be expected of the hon. the Minister to take new steps now to cope with a temporary situation. But apart from that no fewer than 28,000 houses were built in the year 1967-’68 in South Africa. During the past year 27,000 houses have been built. And what are the needs of South Africa? It was calculated that the annual need for new housing units in South Africa was 27,000 units per year. This we have achieved during the past two years. We have in addition to that built a further 1,000 houses. The only responsible conclusion which can be drawn from that is that the building of new houses, even during the past few years, is keeping pace with the requirements which exist. The accusations which have been made from that side of the House simply do not withstand the test. We know that new houses will continually have to be built. If new situations should arise as a result of which there may possibly appear to be a temporary shortage of houses the Government will, as it has always done in the past, take the necessary steps from year to year. But we do not have a total State economy. We cannot tell investors where they must invest their money. The Government’s financial policy is aimed at trying to strike a balance in the economy. But since we have a system of private undertakings in our country it is obvious that the private investor and entrepreneur must be afforded the opportunity of moving in the directions they think are best for them. The duty of the State is simply to construct the broad framework within which they can move. I want to ask that hon. member whether he wants the State to govern the economy in such a way that it tells the investor where he must invest his money? Surely that would be extremely unsound. I therefore want to state that neither that side of the House nor the public outside would subscribe to such a hypothesis. The system of private initiative would be prejudiced in that way. Eventually one would be much worse off. The National Party is not ashamed of the housing which it has provided for the people of South Africa over the past 20 years. The position is under much better control to-day than the position was in 1948 when this Government took over.

The hon. member also referred to the position in regard to inflation and the increase in the costs structure. We concede that the sales duty which was levied would bring a once-only increase. We do not deny that. But even if that should be taken into account, South Africa is still one of the countries with the lowest cost structure in the world. A year ago the Star made a survey of the cost of living conditions in various cities. The conclusion they arrived at was that “Johannesburg is still the cheapest city in the world”. Those of us who have had the privilege of being able to travel about abroad know that when it comes to cost of living conditions South Africa need not take second place to any other developed country. I am speaking now of countries which are at more or less the same stage of development as South Africa. This is the only fair comparison which can be drawn. Compared with the position overseas it will be found that, as far as cost of living is concerned too, South Africa is still a land of Canaan. The cost of living index does not reflect the cost of living position in any specific country. It only indicates the increase in the cost of living over a specified period of time. That is all it indicates. As far as this is concerned, South Africa’s position compares very well indeed with that of the rest of the world. I have here a number of figures dating from 1963 which is now the new basis here for international calculations. Since 1963 the cost of living in South Africa has increased by 18 per cent. The countries where there was a lower increase are Australia, Germany, and the U.S.A. There the increase was 16 per cent, or only 1 per cent lower than in South Africa. Now we also know a country such as the U.S.A. were a few points lower than South Africa a few years ago. It is also probable that the increase in the cost of living in the U.S.A., which has always been the example of how to keep cost of living in check, is now higher than that in South Africa.

Eight per cent.

The hon. the Minister is saying 8 per cent. I am afraid that hon. members on that side of the House, no matter how hard they try, will never succeed in convincing the people outside that South Africa has not succeeded in keeping the cost of living in check. The cost of living increase over the past number of years and the absolute cost of living as far as South Africa is concerned, compare very favourably indeed. This Government is aware that, for many reasons, it must keep the cost of living in check. But if we compare it with the tremendous increase in growth and prosperity in our economy then it is in fact amazing, and a sign of major success, that South Africa has, in the midst of that, being able to succeed in keeping the cost of living in check. After 21 years this Government can look back with a great measure of satisfaction and gratitude at the fact that it has succeeded, under difficult circumstances, in bringing about so much progress in South Africa and at the same time keeping the cost of living down. That is one thing that I cannot understand about the opposite side of the House. When the Estimates were introduced on 26th March, they put forward proposals which would have had precisely the reverse effect to what they were advocating. It was. their idea that the hon. the Minister should budget for a financial deficit. One member after the other rose and referred to the wonderful proposals by the hon. member for Constantia. However, they did not at that moment say that what they were really advocating was short-term financing under inflationistic conditions. Initially even a periodical such as the Financial Mail did not understand it very well. Initially this periodical also supported the hon. member. But it was not long before the Financial News admitted that it had made a mistake.

It took it a week to come to this conclusion, and it then stated that if the Government had financed for a short period, as the hon. member for Constantia had proposed, “it would have been highly inflationary”. I want to go so far as to say that hon. members cannot for one moment advocate that the cost of living should be curbed, and then propose a budget policy which would have precisely the reverse effect. Surely that is not responsible conduct. Surely that is not fair. How must we assess the speeches made by hon. members opposite if they are so contradictory? After the speech by the hon. member for Constantia in reply to the Budget speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance, hon. members really cannot, with a clear conscience, continue to accuse the Government of encouraging inflationistic tendencies. Hon. members on the opposite side dare not do so, because their approach was highly inflationary and that assertion is supported by the Financial Mail. The hon. member referred to the general economic situation and tried to create the impression, even though he did not specifically state this, that things were not going very well.

The hon. member also mentioned the yield rates. The low yield rates is a sign of high share prices. We on this side of the House also admit candidly that we think share prices are too high and the yield to low. However, the emphasis does not fall on the yield rates, but on the high prices of shares. This is nothing else but an indication of the confidence of the investing public in the economic growth and potential of South Africa. Those prices are to-day considerably higher than those on the London Share Markets, by almost 20 per cent. They are also considerably higher than those on the New York Share Market. To say however that this is an indication of a lack of confidence on the part of the public in the value of money, is not correct. The hon. member himself furnished a reply to this, which is for the most part that the public is confident that it will be able to make a capital profit with their shares. How does one make a capital profit? One can make a capital profit when there is growth and a high yield on those shares. We maintain that those yields are too low to-day but this does not reflect any lack of confidence, as the hon. member alleged. It reflects, in our humble opinion, an excess of confidence. It reflects a confidence, which in our humble opinion, is not justified.

The hon. Minister said it was due to a lack of confidence in money.

The hon. the Minister emphasized that it was primarily due to share investments which were being made in order to make a profit on the growth. The hon. the Minister made this very clear. In the world as a whole it is correct that the confidence in the value of money can be reflected in the prices of shares. In a specific situation in which South Africa finds itself to-day, and in which the share market is functioning to-day, it is for the most part an excessive confidence in the growth of those shares concerned. These people are primarily interested in making a capital profit on the share market. The argument that this is a sign of the unsound economic conditions in South Africa, is not correct. We want to concede that an unsound speculation fever is prevailing, but we hope that this position will subsequently be rectified. This situation is attributable to the excessively large quantity of money in South Africa, and the high degree of liquidity.

I want to point out that the Government has, during the past four months, succeeded in more or less keeping the quantity of money and quasi-money more or less within bounds. In December the total amount of money and quasi-money was R3,464.6 million. At the end of March this year it was R3,435 million. In other words, there was a small decrease; in fact, one can say that it remained more or less constant. I maintain that this is an achievement, taking into consideration the fact that large quantities of money are still entering the country. This is an achievement on the part of the Government, i.e. to have prevented there being a vast increase in the quantity of money. Most of the other countries in the world are struggling with the same problem, i.e. that the quantity of money is increasing at a rate of approximately 2 per cent. During the past three months South Africa has succeeded in more or less stabilizing this position.

The National Party is proud of its record over the past 21 years. If South Africa, during the next 21 years, makes the same economic progress it has made during the past 21 years, this country will be a very fortunate one. The hon. member once again tried to raise a cloud of dust in regard to the wholesalers who are experiencing difficulties in the Bantu areas. Does the hon. member want these dealers to enter the Bantu areas without restriction and without permits? Must there be no control? My experience does not coincide in any way with what the hon. member said here to-day. I do not want to suggest that there are not individual cases where people have experienced difficulties in entering those areas, but these cases are the exception and not the rule. The rule is that the wholesalers to-day are, under the permit system, moving quite easily and freely to the Bantu areas. They are bringing goods and services to the Bantu areas where these are needed to serve this population. Any statement based on fact will indicate that the Bantu areas and economic areas are generally still functioning as a whole. They are functioning as a large economic unity, to the best interests of the Bantu areas and those of South Africa.

In conclusion I want to say that I have come to the conclusion during the past year that the hon. members of the Opposition do not understand what the economic development programme of the Government in respect of the Bantu areas and the economically backward areas is. One moment they are saying that border area development is a failure, and the next they are saying, as somebody said in the Other Place: “Every week a new factory goes up in the border areas.” This is a sign of the success achieved by the Government. On the other hand, hon. members say that the Bantu areas are not being developed rapidly enough and that not sufficient factories are being established. What is the true state of affairs when one is dealing with an economically backward area? In other countries it has been found that developing such areas is a major problem. It is a long drawn out process, and it is necessary to proceed with care for if things are done too rapidly great errors are made. When development is launched one must develop those economically backward areas which have the potential in the first place and which can get going the soonest.

In the second place specific growth points for development must be established in that area. But if one takes the so-called border areas, one finds that a few growth points already exist. It is desirable and logical that a start should be made with the development of those growth points. After those growth points have been established, and after they have been developed, the next step is to seek other growth points and develop them. If one compares the growth points within the Bantu areas with those in the border areas, one will find that it is essential that both should be developed. But, as the private initiative system works, those areas which are the easiest to develop, which have the largest population, and which already have a nucleus of development, will be developed first. As development progresses one can turn to the remoter areas. This has in fact been the experience in England, Italy and France. The Bantu areas development and border areas development are not competing with each other; they supplement each other. I should like to see the day when that side of the House lend their support to the solution of the great problem facing this Government, i.e. the problem of the development of economically backward areas. I should like to see that day when the Government receives positive help in that direction. They must not continually be criticizing various aspects.

Who is more in favour of development than we?

Hon. members may be in favour of it, but when steps are taken, they criticize them. Among hon. members there is an ambiguous standpoint in this regard. Since we are now reaching the end of the 1969 Session I am afraid that the speeches which we heard from that side of the House did not create much confidence in their ability to constitute an alternative government. I think those hon. members have furnished proof to-day of 21 years of incompetence in the Opposition benches. It is not only we who think so; the voters outside also think so. This Government has produced 21 years of government which any other population of any other country, if they could have achieved as much, would have been proud. The population of our country and this side of the House is proud of the National Party for everything it has done for its people and for its country.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite right that we should stop and take stock and have a look at the profit and loss accounts and the balance sheets on the economic and financial front, at the Third Reading of this Bill. We should particularly look at what has transpired on this front during the past five months. My hon. friend from Florida attempted to do this, but I think he has made one mistake. I think he forgot, that when you look at a profit and loss account or when you look at a balance sheet, there are not only credits but also debits. I think he rather glossed over the debit side of things. He painted a Utopia which reflects to some extent the credits. Perhaps I shall have something to say about the debits.

The hon. member said that there was really no problem in the building societies.

I did not say that.

He indicated that last year they had an all-time record.

That is right.

This is correct. But I want to ask the hon. member this: An all-time record in what? Is it an all-time record in money values or an all-time record in real values?

In every respect, according to them.

The hon. member says that it is an all-time record in every respect. There is a very big difference between an all-time record in money values and an all-time record in real values, because if the building societies had R1 million to invest ten years ago, they might have been able to provide a hundred bonds, but a million rand to invest at the moment may only provide 50 bonds. This is so because of the rise in the price of properties and the bond required by the ordinary individual to finance his house. I think the hon. member for Florida will agree with me that despite the records, despite any figures which have been published, he knows and the hon. the Minister knows that there are serious problems in so far as the building societies are concerned. If there were not, there would have been no reason for us to make adjustments on three or four occasions to the Building Societies Act in an endeavour to help the building societies. You do not try to cure people who are well and thriving, you try to cure people who are sick and ailing. The reason why we had to make adjustments to the Building Societies Act in this House was because all was not well with the building societies.

Adjustments are normal.

Then the hon. member also dealt with the question of the prices of shares. He said that the high prices of shares are due to the confidence which the public has in South African industry and commerce to-day. I am inclined to agree with him. The public has a great deal of confidence in the economy of South Africa to-day. But it goes a lot deeper than that. The public had a great deal of faith, not only in the shares of South Africa, but also in shares of the Continent, America and England. There the yield used to be 6 to 7 per cent and a person would not touch a share unless it had an earning of 15 per cent. This was the pattern, the yardstick of 20 years ago. But it has changed. Why has it changed? Because of the lack of confidence in money by the people, not the people of South Africa, but the people of the world. What is the yield in the United States to-day? It is as bad as ours. It is not all .6 per cent. There are yields of .1 per cent and yields of .6 per cent and the average is of about 2 per cent. The same applies to the United States. Their averages are low. On the Continent as well they are low. There is a lack of confidence in things which are not real, things such as buildings, land and physical assets which one can see. The world has lost confidence in other things, therefore they are buying shares which are physical assets to protect themselves against any catastrophy they might have to face. This then is the basic reason.

The hon. member also said two things about border industries. First of all he said that the process had to be a slow one. He said it could not be hastened unduly because we would run into trouble. This is true. “Slowly but surely” is a very good axiom, but that is when you have time on your side. We have had the Nationalist Government in power for 21 years.

A little more.

I am glad some people appreciate that. As I said we have had them in power for 21 years. In this morning’s paper I read an article by the editor of Die Beeld saying that unless the position is put right by the year 2000, and no longer 1978, the policy will prove to have been a failure. If we have not achieved what we originally wanted to achieve in 1978, by the year 2000, apartheid will be a failure. But the year 2000 is only 30 years hence. 21 years have already gone. If we are going to use the tempo of the past 21 years and project it over the next 30 years, we do not have to make any forecast. It is a failure and it will be a failure. The hon. member accused us of not helping to make it a success. That is not true. For years we have been telling the Government that the only way to develop the reserves and the border industries is to make use of white capital, white skill, white know-how and the local population. For how many years have we been telling them that? From the first day the matter was discussed. They rejected it as they reject so many of the things we propose. Then they accept it and try to give it a little different angle so that it will not appear to be our thinking. So they bring in what they call the agency basis. The agency basis may work, but the fundamental principle is that which the United Party propounded years ago, namely white skill and white capital. The Government knows as well as we know that without white skill and white capital nothing can be achieved. But the hon. member must not say that we have ignored this. We have made some very very sound proposals on this issue.

Are you in favour of the agency basis?

Not if you are the agents.

Yes, I am not against the agency basis. However, I do not say it should be limited to the agency basis. I should like to know the terms and the conditions of the agency basis which we are never told. I should like to see some of the contracts that you enter into and what the agency basis is. Then we will give you the benefit of our knowledge and skills and tell you whether they are good or not.

There is no doubt that one of the important achievements of this session, one of the credits on our balance sheet, has been the change in our incidence of direct taxation. Other members and I have already said that we agree with this. It is something that was necessary. It has alleviated the problem of the middle man to some extent and has eliminated the bulge. It has provided incentives for the higher income groups. We hope it will increase productivity. The proposals which the Government introduced were based on the Franzsen Commission Report alone. That commission produced a very good report. But I think the hon. the Minister was a little unfair in his reply to the Second Reading debate when he said the United Party would have done nothing. We would not have brought this scheme into being and would not have had the courage to make the changes.

Or you would have done it the same way.

No, I think the hon. the Minister was rather critical of what we would or would not have done. But I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that what has happened is a result of the Franzsen Commission. Since 1964 we have pleaded in this House with the Government to set up a commission to investigate income tax. What was the reply we received? The late Dr. Dönges told us that his department had their eye on matters. They kept a continuous eye on the problems of income tax and how it affected matters. Therefore, there was no need for a commission. We came back in 1965 and 1966. We have been back every year. I must give the present hon. Minister of Finance credit that when he took over the portfolio of Finance, he said that he would consider a commission. He accepted it and he did appoint a commission. But I think it must be a credit to us as well that we for years have known that there was something basically wrong with our income tax system. We knew it required investigation. The way to investigate it was through a commission. As usual, the Government appointed that commission five years after we originally proposed it.

I am now coming to a rather difficult question, namely the question of gold. I understand the hon. the Minister’s problems in this regard in that he cannot, or thinks he cannot say too much. I think we must look and see what is actually happening. There have been reports that gold to the value of R50 million has disappeared. We know from a scrutiny of the figures of the Reserve Bank that gold has been sold on the open market. It is up to the Minister to decide whether he wants to take this matter any further. But the point I want to come to is that we are now having statement after statement by hon. Ministers which indicate certain things but tell us nothing. I believe that this is a very dangerous state of affairs in so far as the public of South Africa is concerned. In this House the hon. the Minister of Finance made two statements on the question of gold and our problem in the disposal of gold. Each statement was optimistic in the main. He said he thought we would arrive at a satisfactory gold position. Then the Minister of Economic Affairs in Australia made a very blunt statement saying that the problem of our exchange was going to be solved and we would soon be in a position to export funds abroad. A couple of days ago the hon. the Minister again indicated in the Other Place that he thought the problem would be solved in the near future. Now we come to Sunday. There were two items in the Press which I think we should consider. According to an interview the hon. the Minister gave to the Sunday Express, he said that he is optimistic that by the end of this year we shall have found a solution to our goldmarketing problems. He added that this would directly affect the Stock Exchange. I think the time has come that we divorce this question of the price of shares and the Stock Exchange from the question of our foreign exchange problems. I believe the hon. the Minister is trying to use one to do something about the other. I think it is wrong. But I do say that when the hon. the Minister in his position and with the authority he carries as Minister of Finance of the Republic of South Africa, says that he is optimistic that by the end of this year we shall have found a solution to our goldmarketing problems, I, as the man in the street, take that to mean that this is what will happen, because if it is not going to happen, I do not believe the hon. the Minister should have said so. He is the responsible Minister. He is telling the country that in his opinion the matter will be resolved by the end of this year. I sincerely hope it will. We all hope so. Then we come to the Sunday Times. We find very much the same except that their reporter reported that Dr. Diederichs told him that he was not hinting at an imminent solution to gold sale problems.

I think the hon. the Minister must understand one or two matters. First of all, people are buying shares on the Stock Exchange whether he likes it or whether he does not like it. Basically this is human nature. If you buy well, good luck to you. If you buy badly, you will pay the penalty. The hon. the Minister himself has said that he will not control people speculating with their money. He will not let us have a casino or a lottery, but he has the Stock Exchange. That is fair enough. He is not going to interfere and I think he is quite right. But people take cognizance of what the hon. the Minister says. They must. He is the authority to discuss these topics. In one paper he says he will have a solution by the end of this year and in the other paper he says that he was not hinting at an imminent solution to gold sales problems.

Surely there is a difference between imminent and the end of the year.

I believe the hon. the Minister must either stop making statements or expect us to understand that the solution is very near. I do not say at the end of the year or in January or February next year. It does not make any difference. The public is being given to understand by the hon. the Minister that that is what will happen. I can make any statements I like but nobody takes the slightest notice of them. They are unimportant. But when the hon. the Minister of Finance makes a statement, and is reinforced in Australia by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, the public takes cognizance of such a statement. Make no mistake; this is a vital factor. Of course, I do not agree with the hon. the Minister that when he solves his problem and we can export funds from this country, it will have the enormous effect on the Stock Exchange that he foresees. That is a matter of opinion. As I say, nobody takes notice of what I say anyway. But this does not matter. The hon. the Minister must realize that a number of people have large amounts of money tied up in the Stock Exchange, rightly or wrongly. His statements are important to them. Therefore, they must not be made lightly. When they are made he must realize that the public will take cognizance of them.

Now we come to another problem which we have not solved, the problem mentioned by the hon. member for Pinetown, and that is the problem of our excess liquidity and the shortage of long-term funds. I am sorry that according to the latest reports I have read, the Jubilee bonds have been the success that the Minister anticipated. I said before and I say again that I think he fixed his interest rate too low, and the fact that it is costly I do not think matters. I sometimes think people are not using the right perspective in regard to interest rates. Where you have devaluation in effect through inflation and the value of money gets less, I think one must expect an increase in interest rates. As you pay more for everything else, you also have to pay more for capital. We have this problem, and we have the problem of the building societies. We have a ceiling on bank lending, which is effective in some respects and not in others.

We still have a very active grey market, an extremely active one. In fact, one can do a lot more business through the grey market than one can do through the banks. It is a very good market and a very approachable one. The problem is the shortage of long-term funds which we have not solved yet. It is one of the debits on our balance sheet, and it is hindering the Government itself to a large extent, and the municipalities and the provinces. We are beginning to find a backlog in necessary works which we cannot carry on with because of the fear of inflation, and because of the lack of people who want to invest in long-term loans. But the trouble with backlogs is that they multiply and they snowball, and we are having the situation already where the larger municipalities are complaining that they just can no longer provide the facilities required by their people. I am not going to say that the Minister should give attention to this, because I know he is giving daily attention to it, but he will have to try to break through somehow.

The hon. member for Florida said that the economy was buoyant. It is buoyant and we are happy that it is buoyant, and I think the forecasts of what is going to happen in South Africa indicate that we need have no real fear for the moment that this situation is going to change. That is on the credit side, but on the debit side we do not seem to be able to get rid of any of this host of controls which we now seem to have to live with for all time, like exchange control, import control, building control, the physical control of factories and the control of labour.

What building control?

What buildings are controlled? A lot of buildings are controlled. Factory building is controlled. Office blocks are controlled. You cannot put up an office block without permission. [Interjections.] We still have the Physical Planning Act. If you want to establish a new factory to-day, you must get permission. If you want to get one additional Bantu labourer, you have to get permission. I want to raise the question which I raised in this House before. What has been done in so far as the small man is concerned? How does the small man start, and what is the Government doing for him? Because we begin to get visions of grandeur. We talk about enormous edifices with big chimney-stacks and smoke flowing from them, but that is not how a man starts his business. He starts in business with his own two hands in his own backyard, in most cases. He starts to produce something and he sells it; he goes around, and he can only do it in urban areas. He cannot start something in the border areas with the little things he is going to produce, with his market miles away. As I said before, what a man does is to manufacture and take orders and manufacture more and deliver. That is how a man starts a small business. Is the Minister’s colleague seeing that the small man is protected, and that if he wants to start a small business in an urban area, he can have the one or two Bantu labourers he needs to get going? If he cannot, he does not have a hope of getting anywhere.

On the credit side this session there are the better pay and conditions for the Public Service, but on the debit side there are two things. The one is the constant increase in the number of public servants. I read a survey a couple of days ago which showed that from 1937 to 1966 the Public Service had increased by 276 per cent, while in the same period the population had only increased by 70 per cent. But the Public Service is drawing off a terrific amount of our manpower, and it is understandable that it should be so because if you look at the legislation we pass every session it is ideological legislation which needs more and more public servants to administer it. And that happens constantly. The bulk of our legislation is ideological, and the great increase in the number of public servants is to implement this legislation. Every department is getting new tasks imposed on it and it is reaching the stage where the position is becoming impossible, and this while we have a shortage of labour in all sectors in South Africa. It is having its effect because we are getting a breakdown in efficiency. One hon. member talked about the building trade. I say there is a breakdown in efficiency in the building trade to-day. You are not getting a first-class job done the first time, and you are paying for the second and the third time that the job has to be done. We are not having efficiency in the motor industry. I know the hon. member for Salt River will not agree with me here, but we do not get efficiency, because we do not have the manpower and you need manpower for efficiency. There is no time to train the men.

Has not the time come for the Government to realize that there are just insufficient white people in this country to do the work required for the total population? Because this is the fundamental fact. You cannot divide two into four; two have to remain two if they want to do a job of work, and we cannot split the public any more. The tragedy is that the Government is doing nothing about it. My hon. Leader has already told the Government what should be done on the labour front. He has talked about a congress for labour and guarantees to the worker. Get something done on the basis that there are insufficient Whites to do the job. The white man is still afraid to-day and I do not blame him for being afraid because what has the Government done to still his fears? Absolutely nothing. Only from this side of the House, through the voice of my hon. Leader, was a guide-line given to the Government as to what they should do to still the fears of the white worker in this country, so that we can use the Black labour with everybody’s acquiescence.

Sir, we are still having inflation in this country. The hon. member for Florida dealt with housing, but we have the problem of land and the price of land is steadily going up. The hon. the Minister of Community Development two years ago told us that the Government was going to do something about it; they were going to buy land on the peripheries of the big towns and this they were going to use as a buffer against prices rising elsewhere, but we have heard nothing further about it. This question of land is one of the vital problems in South Africa to-day. In Australia—I think it was in New South Wales—a commission has just sat to investigate the problem of the high price of land. They are doing something. We do not seem to be doing anything. I think the time has come when the Government should appoint a commission to go into the whole question of the high price of land.

Another problem, another debit on our balance sheet, is that the distribution of wealth is being altered, but unfortunately it is being altered in the wrong direction. The Franzsen Commission told us that only 8 per cent of the people in the Republic paid tax, as against 30 per cent to 40 per cent in highly developed countries; and that 6 per cent of the people in South Africa paid two-thirds of the total income-tax. But the position is getting worse and not better. The redistribution of wealth is not from the rich to the poor; it is upwards. The working man is beginning to sense this and if you read some of the speeches of labour leaders you will find that they are beginning to complain very bitterly about the distribution of wealth that we have in this country.

Now, what does all this boil down to? When we look at this balance sheet objectively, when we look at the debits and we look at the credits, I think it clearly shows that the time has come when the shareholders of South Africa, the voters, are going to welcome a change. This Government is too wedded to its political concepts and it is not prepared to accept the facts as they exist. It travels from 1978 to the year 2000, and it does everything to sort of keep the ball rolling, but the time has come for bold new concepts and concepts which are capable of achievement. You cannot go on clinging to old concepts. And again I pay tribute to the hon. the Minister of Finance. I said in the Budget debate that he had the courage to break the shackles of the past. I wish the other Ministers would follow him. I wish he could convince them that the past is shackling them, is chaining them, and is stopping the progress of this country on the full basis where everybody becomes involved. You know, Sir, sometimes I become afraid that we are going the same way as Rome or Greece. One only talks to-day of the might and the wealth of Rome and Greece, but it is no longer there, and why not? Because they clung for too long to the things which they had. They believed that they had found the perfect civilization and a panacea for all ills. They believed, for example, that slave labour was something which was going to exist for all time, and that this was the basis of a civilization which would continue indefinitely. There was no progress; it was stagnant, and that is what the Government is doing. They are not accepting the inevitability of change and they are not moving with the times. They are shackled and tied by their own ideological concepts which hinder movement, and in these days you want movement. And I think the public is going to realize it; they probably already have realized that we cannot be contained for much longer within ideological boundaries, and that we have to break out of them and do a job, as the United Party has propounded so often.

The hon. member for Parktown covered a wide range of topics, but if I were to sum up his speech it would amount to his asking how the little man was being influenced and what the Government was doing for him; and that fitted in very neatly with what the hon. member for Pinetown dealt with so comprehensively, i.e. that this Government was doing nothing for the less well-to-do person. The hon. member for Pinetown put it this way, taxes on the rich had been reduced, and taxes on the poor increased, and he placed the responsibility for this squarely on the shoulders of the Government. This refrain ran through all the speeches made by the hon. member for Pinetown and Parktown. The Government was decreasing taxation for the rich man, but was doing nothing for the poor man. Now I have looked up what the hon. members said last year and here before me I have what the hon. member for Parktown said last year in regard to this matter. I am referring to Hansard, Vol. 23, col. 3136, where the hon. member stated—

This is not the poor man he is pleading for, but the man who earns R10,000 per year—

And now comes the important part—

Mr. Speaker, we have now reached the end of a very long debate on finances in this House of Assembly. For more than 100 hours we have been discussing finances, and it is of course obvious that we will spend a long time discussing Government finances, because a Budget determines to a very large measure the welfare of a nation. In fact, the Budget is there to iron out the economic cycle as far as possible; to flatten it out; to prevent the economic cycle from rising to the heights and falling to the depths. That, Sir, is the function of a Budget, i.e. to cause the prosperity of a nation, on the long-term to proceed as evenly as possible. In fact, the Budget is the most powerful instrument in the hands of the Government to ensure the prosperity of a nation on a long-term basis, but all the work of a sensible government, of a sensible Minister of Finance, is so casually being thwarted by the actions of a less responsible Opposition, and particularly a desperate Opposition who no longer see on their horizon any possibility of taking over the reins of government. The greatest welfare of all is only obtained if everybody gives of their very best, but this is a Utopian situation, an unrealistic situation which we definitely cannot expect in the realistic present-day world. Unfortunately there is still the beggar who will always be with us, the man who, like a parasite, wants to live off the labour of another, the man who is not himself willing to roll up his sleeves and work to ensure prosperity; and then of course there is still the man who complains, the man who thinks that he is not getting a big enough slice out of the nation’s cake. This is unfortunately a human failure which can be exploited so easily, and I am afraid the present Opposition finds it very easy to exploit this mental attitude. Sir, the present Opposition finds it so easy to exploit this situation, particularly if it pleads for the so-called ordinary man, because it has no prospects of coming into power within a reasonably short time and because it need not therefore fulfil its promises. That is precisely the position of the present Opposition. The Opposition has in this debate pleaded to satiation point for the so-called ordinary man, but, as has happened so often in the past, it has also displayed a negative frame of mind because it has no prospect of coming into power. The Opposition is continually assuring us that they are not thinking of political gain when they put in a plea for the ordinary man. On Friday the hon. member for Constantia stated explicitly here that he was not thinking of any political gain for the Opposition when he pleaded for the ordinary man. But, Sir, have we ever had a definition of this “ordinary man”? At the beginning of every Act one finds, after all, a definition which informs one what certain concepts in that Act mean, but never in this Session have we had a definition of this ordinary man from the Opposition. We have never even come close to hearing such a definition from them. Who is this ordinary man? How much does he earn; what does he do; where does he work? We have never been given a definition of him, and that is why I ask myself: Who is this legendary figure, the ordinary man? I myself have always thought that I was an ordinary man, but when I listened to the description of the Opposition of this ordinary man, then it seems to me I lack two characteristics, or at least one major characteristic, which would qualify me as the ordinary man to whom the Opposition refers and that is that I do not complain. I do not complain about my income; I do not complain about my circumstances. It seems to me that the Opposition’s definition of an ordinary man is a man who is always complaining about everything, who is always complaining about his income and who is always complaining about his circumstances. It makes no difference whether this is a labourer earning R2 a day, or whether it is an official earning R8,000 per year; as long as he complains he is the ordinary man. Sir, I indicated to you at the beginning that the Opposition complained last year on behalf of those groups of people who are, through the Bill, being placed in an unfavourable position.

You said there was no bulge.

I read out to you what the hon. member for Pinelands mentioned as an example, i.e. the man earning R10,000 per year. He complained prodigiously about the circumstances of that poor man, a man with an income of R10,000 per year! The man who in the past was affected by the bulge is the man who was earning at least R5,000 to R6,000 per year. It seems to me the Opposition’s definition of the ordinary man is that man who complains about his circumstances, whether he is earning R2 per day or R8,000 per year. That bulge has now been ironed out. The man with an income of R10,000 per year has been accommodated by the hon. the Minister of Finance, and now that that has been done, the Opposition, from the introduction of the Budget to this morning, has been pleading for the poor man, who is suffering such hardships; this of course includes the income group between, let us say, R100 per month to R5,000 per year. Sir, the impression I get from this Opposition is that they are so inconsistent in their definition of the ordinary man that no sober-minded positive-thinking person pays any heed any more to the Opposition, and for that reason I want to draw attention, in the time at my disposal, to those things which this Budget and this Government are in fact doing for the lesser well-to-do citizens of the country. In the first instance this Budget, by ironing out the bulge, has given a tremendous incentive to people to work at full steam without the fear that the State will tax away the largest part of their hard-earned income. Never in the past has a Budget done so much to stimulate diligence as this Budget is doing, and for this one aspect alone, we could almost give this Budget full marks. But I also want to point out a second aspect. In spite of all the jeremiads from the Opposition, this Budget does in fact constitute many advantages for the lower income groups. I am mentioning only a few examples: the additional statutory payment of R41 million to the provinces does in fact enable the provinces to make large concessions to the lower income groups. I am thinking for example of the extremely low hospital costs for the lower income groups. The higher income groups must pay their full hospital expenses, but the lower income groups pay just about nothing for their hospital services. In the Cape this extra statutory amount is going to enable the provinces this year to grant books and requirements to all its schoolchildren free of charge, and this is also being done by the other provinces. In the Cape we still have the Divisional Council tax. This extra statutory payment to the Cape will enable the province to decrease its Divisional Council tax. Sir, I should like to refer to another matter, i.e. the increase in social pensions and the great contributions by the State to civil pensions. Here, too, there is a concession which promotes diligence, for a married man receiving a pension who still works can now deduct up to R40 of his earnings from his income without the means test being applied, and this does not apply to rich people, it applies to the poor man, to the man who is so poor that he has to receive a social pension. If he is still working he can deduct up to R40 from his earnings before the means test is applied to him. I want to point out a further advantage: the R3.5 million interest subsidy for public servants in the lower income groups, which will help them to acquire houses. I am indicating the restrictions on income so a man can participate in government supported housing schemes. A man with an income of R100 per month can live in a sub-economic house. It is not the high income groups who benefit from this. A man with two children and an income of between R100 to R225 per month can live in a sub-economic house. These are all things which benefit the lower income groups. In addition there is the R39 million to agricultural credit which is serving to keep our poorer farmers on the land. Sir, these are all possible steps which have been taken in this Budget to benefit the lower income groups. The Opposition should take care that it does not deprive the lower income groups of all sense of responsibility, for by continually drumming it into the lower income groups that they are not receiving their fair share, one is undermining the sense of responsibility of those people. In conclusion it is in fact they who derive the greatest benefit from the services the State provides. All this conduct on the part of the Opposition amounts to is playing with fire, for if it were taken far enough it would be heading directly towards a communistic way of thinking, and for that reason the nation outside will pay no heed to this Opposition which is continually undermining in a negative way instead of producing positive ideas. I am just mentioning the question of this sales tax again, which was supposedly introduced in such a precipitate way and which is supposedly imposing such a heavy burden on the less well-to-do. But what is being forgotten is that the assessment of 5 per cent on income tax does not apply to the lower income groups. He only begins to pay this assessment when he pays R100 in income tax to the Central Government, in other words, any person with an income less than R2,000 per year does not pay this assessment. Therefore, any person paying less than R100 in income tax to the Central Government pays this 5 per cent. The hon. member for Constantia had a great deal to say about the fact that this sales tax was supposedly proving such a heavy burden on the less well-to-do. But if the hon. member were to read the speech made earlier on during this Session in regard to this matter, he would see that if the Minister of Finance accepts the hon. member’s proposal in this regard it would in fact be the less well-to-do who would suffer as a result. The hon. member for Durban (Point) said on an occasion yesterday that we were misinterpreting that speech of the hon. member. But let us glance briefly at what the hon. member actually said—

In other words, to accept the proposals for sales tax in principle so that we can regard this year as a year of experiment and research. That would mean that these proposals would only come into operation in a year’s time.

Not even in a year’s time, but now, so that experiments in that regard can be instituted during the present financial year.

The hon. member did not listen carefully. The hon. member for Constantia said, “… that the House and the country be requested to accept its proposals in principle and that we should regard this year as a year of experiment and research”. Well, if research has first to be done as the hon. member requested, surely it would mean that we could only put the proposals into operation in a year’s time. But I must also be fair to the hon. member for Constantia. It is true that he requested that certain of these proposals should be introduced this year already. He suggested that the Minister should introduce this system by, in the first place, imposing a tax of 15 to 20 per cent on luxuries, plus a minimal tax of, say 2½ per cent on a restricted list of goods, goods which should have been selected far more carefully than were the goods appearing on the list submitted by the Minister. But such a tax would only have produced a very small income. In the first instance, there would have been a very restricted list of goods, and in the second instance the tax would only have been 2½ instead of 10 per cent. If, on that basis, we were now to have a year of experiment, the Minister would during the course of the year find that the income from that tax was so little that he would have to increase it to what he has now proposed, i.e. 10 per cent. The hon. member’s proposal would have enabled the rich man. the man who is in a position to buy, to have accumulated great quantities of supplies. He would have been able to buy to his heart’s delight, while the poor man, who would not have been able to do so, would at the end of that year have had to bear the full burden of the tax. That is the way in which the Opposition pleads for the poor man, the ordinary man—their proposals amount to the poor man actually being prejudiced because he would have been placed in a less favourable position than the man who is able to buy in advance.

Do you believe what you are saying?

That is my problem with this hon. Opposition: they are continually trying to sit on two stools. Last year they pleaded for the man with an income of R10,000 per year, now, on the other hand, for the so-called poor man. But there is a sting in their plea for they are pleading for an extension of time so that the rich man can buy up and fill his granaries and the poor man, who cannot do so, would subsequently have to bear the full burden of tax. That is my problem with the hon. the Opposition, and that is the reason why it has been rejected for 21 years now. And that is also the reason why it will continue to be rejected next year and the year after, by the voters. I am convinced that if an opposition should ever come to light which could lift this Government from these benches, it would not be the present Opposition. This will have to be done in some other way, but how I do not know. Instead of thinking positively this Opposition simply stands on the touch line looking for an opportunity of causing discord in the ranks of the Government. On that it then wants to prey. During this entire Session they have been on the continual look-out for a crack in the edifice of this Government, so much so that they have completely forgotten to come forward with any positive ideas. Well, they looked in vain for the crack did not appear; the Government is still as unanimous as it always has been and it will continue in full strength to serve the nation of South Africa while the Opposition which sits in the pavilion and does not want to lend a hand in the struggle will remain sitting there until they have dwindled completely.

Mr. Speaker, I want to avoid any controversial subjects, and discuss the question of the hon. the Minister’s taxes and their effects on artificial sweeteners. In taxing the artificial sweeteners, or at any rate the best of them, the hon. the Minister is inflicting great suffering on something like a quarter of a million people of the country. Many of them, particularly those in the Indian community, fall into the very humblest class. The Minister’s taxation is, relatively speaking, so heavy that he is depriving some of these people of essential foods. These people must either abstain from eating certain foods, such as jams, jellies or certain types of bread, which are essential foods, or eat foods which are damaging to their health. Other foods, such as potatoes, which they cannot afford, they find very difficult to obtain. Sir, I should like to refer in particular to the artificial sweeteners cyclamates and saccharine.

Cyclamates are dangerous.

Sir, even one of my hon. colleagues speaks innocently and ignorantly. Cyclamates carry a duty of R2 per pound. They can be manufactured in this country for R1.40 per pound. They are made in Cape Town. But the price, when they come to be used, is R3.40 per pound. This is a heavy blow to the sort of people I have mentioned. Not only are the diabetics affected, but also the people whom we medical men regard as also not being healthy, those people who are obese. These two groups of people will suffer under this taxation. It is even worse when one realizes that the control by the hon. the Minister is ineffective and bears still more heavily on this South African industry. While all cyclamate used in this country is taxed at source, and while foods, particularly those which are manufactured, and which contain saccharine and cyclamates, are controlled, especially by the Department of Health inspectors, there is no inspection of and no taxation on imported foods containing cyclamates. Such foods, such as jams, etc. have the normal duty placed on them, and the fact that cyclamates may be present in these foods is not noticed. There is no control over these foods. The result is that the locally manufactured special foods are not cheaper than those which are imported, owing to the fact that the locally manufactured cyclamates carry an extra R2 duty, whereas cyclamates imported in foods are completely uncontrolled and not taken into account. These foods come in duty-free. The cyclamate content in such foods is, of course, small but any inspection of a departmental self-service counter will show that imported foods cost anything from 30 per cent to 50 per cent less than the locally manufactured products. I carried out such a test myself on Saturday.

The local food containing sugar is cheaper than the imported food containing cyclamate by anything from 30 to 50 per cent. To poor people this is a tremendous difference and in order to satisfy their hunger or their desire for sweets they must take the local product which contains sugar because they cannot afford the imported one. I made an inspection of two of these supermarkets on Saturday, and in one I found two articles which were manufactured locally and which contained cyclamate. Both these articles were more expensive than equivalent articles of food containing foreign cyclamate so that for practical purposes the sales of artificially sweetened food are almost nil. There is very little trade in these articles. Although there is a firm in Pinetown which has a very wide range of such products, its sales are limited compared with the sales of imported goods. Many of the supermarkets do not carry these goods. The people who need these foods have to go to chemists, which means a special journey. Furthermore, as I have said, the cost to them is very high. Chemists in general do not carry the locally manufactured goods. Perhaps I should not repeat this, but I am told that they have agreed amongst themselves that they will not carry the local foods. The sugar firms of this country are very anxious to keep these foods on the shelves of chemists and not have them on the shelves of supermarkets, where people generally go to buy their food. They have to make a special journey to a chemist to buy single articles such as sweeteners and artificially sweetened foods which their health demands. I know that there is a world campaign claiming that cyclamates are dangerous. We had an example of the effect of this campaign before us this morning. Let us look into the matter. Calcium-cyclamate and sodium-cyclamate which are the substances usually used have approximately 30 times more sweetening power than sugar. For the restriction of carbohydrates which are the fatteners of people and which diabetics must be made to carry out and for the health of those who have a sweet tooth but who are obese, possibly because they have that sweet tooth, it is necessary that the diabetic foods should be eaten, and they are prescribed by doctors.

Now, let us look how the world regards the cyclamates. I say this for the consideration of the hon. the Minister of Health which I am sure he will now investigate further. In Great Britain it is permitted in food without any restriction. Under the soft drink regulations of Scotland the committee which sat on this point in 1964, permitted the use of cyclamates freely. It was not considered necessary in Britain to introduce statutory regulations because it is said to be self-limiting in taking. This is from the report of the Cyclamates, Food Additives and Contaminants committee issued as recently as 1965. Cyclamates are being used for all soft drinks except tonic water where the bitter after-taste of saccharine is welcomed. That is roughly the only one where it is used. Appletiser which is a common drink in this country, is marked at the request of the sugar companies as being free from added sugar when it is unsweetened. In order to reply to the question as to whether cyclamates, as my colleague said, are dangerous, I have here a photostat copy of a letter which appeared in the South African Medical Journal of the 20th July, 1968. This letter is signed by eight eminent specialist physicians. I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that so important is diabetes in this country that not one teaching hospital in South Africa has not set up a special department for the care of the diabetics. This letter, as I have said, is signed by eight eminent physicians who are in charge of diabetic clinics in all the teaching hospitals in this country. I will not read it all. This is what they say—

That was an article written in 1968—

The article then goes on and talks about the unsafety of sugar which does not concern us for the moment.

Could the hon. member tell us who the physicians are that wrote that letter?

I will give the hon. member their names if he so wishes. They are Professor Jackson of the Groote Schuur Hospital, Dr. Campbell of the King Edward VIII Hospital, Dr. Lopis of the Johannesburg Hospital, Dr. Wilson of the Baragwanath Hospital, Dr. Cowley of the Karl Bremer Hospital, Dr. Harrington of the bio-chemistry section, SAIMR, Johannesburg, Dr. Schneider of the Johannesburg Hospital and Dr. Seymore of the H.F. Verwoerd Hospital. As the hon. member will notice one of these men belongs to the bio-chemistry section of the SAIMR, but they are all distinguished men who are working in teaching hospitals. This is a doctrine which is being advocated by the most eminent diabetologists in the country. There is no particular specialty recognized by that name, but nevertheless these gentlemen are all specialist physicians. The criticism is that the genetics of humans are affected by the use of cyclamates in excess. The latest medical journal which arrived last week from England states quite clearly that the use of cyclamates in excess, namely some 15 times the average dose a person might use per day, has been found in animals to interfere with the chromosomes which carry the genetic characteristics of these animals. Up to date it has however not been found that the same is the case in respect of humans.

Only in excess.

Only in excess is worse. If the hon. the Minister will bear in mind the importance of this matter to these people, he will realize that he is taxing a group of people who can ill afford to pay. The tale of the bad effects of cyclamates is no more proved than is the bad effect of sugar. The sugar producers of South Africa gave evidence on artificial sweeteners before a committee and they made some statements which should certainly be investigated very closely. They said that the United Kingdom allows the unrestricted use of artificial sweeteners except for soft drinks and ice cream. The U.S.A. allows the unrestricted use, except in sweet confectionery. It is interesting to note that in South Africa the use of artificial sweeteners is prohibited except for specified medical purposes. Nobody has ever asked for a prescription to buy cyclamate powder to put in his tea instead of sugar. This is not true. What difficulty there is with the use of artificial sweeteners comes from the hon. the Minister of Finance and not from the hon. the Minister of Health, unless the hon. the Minister of Finance is being used as an instrument for improving the health of the country, by means of finance. I am sure that that is the last thing the hon. the Minister of Health would like to do.

The need is widespread. It is a great hardship when people have to pay extra for diabetic food. I see no reason why a man who suffers from diabetes or a man who suffers from obesity should be made to pay this tax. This is a plea for these people. I hope the hon. the Minister will seek the advice which the hon. the Minister of Health is evidently already offering him, as soon as possible and will see if the difficulties I have mentioned can be avoided.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban (Central) spoke today like a director of a pill factory. I can tell the hon. member that I think that the bitterest pill for the United Party to swallow will come when they find out next year in the provincial elections that they have no members in the provincial councils. That will be the case if the speech which the hon. member made is to be the one to take the world in tow. I shall come back to the speech of the hon. member for Durban (Central) again. However, a few other aspects were raised here. I want to deal here with one or two aspects mentioned by the hon. member for Parktown. The hon. member spoke of the Stock Exchange and said that there was a frightful amount of speculation taking place. He said that money was flooding into the Exchange. This is so. The hon. member also went further. He said that the Franzsen Commission had been appointed after the Opposition had been pleading for it for so many years. He made a further statement to the effect that we did not have sufficient manpower in South Africa and that the efficiency of our economy was collapsing. He also complained about the high price of land and also requested a commission in that connection. In addition, he also asked that something be done in connection with the distribution of wealth in this country. Now, after the hon. member has made all these statements, I want to ask him something. The hon. member is a trained accountant and knows a great deal about finance. Therefore I want to ask him whether, because there is so much prosperity in the country, he wants to blame the Government for the fact that people are speculating to such a tremendous extent on the share markets. That speculation is the result of the great amount of money that there is in the country at present. There is such a tremendous amount of money that the people have now actually developed a speculation mania. The Franzsen Commission recommended that a capital gains tax be levied. This was not accepted, and one of the methods, I would say the only method, which the Minister can apply to counteract this is to tax those share transfers to a greater extent. I now want to ask the hon. member if he is in favour of that? Does that hon. member, on behalf of the Opposition, now want the hon. the Minister to increase the tax of a half per cent which is at present applicable to both the buyer and seller? The hon. member must now answer “yes” or “no”.

You are saying that the people are mad, we are not.

The hon. member does not want to reply. I now put the question to the hon. member for Yeoville. Is the hon. member for Yeoville in favour of that?

No.

In other words, the hon. member does not want that tax introduced? That is where the hon. members blow hot and cold. They are not honest and sincere in the statements they make. They blame the Government for that tremendous speculation. And now, through the mouth of the hon. member for Yeoville, they do not want that tax introduced. In other words, they now even want a much greater speculation to take place.

We agree with the Minister.

The hon. member for Yeoville does not want that tax introduced; in other words, he is repudiating the hon. member for Parktown, who levelled accusations at the hon. the Minister about nothing being done.

The hon. member did not say the Minister should tax it.

I now want to ask the hon. member who has just spoken what he wants. What must this Government do to counteract this excessive confidence which the public and the businessmen of South Africa have placed in the Stock Exchange? Those are surely company shares that are quoted on that stock exchange, and no person with any knowledge of shares would speculate to such an extent, or continue to buy shares so consistently, if he was not sure that he was going to make a profit. All those people have the idea that they are going to make large capital gains on the market. That is why they are spending so much. The hon. member also spoke about the high land prices. He said that the Government should do something about that. I should like the hon. member for Parktown to tell us what this Government should do. Surely the hon. members on that side of the House constitute this country’s alternative government. It is also this hon. Opposition which must tell the public outside that this Government is doing one thing, while it should be doing something else. What does that hon. member want done in order to counteract land prices?

I want you to set up a commission to investigate, like the Franzsen Commission.

What would we gain by having a commission merely to investigate it? That member and all his party colleagues simply do not have a solution for it. The hon. Opposition knows that if it were not for the fact that there was so much money and such wealth in South Africa the people would not be buying land so recklessly. They are doing so because there are prospects of making even more profit. There is so much progress because there is such a degree of confidence in this Government. We know that if the hon. Opposition were to come into power to-morrow, the entire Stock Exchange would collapse. Land prices would plummet; everything would collapse.

I now want to come to the other point which the hon. member made in connection with the manpower shortage. He said that there is a tremendous manpower shortage in South Africa. Surely this is only attributable to this prosperity. If there were to have been a depression in this country there would also have been many unemployed, as was the case in the days when they ruled. We are happy that all our people can be employed. It is a known fact that 2 per cent unemployment is accepted as the average by international standards. If there are 2 per cent unemployed, this is still regarded as full employment. In South Africa the number of unemployed constitutes far less than 2 per cent. Are those hon. members not grateful for that? We should praise this Government for what it has managed to do, i.e. that there is work for everyone and not a shortage of anything.

Mention was also made here of the food prices which had increased to such an extent. The hon. member for Florida brilliantly refuted that statement. He quoted statistics concerning our cost of living. I want to speak about a smaller portion, i.e. only about food prices. I think it is an achievement for South Africa as far as food prices are concerned, that we are among the top 14 countries in respect of 13 different commodities. This is not according to my newspapers, but according to the Financial Mail. [Interjections.] I am speaking about the Financial Mail, not the Financial Gazette. Since 1960 South Africa’s position on the list has improved in respect of six commodities. South Africa’s position, in respect of the quantity produced, is basically as follows: As far as maize is concerned, we are third in the world, conceding pride of place to the U.S.A. and Argentina. We are fifth in the world in respect of our sheep. Australia, New Zealand, Argentine and Russia are ahead of us. Those are all countries that are well-endowed with capital. It was only yesterday that South Africa was still considered to be an under-developed country. But since this National Party came into power we have built South Africa up into what it is today. There are still several other commodities that I could mention. For example, take sheep, wool, sugar, fish, castor oil, citrus, peanuts, flour, cattle, butter and meat. Despite the production by these other great countries, we appear high up on the production list.

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

Before we adjourned, I was quoting certain percentages to indicate that food prices in South Africa had not increased to as great an extent as the Opposition suggests. Since 1963 food prices have increased by 21.6 per cent. There are only seven countries in the world where there has been less of an increase. In West Germany it increased by 9 per cent, in Italy by 15 per cent and in Israel by 19 per cent. But in looking at these increases we must remember that in South Africa food was already very inexpensive, and even a large percentage increase in these prices still does not make food in South Africa more expensive than in those countries. Our food still ranks with the cheapest in the world. I cannot see why the Opposition says that our cost of living has increased so tremendously. Although it has increased it is still ranks with the lowest in the world.

I should like to come back to the Budget, and for a moment I want to have a general look at the requirements this Budget has to comply with, the degree in which it succeeded and the degree to which we can criticize it. This year the Minister came to light with an achievement, i.e. halving the income tax which the individual must pay, and, in addition, the sales duty which was introduced is not as heavy as hon. members opposite want to suggest. We must, of course, remember and understand that the Government does not trade like a private firm. The State’s function is to look after the administration, to ensure a good degree of order and peace in the country and to ensure that there is an infra-structure upon which the private sector can build. With its Budget this Government has, in all respects, looked after everyone and has looked after all sectors of the economy. The Government has also seen to the financing and preservation of that which is its own, and it is serving its people to the fullest extent with this Budget. We cannot be at odds about that.

We in South Africa are a part of the world at large, and when we think of the world at large we must ask ourselves whether we, as a country, also have a function to fulfil as far as the outside world is concerned. In the first place, we must also look at where we come from, at what our origins are. We came from Holland when, in 1652, our forefather settled on the southern tip of Africa. In 1820 our English friends also came in large numbers, and this has continued to take place throughout, and people have come from France and Germany as well. It is surely not necessary for me to sketch the geographic situation any further. We are a part of Africa and, viewed in the broader sense, we are a part of the Whites in the Western world. And we must also view the East as a part of the whole. I now ask to what extent this Budget helps South Africa in the outward extension of its pattern of life and its trade? In South Africa our people have all the facilities, but this Government has once more provided for systems of communication to the outside world. We are reminded here of the cable between South Africa and Portugal which was opened by the Prime Minister this year. We are also reminded of radio and of transport. In this Budget the hon. the Minister made provision for our shipbuilding by setting aside R1.83 million for that purpose. This has all been done in order to extend our trade and our communications with the outside world. You may now ask how we can make contact with the outside world. Firstly, we can do so by supplying services and transferring our knowledge to them. Here we want to ask the Opposition whether they are satisfied with that, or do they criticize the Government as a result of the fact it furnished Lesotho, Botswana. Swaziland and the Northern non-White states with services and also financial assistance this year? If this is not criticized, it is surely a positive step which the Government has taken to help others as well, without neglecting our own people. If we consider the gleaning of knowledge, then our students in South Africa have a restricted field in which to extend their knowledge and we know that our people can learn very little from Africa.

Therefore it is also necessary for us to obtain knowledge from the West, in Europe and the U.S.A., and here, I think, we owe the Minister a great debt of gratitude for having made provision for post-graduate students in engineering and science, and for having ensured tax rebates in that regard. But there is one thing we must not neglect to do either, and that is to thank the Government for its actions in respect of students from abroad who were or are studying at our universities and who conducted themselves, or are conducting themselves, like a lot of agitators. We are glad that this year the Government took strong action and crushed that manifestation. If these people want to study here and want to do harm to our party, our country or our people, then I say we must take drastic action, and the Government must know that, in taking action against them, it will have the full support of South Africa.

There are also other spheres in which we can make contact with the world and fulfil ourselves, and one of these is the sphere of sport. We have five different fields, such as rugby, tennis, cricket, golf and athletics. We see that here as well provision has been made for sport and recreation to the tune of R320,000. But I do not consider this to be such an important factor. Even if we play against no other country, and even if no other country were to come here, it still does not make any difference. We did not take part in the Olympic Games this year, and what did this entail for us? In Bloemfontein we had the South African Games. There we did not merely have a small group of people competing overseas. It enabled our people to develop themselves to a large extent, to compete and to relax, which is perhaps of much greater value to us as a country than if we had taken part in the Olympic Games.

Do you want us to cease taking part in those Games?

No, I do not say that, but that is not everything; it is not the alpha and the omega. We should like to do so. But when those people drag politics into sport and things fall through, the world has not come to an end. That is what I want to bring home to the hon. member.

This brings me to another section which this Government looks after, and that is tourism. We know that tourism can be one of the largest sources of foreign exchange in the world. We only need to think of a country such as Spain, whose revenue from tourism exceeds what South Africa earns with its gold sales abroad. That is how important tourism can be. Here the Government did not neglect to do its duty either. In this Budget R1,825,000 was set aside for that purpose, and we have a fully-fledged Department of Tourism. Everything that is necessary has been established. In thinking of tourism, we ask ourselves what a tourist wants; what does he look at and what does he want? When he gets here he wants to see what the country looks like; he wants to see what its people look like and he wants to examine their handiwork. Many people also go to another country for health reasons and in order to rest. People also want to gain more experience and to obtain knowledge. Since we in South Africa have made great strides with our tourism and our hotel industry, etc., to make it possible for people to be received here, and since we have all the various organizations necessary, I do not think the Opposition can criticize this Government to-day for not having done its share as far as tourism is concerned. We must remember that it is now up to the private sector to take the necessary steps to promote tourism here. We must draw people here, and then it depends upon each member of the community, whether it be the Government, the Opposition or John Citizen, to ensure that we receive those people here and make things as easy for them as possible.

But to me the most important way in which one can carry one’s way of life to the outside world, and which the Government and we as a nation can apply, is in the sphere of trade. I want to dwell on that. Trade, whether export or import trade, is the most important factor in the life of any nation. Where one has good trade relations between countries, it creates confidence amongst the people. Particularly since South Africa’s rand is in such a strong position, being one of the strongest monetary units in the world, the businessmen of England, for example, and even the English Government, have confidence in this country’s economy. We must not forget that this confidence which is created can also be utilized for the benefit of our country and its people. A good understanding develops when there is dynamic trade, and then one gets good neighbourliness. That is why we have good neighbourliness with so many black states in Africa. Since our buying power is highly esteemed, it gives us the knowledge that it is our strength and we must develop it for the benefit of our country.

Let us briefly look at what the figures for 1969 have to say, as far as our exports and imports are concerned, and here I just want to divide up the various countries into Africa, America, Europe, Aisa, etc. The imports from Africa totalled R16 million, while we exported to the value of R42.2 million. From Europe we imported goods to the value of R175.5 million and exported R118 million. In the case of America the imports totalled a mere R42.15 million, as against R19.9 million in exports, and in the case of Asia it was R52 million as against R37.5 million. And so I could continue. In respect of the other countries the figures are very small, but all in all it gives us a total of R294.8 million in imports as against R231.3 million in exports. We see that Europe tops the list, with imports to this country totalling R175 million and exports from this country totalling R118 million. This brings me to the point that we should concentrate more on Europe. These are our countries of origin from which we have imported goods, and it is much easier to extend that existing market further than to seek new markets. It is also very convenient for us to export goods to Europe. Our telecommunications system is very efficient and does not need to be extended further. We have our submarine cable and we have radio, and we have a common language in respect of those people.

To extend our trade with Africa is not that easy, but nevertheless we must not ignore this. I call upon the business men of this country to support the Government in this attempt to extent our trade. Because the countries of Africa speak languages which differ from ours, because their Governments are unstable and these countries are still all underdeveloped, we cannot trade with them to as great an extent as with Europe. A few days ago Professor J. A. Lombard of Pretoria gave us a very good address on this matter. He pointed out how extensive the problems were in connection with developing a greater amount of trade with Africa. It is not easy to develop a greater amount of trade with the East either, or with the communist countries, etc.

We saw that Minister Haak, during his mission to Australia, said that in the distant future, at the end of this century, he foresaw a southern common market among the countries of the Southern Hemisphere, and we are very glad that the Minister thought along those lines. But it is not possible simply to develop trade with the Southern Hemisphere overnight. Even trade with America and Canada will be a lengthy process. In order to realize why it is not easy to get this Southern Hemisphere to develop its trade with us, we must look to history. This, then, brings me back to the European Common Market. If we look at its history it gives us an indication of how long it takes to build up such trade.

During the First World War, as hon. members know, the Netherlands was altogether neutral, while Belgium and Luxembourg were committed to the struggle. It was only in 1921 that Belgium and Luxembourg formed an economic union. They continued with that until 1932, in spite of the fact that they bordered on one another, in spite of the fact that their languages were the same and in spite of the fact that it would have been very easy for them to trade. They continued like that until 1932, when the Belgium-Luxembourg economic union concluded a new agreement with the Netherlands, the Ouchy Treaty, and so the Benelux countries came into being, i.e. Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Under that agreement of 1932, the three governments were to have increased the customs tariffs among themselves; they were to have decreased import duties and were to have abolished the existing trade restrictions in the shortest possible time. But, Sir, world trade is a slow and lengthy process, and therefore the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, Minister Haak, was quite correct when he said that the Southern Hemisphere common market would still take a long time to establish itself.

It was only in September, 1944, 12 years later, that these three governments of the Benelux countries got as far as drawing up a customs agreement, and it was a full 13 years later, in 1957, before they persuaded Italy, France and Germany, to combine and to sign the Rome Treaty, the treaty of the Euromart countries. Mr. Speaker, this indicates to you that one must work along positive lines, and since this Government has developed a trade with the outside world so systematically, soundly and well over the years, we want to ask the Opposition, on their part, also to admit that this Government is doing its share, not only in respect of the Budget, but in other ways as well, by way of missions which were sent overseas, etc. It is very interesting to see how important this economic common market has already become in the world. Those six countries have a population of 185 million, and the area is only a little greater than that of the Republic, but they are already producing 70 per cent of the steel for the United States and 60 per cent of its motor cars, and their total annual trade—imports and exports—amounts to R22,000 million, which is equal to that of the United States of America. That is why it is necessary for the private sector and the Opposition to help the Government to cement closer ties with Western Europe and to develop our export trade with that part of the world. Sir, if England is admitted to the Euromart—and there is a strong possibility that this will happen—then the population of that Common Market will be extended to 280 million people, by comparison with America’s 200 million. If we could succeed in making closer contacts with that Common Market, it could only prove beneficial to South Africa. Sir, I conclude by saying that we thank the Government for what it has done in this Budget to develop the South African economy to even greater heights than it has already reached.

Mr. Speaker, I had difficulty in following the hon. member for Sunnyside. He gave me the impression that his outlook was that of a “verkrampte” looking outwards and that many of the statements made by him could be questioned. Some of them I will deal with in the course of my speech but I think he will accept that I do not want to follow him in detail.

You look like a “verkrimpte” who is throwing out his chest.

Sir, I think the records will show that this has been one of the busiest Sessions in the history of the South African Parliament and one in which we have put as many Acts on the Statute Book as in any previous session of Parliament, if not more. From the list I have here it seems that in 1965 we put 103 Acts on the Statute Book, in 1967, 105, and this year we have broken the record with 106 or 107, depending on what the Government withdraws. In other years we have been satisfied with far less legislation. But despite this activity it is quite clear that there are certain shortcomings and vacuums in Government policy which have become increasingly evident. In fact, it seems that in certain spheres of policy the Government and the Prime Minister in particular, have a blind eye. I want to say, Sir, how much I appreciate the presence of the Prime Minister. I know he is not feeling well to-day. I naturally cannot deal with all these shortcomings, but there are one or two which are more significant than others that I want to mention before dealing in detail with one or two.

Sir, hon. members have dealt with the uncertainty in the financial field. We have had no reaction yet from the hon. the Minister of Finance. We know that we have this excessive liquidity. We know that his plans so far have not proved very successful. It seems as though he himself is disappointed with them. He talks about speculation on the Stock Exchange and things of that kind. Sir, that only happens when people worry about the value of the money which they have in hand. It is for that reason, I believe, that this speculation is taking place. The hon. gentleman did not see fit to introduce the Third Reading of this Bill with any statement and we are still left with this uncertainty in respect of our situation. Sir, this is not the only respect in which there is uncertainty as to Government policy. Hon. members will recall that the Government no longer has a policy for the Cape Coloured people.

What?

The hon. the Prime Minister himself said that that was to be left to our children.

You are talking utter nonsense.

It is absolutely true.

The hon. the Prime Minister will not deny that he said that this was a matter that would be left to our children.

I only talked about the end of the road.

If you do not know where the road is leading to where are you going?

Where are you going?

We know where we are going; we are going to white leadership in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister tells us that he does not know What the end of the road is; that will be left to our children.

We know what the end of your road is.

For a grown-up man you are being very silly.

Sir, I do not know how some people are elected to Parliament. Who elects a man like that to Parliament?

A better type than those who elected you as Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, that hon. gentleman was one of my staunchest supporters.

He was so anti-Strauss, he could die.

Sir, I have spoken about the Coloured people. I have said that that is a matter that is to be left to our children. Hon. members will also recall that during this Session I raised once again the question of the manpower shortage in South Africa and emphasized the lack of Government action in dealing with this matter. Sir, we have heard honeyed words from this Government on the advantages of immigration but we all know that it is perfectly true, as the experts tell us, that immigration cannot resolve this matter. We have had a Manpower Training Bill introduced as a private member’s measure by the hon. member for Hillbrow and we have had the Government voting against it. We have had talk from the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development on training schemes for Bantu in border industries. But what have we had about training schemes for white men in South Africa? The Government did introduce a Bill to amend the Industrial Conciliation Act. It contained a watered-down version of some of the suggestions made by the hon. member for Hillbrow, but typical of their indifference to this important matter affecting the interests of every white worker in South Africa, this was one of the first Bills dropped by the Government. I am glad to see the Leader of the House making notes. He is no doubt responsible for the fact that this Bill has been dropped. The Government has been equally vague and unsatisfactory about the protection of the white worker in competition with the Bantu worker doing work previously done by Whites only and at lower wages. The hon. the Minister of Transport has been lauded to the skies by the Opposition Press, not by his own Press, for his statement that he has employed thousands of non-Whites to do work previously done by Whites, and there has been no guarantee that they are being paid the same wages.

Would you like to see that?

We have heard from the hon. the Minister of Labour that in the building industry in Natal it would be folly to refuse to allow non-Whites to do the skilled work previously reserved for Whites only, because of the shortage of white labour in that industry in Natal. The hon. gentleman has been at pains to indicate that this relaxation applies only in respect of the building industry in Natal, but obviously he set an example which may and will be followed throughout the rest of South Africa. Where are we going? Nowhere have we heard what the Government’s plans are to protect the position of the white worker. I raised this matter in the House …

Now you are being silly.

I raised this matter earlier on this Session. I outlined what our plans were; I told the Government how it could be done but what have we had from them? We have pointed out the danger to the standard of living of the white worker and to his future and we have made proposals as to how the position could be met. We made detailed proposals in this regard but we have had no reaction whatever from the Government.

You are going to get it to-day.

Better late than never.

The hon. the Minister of Transport says that I will get it to-day. I will be very happy, Sir, if he will come into the debate and give us his ideas.

Where is the Minister of Labour?

It looks as though we are going to have a happy recess; the Minister is going to give us his plans and I am going to be happy.

You seem to be happy in any case.

I have no doubt that we are going to have brainwaves from him again, saying how they are protecting the white man and his future. The fact of the situation is that they have not applied their minds to this position; they are completely at a loss how to deal with it. But I am afraid we have to face the fact that labour patterns in South Africa are changing. The non-White to-day is doing work which in the past was done by Whites and we are being faced with the problem how to protect the standard of living of the white worker in South Africa. If I look at what has happened during this Session of Parliament so far and when I have heard what came from the hon. the Minister of Labour and the hon. the Minister of Transport, who has told us that he has employed thousands of non-Whites doing jobs previously done by Whites with no guarantee that it is the rate for the job, then I have to ask what is the future of the white worker in South Africa? When I ask that question, I cannot imagine how the white worker can continue to support this Government. [Interjections.] No wonder there are longing eyes towards the empty bench of the hon. member for Ermelo by trade unionists and labour leaders who remember his activities in earlier years and wonder whether if they have to have a Nationalist Government he is not the sort of man who would guard their interests more effectively than the present Government.

The hon. gentleman has placed this Government in another difficulty and has revealed their lack of courage in another sphere, their lack of courage to cope with the problems of the day. He has also revealed the lack of clarity in regard to certain aspects of their policy. The hon. member for Ermelo is clearly in revolt against certain aspects of their so-called outward looking policy. The issues on which he has chosen to challenge the Government include amongst them that of national unity. For some time now the hon. the Prime Minister has been trying to make the cry of national unity a plank in his platform. Previous Prime Ministers of that side of the House had difficulty to make that an effective cry because of their Broederbond background. This hon. gentleman has an Ossawabrandwag background but I do not think he has dabbled in the Broederbond. He stressed the big difference between …

You are a Black Sash in a mini.

Mr. Speaker, this business of minis, is it the right sort of thing to be bandied about in this House? The hon. the Prime Minister stressed that the big difference between his party and the party on this side of the House was to be found in the fact that they have always stood for nationalism. I have been constrained to reply that we on our side have always stood for patriotism. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister asked, since when? Sir, do you recall what happened at the outbreak of the last war? I am being asked to explain the difference between patriotism and nationalism. I have said before that in the African context the hon. the Prime Minister has every qualification to be Prime Minister. He has been restricted, Sir. He has done time. Well, I have done time as well but for a different reason. There is a difference. I believe the hon. gentleman got a remission of sentence for good behaviour; I got rigorous imprisonment for escaping. [Interjections.] So, what is the difference between patriotism and nationalism? I saw it put very well not so long ago by a companion in arms of General Charles De Gaulle, a man who is perhaps the greatest patriot France has ever known and that Europe has ever known. He put the difference in this way—

[Interjections.] This is not my definition, Sir; it is that of General De Gaulle. Nobody can say that he was not a patriot. I am not suggesting for a moment that a sponsor of nationalism cannot be a patriot, just as I have never suggested that a sponsor of patriotism cannot likewise sponsor nationalism, nor am I suggesting that hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House have not in their ranks some good patriots. [Interjections.] The hon. gentleman says I am playing with fire. I know that. I am playing with fire, but I am going to ride that fire and I am going to say to hon. gentlemen opposite that I feel that the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Transport were showing real signs of patriotism when they repudiated the speech of the hon. member for Ermelo, a speech in which he insulted the English-speaking people of South Africa. At that time I posed a question as to how a party can stand for real national unity and still have the hon. member for Ermelo as a leading member of its parliamentary team in this House. I am not alone in having that difficulty, because a large section of the Nationalist Press have the same difficulty. Die Burger even wrote on 20th May (translation)—

I am really glad that I am not a Nationalist.

I, too, am glad that you are not.

Order!

However, we have been told now that peace has broken out in the ranks of the Nationalist Party, that the hon. member for Ermelo and the Prime Minister have become reconciled, and we have been told the terms of the reconciliation. We have read with great interest the public statements, by the hon. member for Ermelo in his own constituency. It appears that he started by scoring a signal victory over those Cabinet Ministers who spoke with him there. I think the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration had a night out with him. And then, finally, he appeared with the hon. the Minister of Finance. What did the Minister of Finance do? He entirely evaded it all. The hon. member for Ermelo was left to go it alone in his own constituency. He went it alone. He has been telling his constituency that he has been right and that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport have misinterpreted his speech. I direct this particularly to the Minister of Transport, because I have great respect for him and his views. I remember how he got up in this House and repudiated what the hon. member for Ermelo had said. Have we had a recantation from the hon. member for Ermelo? The furthest he has gone by way of a recantation was to declare that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport did not take the action they did because of the influence upon them of the liberal section of the Nationalist Press—if there is such a section. That is all he said. That is all, by way of recantation, we have heard from him. We are now about to go into recess and I feel that the public is entitled to know where it stands and where the Government stand. Do they stand for national unity in the true sense of the word, or do they not?

A child in standard one could answer that question.

The hon. gentleman says that this is a standard one question. I agree, but let us have the Government answer it, once and for all. Where do they stand? Do they stand merely for the narrow form of nationalism, or do they stand for that broader patriotism which we on this side of the House aspire to? If they stand for that national unity which can only be born of real patriotism, how can they still harbour in their ranks a gentleman with the ideas of the hon. member for Ermelo?

There is a standard one question for you?

The hon. member for Ermelo has chosen to make certain facets of his religion and mine, fundamental as a qualification for leading South Africa satisfactorily, and for being an effective Prime Minister. The two concepts just cannot be reconciled. I want to say that I have great sympathy for the hon. member for Ermelo. I have great sympathy for him because this sort of narrow nationalistic line which he takes is the traditional policy of the Nationalist Party. No wonder he has had so little difficulty in getting support in his own constituency. No wonder members on the other side of the House have been unwilling to take action against him. Amongst them there is also the Minister of Transport. They know what their past has been. They know how wedded to these ideas many of them are. But at least those members do not plead for national unity. In their hearts what they want is Afrikaner hegemony, and they know it. They want their people, and their people only to rule South Africa. That is what the hon. member for Ermelo wants. He does not talk of national unity, but the Prime Minister does and the Minister of Transport does. How can these two groups continue to exist in one party? That is what the public of South Africa wants to know. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, they are all with me. They all agree with me. That is why we have this noise. They all realize that these two groups cannot continue to exist in the same party. This is the party that is trying to make national unity a plank in its platform. [Interjections.] Hark at them, Sir! They all appreciate the difficulty; that is why we have this noise. If I were not right, they would be quiet. Listen to it. Sir. May I just illustrate this matter a little further. I want to recall some of the statements by the hon. member for Ermelo in some of his explanations. I do so, Sir, because I am interested where the hon. the Prime Minister stands. I recognize the voice of Dr. Hertzog, the hon. member for Ermelo. That is the voice we fought in 1948, in 1953, in 1958 and in 1961. That was the authentic voice of the Nationalist Party. I want to know where the hon. the Prime Minister stands to-day. After all, Sir, I recall the 16th August last year, when the Prime Minister attacked the people who were speaking in the traditional voice of the Nationalist Party. Do you remember. Sir, what the hon. the Prime Minister said? He called them “super-Afrikaners”, “baboons” and “suspicion mongers”. This outburst did not seem to concern the hon. member for Ermelo. The same day he spoke at Krugersdorp, and his reply to the Prime Minister was to attack some of the Nationalist Party newspapers, especially Die Burger and Die Beeld, and to blame all the troubles of the Nationalist Party and the deviations from Nationalist Party policy, of which the Prime Minister is in his opinion guilty on Die Beeld and Die Burger. The next day, the 17th August, three Ministers, namely the Minister of Defence, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Community Development, all repudiated the hon. member for Ermelo. In passing I should like to welcome the Minister of Defence back, and to say how glad I am to see that the hon. Minister of Community Development is out of hospital again.

Has any Opposition ever been so bankrupt? [Interjections.]

The Minister of Defence spoke about the sort of untrue allegation made in bad taste by the hon. member for Ermelo.

The Minister of Justice deplored the hon. member’s “unrefreshing attacks upon the leadership”. The Minister of Community Development accused Dr. Hertzog of having been guilty of “political hypocrisy and disloyalty to the Prime Minister”. Does the hon. the Minister stand by those words to-day? He is very silent.

A case of political lockjaw.

These are interesting terms: baboons, super-Afrikaners, suspicion mongers, political hypocrites and un-refreshing. These were not terms used by the Government in regard to the Opposition. These were terms used by Government members about a front-bencher in the Nationalist Party. These are the people who to-day control the Nationalist Party and they are using these terms against the authentic voice of the Nationalist Party as we have known it since 1948. Shortly afterwards the hon. member for Ermelo spoke in Klerksdorp on the 31st August. There he laid down four principles for the conduct of successful guerrilla warfare. He mentioned them as his father’s strategy and it was obvious that he was referring to the rearguard action of the orthodox Nationalists against the revolutionary policy of the Prime Minister. What were those four principles? The first was: It does not pay a commando or small nation to clash head-on with a larger force. Secondly, you must never allow the enemy to choose when he will fight. You must choose when you will fight. Thirdly, having hit the enemy, retreat. Do not be ashamed to run away because you can then come back to fight again.

That is why he is not here to-day.

Fourthly, to do these things, you must be mobile. I once read the philosophy of Mao Tse Tung, who as hon. members will know, has taken over China. These were the ideas on which he based his whole military strategy.

We are very glad indeed that we are not U.P. supporters.

Mr. Speaker, it seems as though the hon. gentleman is basing his whole strategy on the strategy of the communist movement in China. Perhaps when the time comes I can produce more evidence to substantiate that statement. After these reaffirmations the hon. member for Ermelo made a speech in this House on the 14th April. He contrasted the Calvinism of the Afrikaner with the liberalism of the English-speaking citizen to the serious detriment of the latter. What happened eight days later? Eight days later the Prime Minister in reply to provocation from my side of the House mildly rebuked Dr. Hertzog. The Minister of Transport vigorously repudiated him for his grave reflections and insults to the English-speaking people. The hon. member for Ermelo has denied that he has done any of these things. A week later he was feted at Jan Smuts Airport. On 26th April at Tulbagh the hon. the Minister of Transport revealed that Dr. Hertzog had been on the carpet before the Prime Minister. He claimed that as Transvaal leader he, and not the Prime Minister, was really the man who decided that the hon. member for Ermelo had to be repudiated. A number of meetings in the Transvaal followed, such as that at Badplaas in Carolina where the hon. member for Ermelo appeared in the presence of the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. During that meeting, he reaffirmed everything he had said in this House. A little later in his speech at Ermelo he blamed the Nationalist Party Press for the schism in the Nationalist Party leadership. This caused the ever-tactful Minister of Defence to say at George on 10th May that the hon. member for Ermelo was putting up smokescreens to enable his friends to continue their destruction of party discipline and undermining of the Nationalist Party. The hon. Minister of Defence is an old friend of mine. We understand each other and so we know what he means by party discipline. In typical language he described the hon. member for Ermelo as “an old embittered out-worn politician”. Mr. Speaker, do you know what the reaction was of the hon. member for Ermelo? The hon. member for Ermelo said that the hon. the Minister of Defence had acted in conflict with all the principles of good breeding. Then on 20th May the Prime Minister announced that the differences in the Nationalist Party had been solved and that the hon. member for Ermelo would go to his constituency and clear up all the misunderstandings about his speech. We waited and on 6th June the hon. member for Ermelo went to his constituency and spoke at Amsterdam. He hardly referred to the points of difference between him and the Prime Minister. What did he do? He attacked Die Burger and Die Beeld. Die Beeld reported this meeting in these words:

You are the biographer of Hertzog.

And the death notice of the Nationalist Party.

Die Burger also reported this speech. It said that the hon. member for Ermelo had said:

Then we have the Sunday Times commenting on this meeting:

On 8th June Die Beeld reported on the Amsterdam meeting that the speech made there was basically a repetition of four previous speeches. The paper said that when Mr. Dawie de Beer, the Divisional Secretary of the Nationalist Party in Ermelo, asked the hon. member for Ermelo to repudiate the passages quoted by the Prime Minister as requiring explanation, the hon. member for Ermelo lost his temper and exclaimed: “I do not know why it is necessary that I should be humiliated at every meeting.” The true attitude of the hon. member for Ermelo was best reflected in the slashing attack which the hon. member made on the editor of Die Burger when he accused Mr. Cillié of threatening to infiltrate the soul of our volk.

The hon. the Prime Minister demanded an explanation from the hon. member for Ermelo. The hon. member gave his answer. It was no explanation at all. It was, judging by all Press reports, only an undertaking not to leave the Nationalist Party unless he was kicked out and to wage guerrilla warfare on the same basis as his father fought it during the Boer War. This he would do, he said, as a member of the Nationalist Party, refusing to leave that party unless he was driven out of it. The hon. member gave no explanation in reply to the demands made by the hon. the Prime Minister.

Are you sure those are not the wrong notes?

I am quite sure they are not the wrong notes. What worries me is that it is the wrong Prime Minister. Surely the hon. the Prime Minister owes us an explanation. Where does he stand? At the end of the hon. member’s tour and of the meetings in his constituency, the Chairman of the Nationalist Party in that constituency seemed to indicate that the quarrel was over and that the hon. member for Ermelo had met all the demands made upon him. What did we see in this morning’s Press? He said that that was just his personal opinion. He had not been able to get his constituency’s support. Does the hon. the Prime Minister believe in all honesty that the hon. member for Ermelo has met the demands which were made upon him? Does the Prime Minister want us to believe that the gross insult hurled by the hon. member for Ermelo against every English-speaking South African has suddenly been erased? Does the Prime Minister want us to believe that the hon. member for Ermelo has abandoned his “verkrampte” ideas, which according to the hon. the Minister of Community Development, led him to intrigue even against Dr. Verwoerd’s policy. Yes, that is what the hon. the Minister of Community Development said. He said that the hon. member for Ermelo took him to tea and invited him to intrigue against the policy of Dr. Verword. Is it true?

Political lockjaw.

Does the hon. the Prime Minister want South Africa to believe that he and his party are sincere in wishing for national unity, when the authentic voice of the Nationalist Party as expressed by the hon. member for Ermelo has been silenced? That is the voice we heard. We heard it during the 1948 election and thereafter. That was the time when the hon. member for Ermelo had an honoured position in the Nationalist Party. You see, Sir, people are still entitled to an answer from the hon. the Prime Minister. One remains puzzled. When the hon. the Prime Minister talks about national unity, what does he mean? Does he mean the same thing as we mean?

No, definitely not. I will explain to you what the difference is.

He means what Albert Hertzog means.

I am glad that the hon. the Minister of Transport is so frank about this. For so long I have said that when the Nationalist Party talks of national unity, they do not mean the same thing that we mean. When we talk of national unity, we emphasize South African patriotism. We test the quality of that patriotism by examining the contribution that patriotism makes to South Africa and life in South Africa. We test patriotism by the quality of our dedication to South Africa. We look for points of agreement that transcend differences of language. We look for points of agreement which transcend the differences of language between the English- and Afrikaans-speaking people. What do we have from the other side? They have emphasized Afrikaner nationalism. They look for points of difference in order to maintain a separate Afrikaans identity which they could exploit for their political advantage. It is for this reason that they have only been able to offer co-operation to the English-speaking people on terms which must be humiliating to any self-respecting English-speaking South African.

Do you call it humiliating to be yourself?

The hon. the Prime Minister asks whether it is humiliating to be yourself. I believe that we are moving towards something far bigger in South Africa. I believe we are moving in the direction in which the two cultures which originally existed here are rubbing off the one against the other. I believe we are moving in the direction where we are developing slowly a larger common culture in which both languages are accepted and in which each appreciates as its own what is part of the culture of the other language group. I believe that it is only on that basis that we are going to get real national unity in South Africa. By the hon. the Prime Minister’s question, I think he has underlined and emphasized the difference between us. He believes that there is always going to be one group with an English-speaking identity and another group with an Afrikaans-speaking identity, and that we shall work together here on terms. He does not believe that we shall ever have a South African nation. I think that is the difference between us. I think it is so important that we should appreciate that. This brings me back again to General De Gaulle when he said: Patriotism is based on love for your fellows; nationalism on hate for those that are not like you. I believe that to be the great danger, we are faced with in this country.

Now, Sir, I have dealt with finance. I have said something about other differences between us. The last matter with which I want to deal concerns the Bantu policy of the Nationalist Party. Here again, Sir, we have uncertainty. We have a lack of leadership which is becoming evident to the vast majority of people in South Africa. On numerous occasions I have challenged the hon. the Prime Minister to ask the members of the Economic Advisory Council to give us some idea of what the apartheid policy of the Government is going to cost the country. His reply has not been that they were too busy to work out the sum.

It has not been that they did not have the opportunity to direct their minds to it. The only reply we had, we had from the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development to the effect that this is their policy and that they will carry it out regardless of what it costs.

Hear, hear!

Hon. members opposite say “hear, hear”, but they still do not know what the sacrifices are going to be and what is going to be involved. I have reacted to this reply by suggesting that either they do not know what it will cost, or that they have a very shrewd idea indeed, and that they are afraid to reveal it to the public of South Africa. They are afraid to reveal it because they fear the public will not continue to support that policy if they realize what is involved.

Why do you not tell them?

The hon. the Minister asks me why I do not tell them. Why do you not have the courage to ask the Economic Advisory Council to work it out?

You are the Opposition. Why do you not tell them and then let us see who votes for whom.

One wonders what this hon. gentleman learnt when he was overseas.

I learned that the United Party is un-South African.

If the hon. gentleman says that that is what he learned, then he did not pass Sub-Standard A. The only really South African party is the United Party. [Interjections.] This hon. gentleman learned to call Mr. Wilson “Harold”, but he never learned what the answers were to the problems in South Africa. I have reacted to this reply by the hon. the Prime Minister and I said that this impassé exists. Surely it is one of the fundamental issues we have in South Africa? Surely the Government is trying to avoid dealing with it by suggesting that there are only two solutions in South Africa. They are suggesting that there is either total separation or total integration.

Would you want a little of both?

The hon. the Prime Minister says I want a little total integration and total separation. What have we had for 300 years in South Africa? Total integration or total separation? Let the hon. gentleman tell me, because he says I want a little of both. What they refuse to accept is that neither policy has been applied in South Africa for the last 300 years. It has only been in the last 21 years, since this Government has come into power, that we have heard the story of total separation. They cannot continue to bluff the public that their road is the only road and that it must be travelled regardless of cost. There are alternatives and when deciding upon them, the costs and the sacrifices which the public of South Africa are called upon to make are very real considerations. I think all of us in this House acknowledge that the Ministry of Bantu Administration and Development is one of the most important in South Africa. That is why there are two Deputy Ministers assisting the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. Despite the hon. the Minister and the two hon. Deputy Ministers, what has happened to the timetable? Under Dr. Verwoerd we knew he hoped that by the year 2000 there would be equal numbers of Bantu and Whites in the so-called white areas. What has happened to the timetable to-day? What happens when one asks this hon. Minister that question? No answer. One can also ask the two hon. Deputy Ministers. The timetable has been abandoned and they know it.

That is nonsense.

What is the timetable then?

No one ever made a timetable.

The hon. the Minister says nobody ever made a timetable. The previous Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, said in this House that he would be satisfied if by the year 2000 there were equal numbers of Whites and non-Whites in the white areas. Is the hon. the Minister running away from that? The hon. the Minister is silent and so are the two hon. Deputy Ministers. They know they do not have a hope of carrying out that policy. They know very well there is no longer a timetable or even an objective to which they are working. The public of South Africa has a right to know what the objectives of this Government are. These are not the objectives of the late Dr. Verwoerd, Mr. Strydom and Dr. Malan. The objectives are no longer defined. One gets the impression that this hon. Minister is like a cork bobbing on the water, going with the tides and the winds, but that he has no harbour that he is hoping to reach. The fact of the matter is, if his timetable and objective are the same as those of Dr. Verwoerd, he is going too slow to give any meaning to his policy. He knows that if he goes too slowly, if he fails to absorb the natural increase of the Bantu in the reserves and if he fails to offer employment to the surplus Bantu in the White areas, he is on the path to integration and not on the path to segregation.

Is that not what you want?

The hon. gentleman asks if that is not what I want? It is not what I want. It is not my policy, but theirs.

What is your policy?

How many times have I not outlined our policy in this House? Does the hon. member really not know what our policy is?

He does not know his own.

Over the week-end I read an article written by the Editor, in Dagbreek, which is a paper that does not support the United Party, in which he took note of Sabra’s projection, namely that by the year 2000 there would be 23 million Bantu in the urban areas of white South Africa alone. He confessed that he was haunted by this figure. He wrote the following:

This of course brings one to the second problem of the policy, or the lack of it. The hon. the Minister is basing his future plans on border industries, but up to now he has shown no indication at all that he has a realization of the problems connected with that sort of development. The purpose of the policy is to reduce the influence of the black worker in the so-called white areas of the Republic. Towards this objective there has been no progress at all. White South Africa to-day is blacker than it has ever been before. The trouble is that the Government does not appreciate the basic and inescapable problems that they have to face in seeking to implement their policy. One of the basic problems is that when one seeks to develop underdeveloped areas, those underdeveloped areas tend to be surrounded by areas where economic development has reached a high level.

The problem has been well-stated by Gunnar Myrdal who is one of the leading economists in the Scandinavian world. He believes that the gap between rich and poor countries is getting bigger. The rich countries are getting richer and the poor countries are getting poorer. He is convinced that as the lines of communication become extended there is a backwash and that the influence of the developed areas on underdeveloped areas is counteracted. I want to give hon. members his own words. He says:

In other words, the growth of the developed regions occurs at the expense of other localities and other regions where you have instead stagnation or regression and that becomes the pattern. There was another very interesting article which was written by a man called Fölscher when he was writing for his doctor’s degree. He made a critical analysis of the problems connected with the economic and fiscal relations between the Transkei and the Central Government.

First you quoted Myrdal, then Fölscher and now Graaff.

It could be Vosloo, but nobody would have any regard to the third one. [Interjections.]

Order!

Fölscher said the following:

The position in the Transkei and in the other Bantu reserves are similar to those in other areas. They are seriously underdeveloped and they are inhabited by underdeveloped people. There is a lack of education and there are primitive traditions which retard development. There is a lack of capital investment; there is a total lack of orientation in a technological and commercially conscious world. Their natural resources are not what they should be. There is only one advantage over the rest of the Republic and that is that they are the treasure house of untrained and half-trained labour. That labour they export to outside areas. Facing these facts Fölscher alleges that—

By that I think he means ideological considerations—

But the politics of the Government do not want to take labour where prosperity is; their policy is to bring industrial activity to the areas where they hope that labour is plentiful.

Exactly the same thing was done in Great Britain.

Not so long ago a professor gave a lecture here in Cape Town in which he dealt with this problem. He showed how Britain had made a mistake in trying to move industries away from the highly industrialized areas. He said:

The professor may say so, but in Britain it did work.

Who was the professor?

When last were you there, Connie? I think your information is somewhat outdated.

Is he a professor in Great Britain?

No, he is a professor at the Cape Town University and I think his name is Professor Barac. He said:

Then I want to refer to a Mr. Harvey who is an engineer in the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. He said:

Unfortunately he did not say what the Government’s answer is to this undesirable development. I do not believe that the Government has an answer. I do not believe the hon. the Minister has an answer.

Do you think you have one?

I have given my answers so often, but this hon. Minister sat there and what has he done? Here is what Professor Barac said at the end of last year in Cape Town:

He was not speaking of Government policy. He was speaking of what is happening in Great Britain. They had new ideas, but they failed. Eventually they can only shift industries to areas where an infra-structure already existed. This is how Professor Barac concluded his lecture:

I can leave the matter there, but I want to summarize my argument. I believe that border industries are being developed at great expense. They contribute to the solution of some sociological problems, but as a means of achieving the Government’s separation policy they are a total flop. They do not separate black from white in the economic sphere, but instead the border industries bring the races together faster than ever in the new areas. They develop the Bantu areas in an unbalanced manner and retard independent industrial development in those areas. They do not create separate nations or states. All they do is to prove how barren such a concept for South Africa really is. I have dealt with certain uncertainties. We have another uncertainty. That is that we have heard from the Deputy Minister that numbers do not count. He says that numbers do not count in so far as this policy of separate development is concerned. All that is important is on what basis are these people in the white areas. We have had a retreat, we have had explanations and we have had every kind of argument on it, but the fact of the matter is that the numbers of the blacks in the white areas are increasing all the time.

What is more, the ratio of White to Black is getting bigger and bigger. Yet we hear from these hon. gentlemen that numbers do not count!

Nobody said that numbers do not count.

The hon. the Prime Minister says that nobody ever said numbers do not count. He seems to have forgotten that Dr. Verwoerd said that. He seems to have forgotten that the hon. the Deputy Minister, whom he has now moved to Justice also, when he talked to the Rapportryers, said that numbers did not count. He seems to have forgotten that they said that “getalle is nie deurslaggewend nie”.

And you make of that “numbers do not count”?

I accept the translation “numbers are not decisive”.

But surely you are at least bilingual.

I have read the whole debate in the Other Place and the incredibly poor explanation from the hon. the Prime Minister. How ridiculous! Are we going to reduce the number of Bantu in our areas or are we not? The hon. the Minister of Community Development says yes. He stakes his political reputation on reducing the Bantu. What is happening? Nothing, except that he moved to another portfolio.

Then there is the question of consolidation of the Bantu reserves. This matter has been raised. What have we heard? Long stories of the elimination of black spots. Many black spots have been eliminated. But what has happened about consolidation of these reserves? The Transkei is consolidated up to a point.

In how much of a hurry are you?

The hon. member wants to know “hoe haastig is ek”. He has 160 different Bantu reserves in Natal. What is he doing about consolidating them? Not a thing. He knows so well that he cannot apply his policy unless there is consolidation. There are more and more questions unanswered as to Government policy when we go into recess on this matter. It is just a very simple matter. Are we going to be allowed servants in the urban areas? Look what happened at Randburg. Look at the troubles that arose. Where are we? What is Government policy? Nobody knows. We do not know where we are. We end this Session with many questions, some of which I have mentioned today, unanswered by the Government. These are questions on the crucial issues before the country in respect of which this Government has no satisfactory policy. There is the question of national unity. The Government as a party is retaining in its ranks Nationalists of the old traditional school whose very presence in the party makes it impossible for them to be the vehicle of a united nation. Their policy as a solution to our race problems is inadequate, unconvincing and is a failure. This too is a serious matter. Here is what we had from the political columns of Die Burger on Saturday:

What impartial observer in South Africa has got the idea that the concept of separate development to be realized through independent separate sovereign Bantustans is coming to fruition? They believe the whole policy has failed. What reason has this Nationalist Party for continuing to exist? [Interjections.] My old friend the Minister of Defence is laughing. Is he really going to continue to sit on the front bench with the hon. member for Ermelo after what he said about him? If I am asked to describe the Nationalist Party to-day I will say that this hon. Prime Minister is a symbol of failure.

What?

I say, quite frankly, the hon. the Prime Minister is a symbol of failure. National unity means nothing as far as his party is concerned. His outward policy is dividing his followers. He knows it. His policy of separate development is barren and useless. What is he offering South Africa? I think, with great respect, it is the duty of the hon. the Prime Minister to stand up to-day and tell us on what grounds and for what reasons he appeals to the people of South Africa for continued support.

You will understand him better to-morrow.

The hon. the Minister says I will understand him better tomorrow. I only want to say that to-morrow in politics never comes.

Has that hon. member finished talking?

Wait a minute.

Finish your conversation. I shall wait.

I have finished now.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, to-day we saw the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in a brand new role. It is a role in which we have probably never seen him before, i.e. the role of a stage artist who tries very hard to capture the attention of his audience with witticism, sallies and a little bit of humour. He tried very hard to get that attention, but it fell quite flat, except in the case of the hon. member for Yeoville. He was laughing all the time. Nobody on that side of the House laughed more loudly about the witticisms of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition than the hon. member for Yeoville did. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition devoted a very large part of his speech to Dr. Hertzog. What I cannot understand, is why the Leader of the Opposition is so concerned about what is happening in the National Party. Surely, it ought to be to his advantage if there is a possibility of strife and dissension developing in the ranks of the National Party. Surely, it is to his advantage if this is the case. Why is he therefore so concerned about the National Party; why is he so concerned about the possibility of strife and dissension developing, and why is he so concerned about the fact that Dr. Hertzog still occupies a front bench on this side of the House? I think we ought to feel flattered by the concern of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. But he ought to be very concerned about the situation in his party. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants us to follow the same disastrous course he has been following since he became their Leader, i.e. that of hiving off. Just look around in this House and see where the members are sitting who once belonged to that party. There we have the hon. member for Houghton who is now a member of the Progressive Party, and then there is the hon. member for Umlazi. Here we have my colleague the Minister of Community Development, and the Minister of Tourism is also sitting on our side, and all the United Party has obtained in exchange is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who has always been a covert U.P. supporter, even when he was with us. They have had nothing but hiving off over all these years, and now their great concern is that there should not be any hiving off in the National Party either. I say, let us look around us. Look at the long road they have traversed, and see how that road is strewn with principles and promises that were never fulfilled, and see how they have become fewer and smaller and smaller so that of that once mighty party, of which General Smuts was the leader, nothing more than a remnant is sitting—fewer than 40 members. I think it is unheard of audacity on the part of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to try to tell us how we should enforce discipline in our party. We do not need the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the Sunday Times to tell us who may be a member of this party and who may not become one. This is a matter for us to decide, i.e. who may be members of the National Party and who may not. But there is one thing I must say. Both the hon. the Prime Minister and I repudiated the speech made here by the hon. member for Ermelo. But has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition ever mustered enough courage to repudiate one of his members who advocated a policy that was diametrically opposed to the official policy of that party?

Mention an example.

I shall mention examples now. The first is the hon. member for Karoo who advocated a policy here which was in direct conflict with the so-called official policy of the United Party. Has the Leader of the Opposition ever risen and said that he does not agree with it? Furthermore, during this very Session the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that it was the policy of the United Party that all forms of discrimination should be done away with. He said that it was the policy of the United Party that all forms of racial discrimination should be done away with. Is this the policy of that party at present?

But give us the authority to do so.

But the hon. member admits to having said that. I made a note of it. But I am now asking the Leader of the Opposition whether this is the policy of his party. You see, Mr. Speaker, that Leader of the Opposition, the person who told us that he had been in a prisoner of war camp for three years, does not have the courage to repudiate one of his own members.

I shall go further. Their so-called labour policy is “equal pay for equal work”. But when the hon. member for South Coast rose here and pleaded that the Bantu doctors in Natal should receive lower salaries than those paid to the Whites, did the Leader of the Opposition repudiate him and say that this was not their policy? No, he did not do so. And in this way I could quote numerous cases of conflicting views being held in that party. And this has not been a characteristic of that party merely as from to-day; since the days of General Smuts it has been the position that they express 20 different opinions on their policy and that each of them advocates his own policy, and that there has never been a repudiation by the Leader of that Party.

This is merely a red herring.

Then the hon. member talks about national unity and states that in view of the fact that the hon. member for Ermelo is still a member of this party and occupying a front bench, the policy of national unity advocated by the National Party is a farce. Sir, there is a world of difference between the policy of national unity advocated by the United Party and the policy which this side of the House is advocating. The policy of national unity which is being advocated by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, is total assimilation of the Afrikaans-speaking people with the English-speaking people. At his congress last year the hon. member said that they did not ask whether a person was Afrikaans or English-speaking; they only wanted to know whether he was a South African. In other words, such a person would be neither fish nor flesh. They definitely do not stand for the retention of identity. They are in favour of the Afrikaans-speaking people being absorbed into that so-called national unity. This is total assimilation, and this is not the policy of national unity which we are advocating. The national unity which this side of the House is advocating, is a policy based on the retention of the identity of each of the race groups, but with co-operation on the basis of one loyalty to South Africa. If the hon. member thinks that he will be able to bring the English-speaking people back to the fold as a result of what the hon. member for Ermelo allegedly said about the English-speaking people, he will find that this is a dead horse which can no longer be saddled. I just want to point this out. Co-operation between English and Afrikaans-speaking people is one of the principles of the National Party. Article 12 of the programme of principles, which was drafted long before to-day, reads as follows (translation)—

This is our programme of principles, and the policy of co-operation and national unity has been advocated ever since the days of General Hertzog.

Why did General Hertzog leave the Nationalist Party?

General Hertzog most definitely did not leave the National Party because co-operation between English and Afrikaans-speaking people was lacking. That hon. member does not know what he is talking about. General Hertzog left for other reasons. I was present at the congress held in 1940, and the specific principle in regard to co-operation between English and Afrikaans-speaking people which was embodied in the programme of principles drafted by the Federal Council, was virtually identical with the one drafted by General Hertzog himself. And now I challenge the hon. member to point out the difference between the principles drafted by General Hertzog himself and the principle which the Federal Council drafted at the time in regard to co-operation between English and Afrikaans-speaking people.

There is only one word for that, namely politicking, and you know it.

I say that it has always been the policy of this side of the House to have co-operation and national unity, but on a sound basis and with retention of the identity of each race, but not a joining together or an assimilation of one by the other. We want the English-speaking people to be proud of their language, their traditions and their culture. We grant them those things, because we also want them for ourselves. But this is not what the United Party is saying. The Afrikaans-speaking people who have become members of that Party, are being completely anglicised. They are ashamed of speaking their own language, and the only way in which they think they can ingratiate themselves with the English-speaking people, is to be more English than the English-speaking people themselves. That is their policy.

But what I actually want to deal with, is the labour policy of that side of the House which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned again to-day. He spoke here of “What do we do about training schemes for the Black man in South Africa?” and “No protection for the white worker against Bantu labour at lower wages”, and then he said that I “employ thousands of Bantu labourers in jobs previously done by Whites without paying the rate for the job”. Let me deal with the last one. This is no new policy. For the past 20 years white rail workers have not been replaced, but when vacancies arise those vacancies are filled by Bantu. But this is not a new policy.

But, surely, this is replacement. Don’t play with words.

When vacancies arise and Whites are not available, Bantu are employed in their place. When one dismisses a white man and takes on a Bantu in his place, it amounts to replacement, but the hon. member is too obtuse to realize this.

But I want to deal with the policy they are advocating. In the first place, they are referring to the so-called training schemes. When I was still Minister of Labour I started introducing training schemes. Has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition ever heard of the training of artisans, of adults? I doubt whether he has, because as far as this matter is concerned, the hon. the Leader is talking about matters of which he knows very little. Has he heard of the training of artisans?

Yes, since the days of Cott.

No, it was after the days of Cott, when an Act was piloted through this Parliament by me. But now I want to deal with their so-called labour policy, and with the speech the Leader of the Opposition made in the course of the recent Budget debate. Amongst other things he said—

This is the protection he wants to afford white workers. He wants to protect them for 10 years, but he wants to protect them in certain industries where the Bantu are allegedly encroaching on the jobs of those Whites. What does this really mean? At the time I told the Leader of the Opposition by way of interjection that he was the only person who understood it, and I am saying it again. In an industry he now wants to give the Whites the guarantee that they will remain in that employment for 10 years. What does he want to accomplish? What does this really mean? Surely, industrial expansion is taking place all the time; new industries are developing. Is he not going to make any provision for any increase in wages? Does he think that the Whites who are there to-day, have to remain there and do the work for the next 10 years? And why does he limit it to 10 years? That merely goes to show how absurd it is. Now the Leader of the Opposition is asking the advice of his labour expert on his left again.

He is giving advice. It is a pity nobody is giving you any advice.

If the Leader of the Opposition has to advise the hon. member for Yeoville on labour matters, then it is no wonder that they know so little about labour and that they have landed themselves in such a mess. This is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. He says that the jobs of the Whites have to be guaranteed for 10 years in cases where the non-Whites are encroaching on their jobs. What white jobs does the hon. member have in mind? In what way will the Bantu encroach on those white jobs?

On the Railways.

No, that is not the case. Surely, that is not true. Does the hon. member want me to give all the Whites on the Railways a guarantee to the effect that they will be employed for 10 years? Is that what he wants?

That is the least you can do.

Is that the least I can do? This merely goes to show what kind of nonsense they talk about this matter. But let me go a little further. He said that there had to be a national minimum wage for Whites. On what basis is that minimum wage going to be determined? Is it going to be determined on the work of the unskilled labourer, or on the work of the clerk or of the administrative official? Or is it going to be a minimum wage based on the work of an artisan? What minimum wage is it going to be, and what minimum wage is going to protect the white worker? How is he going to determine the minimum wage? All of these are vague statements which are made by the Leader of the Opposition. He says things about which he knows nothing at all. He says them merely to create the impression that they also have a labour policy. But let me take this further. He was referring to the national minimum wage and then he said—

Has the hon. member ever heard that there is such a thing as an Industrial Conciliation Act in South Africa? Does he know that there is a Wage Act? Does he know that there is a system of mutual bargaining in South Africa? Has he ever heard of industrial agreements being entered into, agreements whereby wages are being determined for a specific industry? Has he ever heard that there is a Wage Act in terms of which the Wage Board determines certain wages in an enterprise? Apparently he has never heard of these things, but he now wants to determine wages over the heads of both the trade unions and the industrial councils, by saying that these have to be realistic wages, and this means that the whole system of mutual bargaining between the trade union and the employer will be destroyed completely. This is the protection of the Whites which they want; this has nothing to do with the rate for the job. No, the rate for the job is only good in certain circumstances, because they themselves admit that they do not want to apply it all the times. On a previous occasion I asked them whether they wanted to apply the rate for the job, i.e. equal wages for equal work, under all circumstances, and they could not give me a reply at the time.

We did reply.

No, they did not. They know that they cannot do it.

You did not listen.

Mr. Speaker, let us see what the hon. member for Yeoville has to say about this matter. Here I have a clipping taken from a report of an interview which he granted one of the English newspapers.

It was a South African newspaper; it was not an English newspaper.

It was a British newspaper; let me put it that way.

It was a South African newspaper.

The hon. member said—

Surely, there you have the answer.

In other words, where there is no danger of competition, in places where the Whites will never apply for work, there they need not apply the rate for the job; there they can pay the poor Bantu just what they please; this is their policy. Then the hon. member furnished an example; he mentioned the sphere of employment in which competition between Whites and non-Whites was at its keenest—

Do you know what this means, Sir? They took on the Bantu at lower wages; they are doing the same work the Whites are doing; they drive buses of the same kind; the conductors are doing the same work, but it is being done by Bantu who do so at lower wages than those received by the Whites.

There is no competition.

What protection do those white workers have against all of them being dismissed in order to make room for Bantu? They do not have any statutory protection.

How many have been dismissed?

I say that there is no statutory protection for them, and the hon. member knows that or he ought to know that.

But, surely, there is an agreement with the trade union.

There is no industrial agreement for the bus workers of the Johannesburg Municipality. There is no protection whatever. The Municipality says that they are now trying to persuade the Minister of Labour to grant permission to the effect that Coloureds may also be employed in the place of Whites. Is the hon. member in favour of that? His Municipality in Johannesburg, a United Party municipality, wants this to be done.

There must be equal wages for equal work.

Oh, in the case of Coloureds equal wages are to be paid for equal work, but not in the case of the Bantu. Sir, do you see how farcical that policy is; do you see the absolute hypocrisy (“skynheiligheid”) of that policy? Surely this is not a policy.

And you are shining without holiness (“skyn sonder heiligheid”).

The hon. Member imagines himself to be a person who knows something about labour, but he is displaying his ignorance all the time. But let me quote further what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said about their so-called labour policy. He said that they were advocating a different labour pattern. Remember, Sir, there is a national minimum wage; there is guaranteed employment of Whites for ten years, and all of this is to give them a chance to employ Bantu in the place of Whites. They call this their labour pattern; and then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said—

But when I asked the hon. member over there whether they would still do that if the trade unions were not prepared to agree to it, he did not have the courage to say yes or no; and now I am challenging him again: If they should ever come into power one day—which, thank Heavens, will never happen—and the trade unions should refuse to grant permission for Bantu to be employed, no matter how great a manpower shortage there might be, what would he do?

I shall reply to that.

Yes, he will reply just as he has been promising to reply over all these years. He has never replied and he will never reply. You see, Mr. Speaker, they want their bread buttered on both sides. On the one hand the, United Party wants the support of the workers; on the other hand they want the support of the employers—this is typical of the temporization in which the United Party has always indulged.

You have never been worse.

But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition went further than that. He said that the white workers could lodge an appeal with the Industrial Tribunal. This is in spite of the ten-year guarantee and in spite of the minimum wages. He was still not very sure of his case, and he said that if there should be unfair competition, the white workers could appeal to the Industrial Tribunal. Sir, have you ever heard such folly from a responsible Opposition?

What is wrong with that?

It is because the Opposition knows so little that they do not see anything wrong with that. Then the hon. the Leader of the (Opposition went on to explain how this was to be brought about; he said—

In other words, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his lieutenants cannot explain how these proposals are going to work; a national conference on labour has to be held, and then that conference has to explain how their proposals will work in practice. Sir, have you ever heard such a thing?

Yes, I have heard of a national congress on apartheid.

Let the hon. member tell me who the members of that so-called congress are going to be. Is he going to allow Bantu trade unions to attend? [Laughter.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has never stopped laughing since he started speaking this afternoon; he is still laughing.

This is pathetic.

It is absolutely pathetic to see how those hon. members over there are trying to escape from those wisecracks of theirs which amount to the biggest nonsense imaginable. But let me go on with this so-called conference on labour. Who is going to be present there; who are they going to invite?

We shall invite you, too.

Sir, the hon. member is so foolish: he tries to be funny and ridiculous, but it does not do him the least bit of good; he should reply to this question.

I am trying to, but you do not understand.

Who is going to be present at that labour congress which they are advocating?

The interested parties.

Is he going to invite the Bantu trade unions to that congress?

But you know that Bantu trade unions are not recognized.

That does not matter; Bantu trade unions do exist, whether they are being recognized or not. Are they going to be invited?

What silly questions!

No, that hon. member presumes to know something about labour and he is displaying the greatest ignorance in the world. Hon. members opposite are under the impression that they are bluffing the public with platitudes, with all sorts of fine things which they are saying; and since there is nobody to expose them, they think that the public will take everything for gospel truth. They do not know what they are talking about. This so-called labour policy which they announced here, is the greatest absurdity I have come across in my life, and I do at least have some knowledge of this matter as I was Minister of Labour for six and a half years. But those hon. members move in certain circles on the Rand; they obtain information from trade unions and from certain workers and then they draft a policy which is so ridiculous that no sensible trade union would ever adopt it. I challenge them to name me one trade union leader who is prepared to accept this policy of theirs. I challenge them to find one trade union leader of note in South Africa who would be prepared to adopt and endorse this labour policy of theirs. Sir, they will not find one single trade union leader of note who would adopt this absurd policy, which is not worth the paper it is written on, as a policy for the future. It is a policy teeming with inconsistencies; it is a policy which merely displays ignorance of the true position; it is a policy with which they are trying to bluff the public outside, but the public is not prepared to be bluffed any further.

Then, finally. I just want to deal with one other matter which was discussed by the hon. member, i.e. the Government’s Bantu policy, in respect of which he repeated the same old stories he has been dishing up here over all these years in regard to the apartheid policy of this side of the House. As far as the United Party’s policy is concerned, he said: “How many times have I outlined our policy in this House?” What is their policy? He spoke about their policy of white leadership again. Sir. “white leadership” simply means permanent white domination in South Africa. After all, that is self-evident; that is elementary. After all, one has to be chosen as a leader, and if one is the leader, one is the master. What he expects now is that all those Bantu, to whom they want to grant certain rights, should always be willing, into the distant future, for ever, to choose Whites as their leaders, because they want to retain white leadership. But what does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout have to say about this? His story is quite different. He does not speak of white leadership which amounts to permanent white domination, because that cannot be interpreted in any other way. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout wrote an article in New Nation, in which he said—

Now I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Is this his policy? Is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout correct in interpreting his policy this way? Let me read this out again; the hon. member behind him diverted his attention—

He referred to “white and black nations”. Is this the policy of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition?

They do not understand it, I am afraid.

Sir, I started by saying that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had never had the courage to repudiate any of his members who advocated a policy which was directly in conflict with the official policy. Here we have a typical case …

If Albert had done in my party what he did in yours, I would have expelled him, but you do not have the courage to do so.

I am asking the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, with all the manly courage he has, to tell us whether what I read out here, is the policy of his party?

Albert is still sitting in your party. As soon as you have expelled him, you may ask questions.

Sir, this is, after all, a very simple question.

You do not have the courage to expel him.

Is this the policy of the United Party, and how does it tally with white leadership, which basically amounts to supremacy (“baasskap”)?

Expel Albert first; then we can talk.

He is speaking about white leadership for all time; in other words, he does not foresee that the day will come when the Bantu in South Africa will have an equal say with the Whites, in spite of their so-called race federation policy.

Are you going to grant an equal say to the Bantu in white South Africa?

Of course not, but I am referring to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout wrote here, and I want to know whether the hon. member agrees with that. Does he agree with that?

There is a difference between domination and leadership.

What is the difference? I have never discovered what it is. Surely, one cannot be a leader without being master.

If I had been a Nationalist, I would not have been able to see the difference either.

Sir, that hon. member is so slippery; as I have said before, he is worse than an eel; one can never get a grip on him; he always finds a way of slipping out. In plain language, “white leadership” means white domination and white supremacy; it cannot be interpreted in any other way.

That is the view of a Nationalist; it is not a civilized view.

Let us now analyse what those hon. members mean by “white leadership”. They say that the white man should always rule South Africa. Is that correct? I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether or not his policy of white leadership means that the white man has to rule South Africa into the distant future.

Yes.

This means that the Bantu will always have to occupy a subordinate position. Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct.

In other words, they stand for white supremacy now and in the future, for he says that the white man should always rule South Africa.

We are not Nationalists who interpret leadership to mean supremacy.

Let the hon. member have the courage of his convictions and tell us what he thinks. Sir, the Leader of the Opposition cannot tell us what his policy is. They say their policy is that the white man should rule South Africa in the future. If the white man has to rule South Africa in the future, for all time, it means that the Bantu or even the Coloureds will never be afforded the opportunity of ruling South Africa. This means nothing but white domination. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing for which you have to give the hon. the Minister of Transport credit, and that is that he is a shrewd political in-fighter and that he is also a shrewd political evader, a shrewd political escapist. Sir, my Leader dealt fundamentally with one issue; he did so calmly, without being excited, in a statesmanlike way. He dealt with the fundamental issue of unity between the white peoples of South Africa. He dealt in equal detail with the question of Government Bantustan policy and where it was leading South Africa. What do we get in reply?

A waffle.

A waffle? We get from the hon. the Minister of Transport a lecture on labour. Is this a repudiation of the hon. the Minister of Labour, whose Bill on manpower training his disappeared from the list of activities of this Session? Is that why it has disappeared, so that the hon. the Minister of Transport could tell us what a good labour Minister he used to be? Of course, he used to know about labour. He was the hon. gentleman who in 1942 had a wonderful scheme for labour, an idea of shared profits, of shared management, of communism! It had the same effect as communism, because the workers would have had a share in the control of industry in South Africa. That was the hon. the Minister’s scheme. He is the hon. the Minister who to-day is employing black and Coloured people in white jobs. So he must be the one to get up and try to divert attention from the debate before us. He is the hon. the Minister who belongs to the party which issued the famous or notorious “Basterplakkaat”. What did we have to-day?

He was a United Party supporter then!

Oh, I am sorry. What I was going to say, is that he has become a victim of the “verkramptes”; because what there has been to-day, is nothing but a reversion to those tactics of trying to frighten the white man, the white voter of South Africa into believing that he will be secure behind the Nationalist Party. But he ran away from the issues placed before the House by my hon. Leader. Shrewd as he may be as a tactician, I am not going to fall for his tactics. I am not going to allow him to divert this debate into his field. I have learned from the hon. member for Ermelo that one must not fight on the ground chosen by your enemy. One chooses one’s own ground. We have chosen our ground for this debate and we are going to fight on that ground.

Therefore I am going to answer one challenge of the hon. the Minister of Transport. He challenged this side of the House to say where the Nationalist Party constitution differs from that which led to the casting aside onto the ash heap of the late General Hertzog. That hon. Minister says he was there. I challenge him to deny that the issue on which that break took place was whether the clause in the old Nationalist Party constitution, which guaranteed equal rights, political, cultural and language, was to be replaced by a new clause which only guaranteed equal language rights. Am I wrong? Of course I am not! That was the issue of the break, the issue on which the late General Hertzog left the Nationalist Party, because he stood by the old Nationalist principle of equal rights, language, political and cultural. He would not stomach the removal of the other rights and the retention only of language rights.

But let me challenge him further. Let me ask him whether he belonged to the Nationalist Party of the Transvaal when its constitution forbade the membership of Jewish people of the Nationalist Party. The hon. the Minister was a member of a party which forbade the membership of that party for people of the Jewish faith. That is the hon. the Minister who talks to us about national unity. But when he was challenged by my hon. Leader on the facts of what happened this year, he was silenced. I am going to come back to those facts; because what has happened during this Session of Parliament is that the Nationalist Party has become prisoner of its own history. It is caught in the sterile political cul-de-sac which the whole history of that party has created for itself. The leaders—I believe they were sincere—of that party sought to find a way out of the cul-de-sac. But when they were faced with the real issue, they found that they were blocked by their own members, by their own history and by the strength of the traditions of their own party.

We have heard a lot of bombast lately. There were threats, warnings, ultimatums, attacks by one Nationalist on another Nationalist. This has all been in the process of “lugsuiwering”, clearing the air, removing uncertainty, removing discontent in the Nationalist Party, this Nationalist Party which is so united, which has found a new outwards direction along which they are all moving together. It is a policy which is able to say, “But some of my best friends are English, or Jewish, or ‘verkrampte’ or ‘verligte’ ”. For every one they all have a best friend, who is either a “verkrampte” or a “verligte” or he is English or Jewish. Even golf has suddenly become fashionable. It is no longer an imported, “uitheemse” game. The isolated deviates were going to be dealt with. They were going to be fixed, because they did not represent the official policy. They were going to be put in their place. And they were, Mr. Speaker! My hon. Leader referred to some of the things said about them. I want to add one or two. The hon. the Minister of Defence said the following of a colleague of his, the hon. member for Ermelo:

What are you quoting from?

That was said at Somerset East, in that hon. Deputy Minister’s constituency.

I asked, what are you quoting from?

I quote from Die Beeld of the 18th August. The hon. the Minister of Community Development went further.

The 18th August?

This is the 18th August, last year. Wait a minute, I am building up! The hon. member for Ermelo according to the Minister of Community Development—I quote again—“het hom Vrydagaand met sy toespraak voor die Rapportryers op Krugersdorp skuldig gemaak aan politieke huigelary en dislojaliteit teenoor die Eerste Minister”. The hon. the Minister of Justice said: “Ek moet my sterkste afkeuring uitspreek oor die onverkwiklike aanval van dr. Hertzog op Die Beeld. So I could go on quoting. I have another one, “Leiers moker dr. H.; onsmaaklik en onwaar”, and so on. Then suddenly we find that after all these warnings, after all this name calling, when the chips were really down, the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Transport, as leader of the Nationalist Party in the Transvaal, were not equal to the challenge. When the chips were down after all these threats, after their colleagues in the Cabinet had said this and that about one of their own colleagues, when they were faced with the real issue, they were unequal to the challenge. There was a halfhearted repudiation by the hon. the Prime Minister. There was a prodding by the hon. the Minister of Transport, but it was, in fact, a back-peddling. And now we find that they have reclspsed to their political bosom the very person who was condemned in these terms.

I have quoted these terms. But the editor of Dagbreek had some other descriptions I have not used yet. He called them “jukskeibrekers”, “rysmiere”, “ondergrawers”, “dwarsbomers”, “supers”, “weerbarstiges”, “super-regses”, “Calviniste” and so on and so forth. These are the names used by these hon. members against one of their own colleagues. That colleague has been taken back into the political bosom of the Nationalist Party. Sir, what it means, and South Africa must recognize this, is that, when the chips were down, the unity of the Nationalist Party became more important than the unity of South Africa. That was the simple choice which the leaders of the Nationalist Party had to make. They had to choose between the unity of the Nationalist Party and national unity. So they swallowed their pride. They had their chance then to prove their sincerity and to prove that there was in fact a place in the Nationalist Party for all true South Africans. When that chance was theirs, when they had a golden opportunity, they funked it because they were more concerned with the welfare of their own party than with what would happen to the wider interests of South Africa.

The hon. the Minister of Transport in his reply this afternoon asked why we were concerned. I shall tell him why we are concerned. We are concerned because we believe that the welfare of South Africa, the unity of our people, is something bigger and more important than the welfare and interests of the Nationalist Party as a political party, or any other party in South Africa. It is our concern that South Africans are being misled into a belief which has been repudiated here, not in words, but in fact, by the deeds of the Nationalist Party.

Let us look at the basic facts of this dispute. The hon. member for Ermelo insulted English-speaking South Africans. The hon. the Minister of Transport accepted that this was a gross insult to the English-speaking people of South Africa. There was then an argument within the Nationalist Party. This is not a domestic problem of the Nationalist Party. This affects the people of South Africa because they are entitled to know where the Nationalist Party stands. We found that things went backwards and forwards. We found first of all, and I quote from Die Beeld of 4th May, the following headlines: “Twee L.V.’s vasgevat. Min steun vir Hertzog en Stofberg.” Six days later, on 10th May, we find the following headline: “Dr. Hertzog wen in Ermelo.” As early as last year we had a headline saying “Verligtes verloor, sê Jaap”. An ex-Minister, the hon. member for Oudtshoorn, then said: “Vorster is besig om te wen.” So it has gone on. I do not have the time to quote them all, but I have all the reports here. One day the verligtes are winning, and next day the verkramptes. One day they are being repudiated by their constituencies, and the next day they are winning. We had the headline, “Dr. Hertzog betig voor sy kiesers”. This is a more recent one. And after all this, after both sides had been winning, we suddenly find a pipe of peace being smoked. It was a pipe of peace, but it was being smoked for one reason only, and that was to create a smokescreen over the real events which were taking place. What were the terms of the settlement, Sir? What were the terms which led to the smoking of this pipe of peace? The terms were not that the hon. member for Ermelo should withdraw his insults and not that he should repudiate himself and say “I did not mean to insult”. The terms were not that he had to withdraw one single word of what he said, but only that he should withdraw his allegations against the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport. In other words, no retraction was demanded. No apology to the English-speaking people of South Africa was demanded. The only apology and the only retraction which was demanded was in respect of his own leaders in the Nationalist Party. He had to say that they were not in fact misled by their own Press and that he did not mean that they were misled by their own Press, but nowhere did he have to say that he withdrew his insults or that he apologized for those insults. All that the Nationalist Party and its leadership were worried about, and I say this without fear of contradiction, was that his speech might chase away the support of English-speaking people. They were not worried about the fact that the English-speaking people may have been insulted. They were worried because they thought that the English-speaking people might have been frightened away. Just read the speeches of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and the others who spoke in repudiation. Throughout their speeches the theme is not “You have insulted fellow South Africans. Withdraw”. The theme is “You have endangered the unity of the Nationalist Party”. In speech after speech, and in repudiation after repudiation there was not once an attack on his insults. There was only an attack on his threat to the unity of the Nationalist Party.

Sir, what is the final end of the road? I have two reports here, both from Die Beeld. The one is dated 8th June, and the other is dated 15th June. In the cutting taken from the edition of 8th June, we find the headline: “Ek weet nie, sê dr. Hertzog.” The headline taken from the edition of 15th June says “Minister Schoeman weet niks daarvan”. Neither knew. I should, however, like to quote what was said quite unequivocally by the hon. member for Ermelo. The report reads, inter alia, as follows:

And so it goes on, Sir. He is supported in this by a dozen other members in this House, whom I could quote. “Die Nasionale Party is die politieke volksfront van die Afrikanerdom” is what he said. Not once, by any member, has there been a statement to the effect that the Nationalist Party has grown beyond that point in its own history, and become “die politieke volksfront” of South Africans. That is the fundamental difference which we have to settle. What we have to settle is not whether the Nationalist Party is the “volksfront” of the Afrikaner, but whether it is the “volksfront” of South Africans.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, Sir, I do not have the time. That hon. member can make a speech and give us explanations of how an English-speaking person is an Afrikaner. He can do so in his own time. I want to say that we in the United Party, we South Africans, have no place for second-class citizenship or second-class patriotism. We know only a first-class patriotism and a first-class citizenship. We are not prepared to be a “aanlap”, an attachment, a “bywoner” of the “Afrikanervolksfront”. If any Nationalist Party member will get up and repudiate those statements that the Nationalist Party is the party which is a front for the Afrikaner I would welcome it. But as long as that is the belief of the Nationalist Party, then ipso facto those who are not part of Afrikanerdom are “bywoners” in the political sense. I say that those South Africans who do not see themselves as English- or Afrikaans-speaking, are not prepared to be political “bywoners”. We are not prepared to be an attachment to the Nationalist Party which stands only for one section of the South African people. I believe that South Africa is greater than the Nationalist Party and that the future belongs to the new generation to which I and most of my colleagues belong, a new generation of South Africans to whom the Anglo-Boer War is no longer a material political issue, but to whom it is something which is dead, gone and forgotten out of the past. We look forward to a new life in which we do not see each other divided as Englishman or Afrikaner, but as South Africans. That that generation belongs South Africa’s future. I believe that in that party there are many sincere people who feel the same way. I believe that there are many sincere Nationalists who believe that the future of South Africa lies in the coming together of people of goodwill, the moderates and the true conservatives in the real meaning of conservatism. I refer to the South Africans who are prepared to build on what is good and to move forward to challenge the future. I say with all responsibility that the true conservatives and the true moderates in that party have no place in the Nationalist Party. There is no place for a true South African in that party. There is only place for a sectional Afrikaner. The true South African will find his political home with the United Party for that is where true South Africanism is to be found. In their own ranks there is not even unity. I want to put a question to the hon. member for Innesdal or any hon. Minister. They have passed an Act forbidding political interference by one political party in another race group’s politics. Do they believe that it is an offence for people of one race to give money to a political party of another race group? Would that be an offence?

Please answer.

No, Mr. Speaker, there is dead silence, but the Nationalist Party can take money from people of another race. I call as witness the hon. member for Uitenhage in whose constituency a meeting was held. We find in this connection that their own secretary of the Dagbestuur of the Nationalist Party’s Distriksraad of Uitenhage said the following:

I quote this because the hon. the Minister of Transport stood up and attacked us to-day and tried to make out that that was the party which stood for a pure white race in South Africa, a party which was going to protect the white man. I want to ask the hon. verkramptes whether they belong to a party which is going to protect the white man by taking money from non-Whites with which to fight a political battle against their fellow White men.

Illegally.

Yes, illegally. It is against the law to take money from a non-White to fight a fellow White South African. Is that the sort of political morality which we are going to get? Is that the sort of apartheid for which we are working? In this connection I read only the other day that a predominantly Nationalist-controlled company has just taken up a 26 per cent interest in a business owned by an Indian in Pietermaritzburg. Is this the sort of apartheid for which those hon. members are working? Is this the sort of apartheid for which the hon. member for Oudtshoorn stood up the other day and said that the editor of Hoofstad was a great South African with a great political future? He deplored those who attacked the editor of Hoofstad. This is the party which only yesterday was again in Die Beeld charged with allowing “Dr. Hertzog se nuwe ou oorlog”. This is a party which has divided member from member, idea from idea and thought from thought and it then talks to us of national unity. I say again that that party has in its ranks people who sincerely believe in national unity. I hope they will realize how they have been misled. I hope that they will realize that the real unity of South Africa can only be found when they get out of the political cul-de-sac into which they have led themselves over the years with their propaganda and sectionalism. A party which has lived on hate and fear cannot cleanse itself in a few months or a few years. It will find itself frustrated at every turn by the reaction of those who were strong enough within their own party to force the hon. the Minister of Transport and the Prime Minister to backpedal when the chips were down and they faced a decision.

Mr. Speaker, it is an altogether pleasant experience for us on this side of the House to listen to the hon. member for Durban (Point). We know when he is being pushed into the debate by that side. We have also learned, and he demonstrated it again this afternoon, that he grabs here and grabs there and simply drags in anything, and very often it is simply a great fuss about nothing. That hon. member referred to the youth of South Africa and to where they would fit in. I want to say that the youth of South Africa will not link up with the United Party. But they will link themselves up with this party, and they have already proved this. When we gave people above the age of 18 years the right to vote, the number of United Party members in this House decreased much further. It is very interesting that that hon. member referred to the National Party and said that Nationalists had said certain things to one another. The hon. member said that for that reason we must still do a lot of spring cleaning, etc. I want to remind the hon. member of what one of their members said of his whole party. The hon. member did not select someone in order to ascribe certain words to him. The hon. member said certain things about the party as a whole. I am going to mention three things which that hon. member said about the whole party, but this does not affect the United Party because things like that can pass. As far as they are concerned someone can say things like that about their party; they take no notice of it. They rather busy themselves with other people’s domestic affairs. Other people’s domestic affairs are of much greater importance to them than their own United Party household, where there has been a pretty rotten state of affairs recently. Which party lost some of its supporters during this Session? I know of an hon. member who left that side, but all of us on this side of the House are still together. According to a report which I have at hand, the United Party needs a heart transplant. The whole party needs a heart transplant. That important organ which has to keep the party going is under discussion here, because their’s is useless. According to Mr. Wally Kingwill the entire party is actually dead, because that organ has stopped beating. That is what he says about his entire party. But he went further: Except for the fact that that vital organ should be cut out and replaced with another, there is still a great deal wrong with the party. The party needs a new image and slogan. According to him, what they are advocating now is simply worthless. The whole party must now put this matter right. They must obtain a new image and slogan. That is what he says about that party. I think the hon. member for Walmer will have to give advice. The old heart is not pumping at all any more and the image is in terribly bad shape. He also gave this advice: “The political position is becoming more fluid, but we cannot depend upon the National Party’s mistakes to come into power”. On what are the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Durban (Point) once more trying to “up-end” their party a little this afternoon? They are trying to do so on the mistakes of this side of the House.

We have now sat opposite each other for six months and we have had a chance to sum one another up. It is probably quite a natural reaction on my part if, to-day, I am allowed to have a brief look at the United Party. Mr. Speaker, here sits the ruling party. Our policies are applicable in South Africa, and on all levels of the national economy this policy is being applied in practice. There sits the official Opposition. It is probably their duty and probably their job to examine the policies of this party, as well as their practical application, to weigh this up and to plan their strategy and arrange their mode of action accordingly. For six months now we have seen how they plan their strategy and how they act in this House. We did not actually see much, and we heard even less.

In analysing their actions and examining their strategy, there are a few things we must point out. It is the (Opposition’s job, and it probably regards it as its duty here, to analyse the policies of this side of the House, to pass judgment on their practical application and then to level criticism if they find it necessary to do so. Where the policies of parties are so diametrically opposed, one can understand that there would be a great deal of criticism, and vehement criticism at that. We do not want to deprive them of that right either. They may safely exercise that right. We do not begrudge them that right. During these six months we once more had an abundance of criticism in this House. We had a double dose of it. It was criticism which was frequently only negative. There was nothing to be learned from it. It consisted only of condemnation and disparagement. Very little constructive criticism came from that side of the House. The criticism was so vehement at times that they even forgot to give credit where any government deserved credit for its actions. That was pointed out on this side to-day when financial affairs were being discussed. Reference was made to the economic growth in South Africa and to the position of our industry. We do not receive credit for that. That is also simply condemned. I want to point out something else. i.e. the improved relations among the race groups in South Africa and the growth of a greater South African patriotism and nationalism since South Africa became a Republic. There is nothing but criticism levelled at this side in respect of those matters, and we never receive any credit. There is for example, the progress and growth in South Africa which furnish us with problems, such as a manpower shortage, etc. This is a result of great prosperity. It is not a result of poverty. This side of the House does not receive any credit for what it has done. We only get criticism. Be that as it may, it is not only to-day that it forms part of their equipment. They have had it for years. We have also grown accustomed to the fact that the most pessimistic of predictions accompanies the criticism. We know what damage those predictions have already done us in the outside world. We are still struggling to-day to correct certain wrong impressions created in the outside world by hon. members on that side of the House about us and about South Africa. But it is also interesting that the public in South Africa have nevertheless also learned that it is not necessary for one to take much notice of those fearsome predictions of the United Party which are sketched in the somberest of colours. If one is given goose pimples by ghost stories and that ghost does not even want to make the vaguest of manifestations, the people no longer want to believe that that particular place is haunted. These people will have to live a long time, if I may put it this way, to live down their history. In South Africa it will take them a very long time to get rid of that rancour which unpatriotic actions have aroused in our people.

Except for these super-negative actions, these people are living on vain hopes. We saw this again to-day. They had already taken delight in a possible disruption within the ranks of the National Party. This is strange because they are people who live with disruption day in and day out and who have to relinquish members to this side of the House every day. One cannot actually blame them for at least hoping every now and then that the process will be reversed and move in that direction.

We never had a Potgietersrus.

If they cherished any hopes, these will also be dissipated. I want to mention three things to hon. members in respect of this matter. If there were dissatisfied nationalists, they would not join the United Party because the United Party does not have the answers to South Africa’s problems. Just give a little thought to what happened in the Pretoria (West) election. What happened to the United Party candidate? Loyalty to the National Party is based upon very sound principles. Our people would not have exchanged the principles we have on this side of the House and in this party, for those we could perhaps obtain on that side of the House, or for what is frequently suppressed on that side of the House. National Party unity will still continue to be a stumbling block to the United Party in the future. They will still find themselve up against it every time. Therefore, in their strategy and tactics, they have been cherishing an idle hope and taking delight in something which never became a reality. In their strategy and actions they also employed another fruitless manoeuvre, i.e. to call in supporters of National Party policy in order to support or to try to prove their standpoint. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration said on occasion that they call in false witnesses in support of their case. One witness who was called in was Dr. Rhoodie.

He is our man.

Dr. Rhoodie is one of our people. But they quickly took a dislike to him. They would have liked to take notice of what Dr. Rhoodie said, but then on a certain occasion he said something they did not like and they dropped him just like that. He pointed out to them that the United Party had actually died off and had become what Dr. Rhoodie called a political anachronism. If, then, they want to take note of what Dr. Rhoodie says, they would do well to take note of everything he says. I think that the latest true statement made by Dr. Rhoodie is one of those which the United Party would do well to take note of. His other utterances, even though critical, are constructively so, in support of the policies of this side of the House.

And so we could continue to indicate the negative actions of that party. They are people who, as it were, want to set themselves up as the alternative government in South Africa. Imagine! They are people who, in this House, try to act in such a way that they can at least also present an outward image of themselves as being, in fact, capable of possibly taking over as an alternative government one day. If the Opposition goes to the public and says: “At least give us another chance of ruling”, it must at least state what is positive and concrete as well. One should at least talk about one’s self for a change and one should be prepared to say what one is going to do. One should not always merely speak about and criticize the other man’s mistakes or what he neglected to do. In addition to its task of criticizing and, on occasion, at least criticizing constructively as well, it is also its task to give credit. But it is also very important for the party to give voice to statements of policy from its side of the House. In this respect the Opposition failed hopelessly during each session. This is very interesting and I want to quote the following—

This is one aspect in which the United Party excels. I quote further on the second aspect—

This was said in 1967 and I have now quoted from the Rand Daily Mail of the 26th October, 1967. That was at the end of 1967, but what happened last year? Did anything happen last year to change this impression as embodied in the piece I quoted here a moment ago. At the end of last year, during this same debate, I said to the Opposition that they were evading a statement of their policy. If they want to become an alternative government or set themselves up as an alternative government, they must at least persist in propagating their policy. They must not be shy. I accused them of being ashamed of their own handiwork. I told them that this blue-eyed boy of theirs had to play in the backyard and was not allowed on the front step. The United Party is shy to speak of the race federation policy. I can understand the fact that we as Nationalists perhaps do not evince an interest for this policy, but there are surely some of their own people who would like to hear what they, as a party, like to hold up as an alternative policy, in respect of the Coloured problem as well. But what have we now heard? This year we did at least hear a little from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. In the no-confidence debate at the beginning of this year, he made, according to Hansard, a 25-column speech. I did not count the number of lines, but I took the trouble to count the number of columns. Although a lot was said in between about other matters, a little was said about policy, and I found about five columns, i.e. one-fifth dealing with this. The image of the federal system, as it appears from this speech, is as follows: In the first place, separate voters’ rolls for each group, in the second place, a communal council or councils for each of the non-white groups; in the third place, defined representation for each group in the Central Parliament; and, fourthly, liaison among the groups in their various communal councils and the Central Parliament through a system of fixed statutory committees. I find it strange that we hear so little about this policy. Why are we not told a little more about it? As I said, even though we, as Nationalists, would not be interested, it is nevertheless interesting to note the following—

This is what the hon. member for Yeoville wrote in an article in the Cape Argus on 28th March of this year. If 45 per cent of the electorate supports them, why are they so shabbily treated and why are those voters not given more of an insight into their policy? Why is this information withheld?

Our policy is down in black and white.

If that is the case, why is it not more widely disseminated. One finds very few of these policy statements. The people are really being neglected. Why are the people not more frequently reminded of what is actually happening, and why is no analysis of United Party policy given? When one has been frustrated in opposition for 21 years, one is surely going to do everything possible. One is going to criticize, but, day in and day out, as the Scriptures say, one is going to proclaim one’s policy “even from the rooftops”. I should also like to quote the following—

There they sit, but they do not do anything. If I were to have been forced into that position, I would have proclaimed it from the rooftops, in season and out of season. After the Bloemfontein congress of 1967 an article appeared in The Star of 3rd November, 1967, under the heading “New Steam in the United Party”, and the following was written—

I know nothing about this because very little happened at the end of 1967. Last year in this House I accused the United Party of keeping silent about that. I have now stated what we heard about it in 1967. I know very little about this “determined campaign”. I shall tell you why they do not dare speak about this policy. I have also given a little attention to this matter and I now want to furnish the reasons why efforts are not being made at present, as I said, to proclaim this from the rooftops, and why we have not even felt the blast of this fiery effort of theirs. In the first place, the United Party does not know whether it really does have the right policy. They are, in fact, the people who have made many attempts at obtaining a policy. Someone said that there are many objects at the roadside of United Party history. However, if one were to go and collect the carcasses of United Party policy one would need a large wagon to do so.

They could establish a bonemeal factory.

Yes, they could start up a bonemeal factory. But one must not speak too much either about what one has got because one could perhaps get hold of something else which must be proclaimed to the people. Then again there is too much that the people must forget if too much is said about the present policy. Secondly, race federation is politically unattractive and intellectually incomprehensible. I should now like to quote the following very interesting extract—

That was quite a while ago, i.e. in 1964, but I want to take it further. The article continues by stating—

(He was the representative of one of the East London seats in this House)—

That is what the Daily Dispatch of 16th October, 1964, said. That is a long time ago. All the English language newspapers in South Africa support the United Party, even though they perhaps do not do so in full, and prompt it. That is why I say that they were the ones to say it. That was written in 1964. What has happened since then to cancel out that same impression? I know of nothing. There was the Bloemfontein congress of 1967 and I should just like to refer to what a newspaper, which also propagates the policy of the United Party, had to say, I quote—

They are already flinging their arms in the air and saying that it does not help to rechristen the policy. One will get no further by re-christening it because it still remains unchanged.

I want to mention a third reason why these people are not allowed to announce their policy and why they preferably keep quiet. The germ of integration continues to be embodied in their policy. I once more call upon other witnesses. The first witness says the following—

That is a liberalist.

I shall come to liberalists and then I shall mention everybody. Then the hon. members themselves can contradict everyone. It is a quote from the Rand Daily Mail of 26th October, 1967. I now refer to The Friend of Bloemfontein, As far as I know that newspaper supports the hon. Opposition. I quote—

That is what their own supporters say. Then I want to call upon a third witness. He says—

Then I refer to what the hon. member for Yeoville said. I quote—

I repeat—

The fact that the Coloured develops a consciousness of his colour, an individual group consciousness, is, according to the hon. member for Yeoville, tragic. According to him there must not be that defined group consciousness; the Coloured must have no ties so that he can subsequently be incorporated more easily into the United Party policy. I quote from the Cape Times—

I called these witnesses to prove that the U.P. are not allowed to proclaim their policy. Integration politics is built into that policy of theirs. There are leaders on that side of the House who have stated how Coloureds would be represented in this House; even the Bantu by their own people. When we come down to that analysis, we need another debate like this one. They will not talk about their policy, but this is the only way in which the Opposition can really go to the South African electorate and say: “Try us for a change; we have it in us to become the Government of South Africa”.

Mr. Speaker, shortly after the war I had to take a group of Active Citizen Force officers on a tactical exercise. They had to indicate how they would take up defence positions. A certain old fellow from Ladybrand indicated how he would tackle the problem. He placed one of his platoons out in front, quite isolated from the main position. I discussed this with him and asked him whether he did not think the people were vulnerable and isolated and would become restless when they were left alone like that. He said, “Before leaving them here, I shall give them a good talking to—to boost their morale.” It seems to me as though this is what the hon. member tried to do to-day. Apparently he wanted to boost the morale of that side of the House. In fact, if he had not made those quotations from the Rand Daily Mail, I doubt whether he would have been able to make a speech. Then the hon. member goes as far as to say that we on this side of the House should be positive. He also referred to the hon. member for Walmer, who said that this side of the House needed a heart-transplant. That is quite right, but I was there too, and that hon. member omitted to say that the member for Walmer also said that that side of the House needed a brain transplant. The hon. member speaks about the youth and the position the youth are going to take up. I am astonished that he is so ignorant, because he is prospective information officer for the Nationalist Party. Is he not aware that the F.A.K. recently made a study of the young people in the Transvaal? Is he not aware that they were asked how they felt about national unity? My information is that 57 per cent of them said that they did not see themselves as Afrikaans-speaking or English-speaking South Africans, but as South Africans. That is the standpoint we on this side of the House have taken all these years, and even the youth are beginning to see it this way too now.

The hon. member spoke about our race policy, but, after all, the Government is not laying a policy before us here. Their policy is just a series of slogans! They say their policy is apartheid, but what is happening in practice? I have said this before, and I repeat it: Surely one only believes in apartheid as one believes in Father Christmas, until one has learned to think for oneself. They say their policy is separate development. But what is happening in South Africa? When there is real separation, there is no development. Where there is development, in places such as Rosslyn and Hammarsdale, there is no economic separation.

The hon. member asked what our policy was. Our policy is white leadership, and I am astonished that members opposite have suddenly become ashamed of it. Is it not white leadership which has brought South Africa to where it is to-day?

No, it is the Nationalist Government.

I do not see leadership as drivership; there is a big difference. It is like a chain which can be pulled in a certain direction by leadership, but a chain cannot be pushed into a certain direction; that would be drivership. That is the kind of policy we have from that side of the House. I say I am not ashamed of white leadership, because white leadership is intrinsically just as sound as non-White leadership, and is undeniably preferable to chaos. What we dare not have in South Africa is chaos.

Where must the non-white exercise his leadership?

The hon. member challenged me to be positive. He said we were beating about the bush. I do not want to beat about the bush. I want to take one specific aspect of our race problem, and I want to analyse it together with that hon. member. In doing so I want to show that the Government has only slogans, but no policy. If they do have a policy, however, they will never be able to implement it.

When we discuss racial matters here, there is an absolute obsession on the part of that side of the House about who is going to get the franchise. When are they going to vote? For whom will they be able to vote? How many representatives will they be able to have? These are the only aspects they think about. But there are many other parts, aspects forming wedges in the entire structure of race relationships in this country, which they completely lose sight of in this way. One of these is the population distribution in South Africa, and especially the population distribution of the Whites. I should like to say something about this, because I think it is even more important than these other matters that are frequently raised.

When we examine population distributions of countries, it appears that there are certain characteristic trends. The population is distributed mainly according to the function of the transport system. Because transport by water, ships and boats, was the first transport system to develop, we find that the accumulation and concentration of people throughout the world occurred mainly in the coastal areas and near rivers. Indeed, we are still told to-day that two thirds of the world’s population are to be found either in coastal cities or near large rivers. In this particular respect South Africa is typical of this trend of development, hence the concentration of our population near our large coastal cities. But our development started later in the history of the world. It started in the time when the railway line was already firmly established as the modern form of transport. Moreover, our development went hand in hand with the exploitation of mineral sources. It is for this reason that we have a large concentration of population on the Witwatersrand. This is almost unique, because no where else in the world do we find this. When such a development starts, it creates its own impetus. Initially Johannesburg began as a centre for primary industries. Later on it, in certain satellite industries, started to develop. In time it offered a home to large-scale secondary industrial activities. To-day, however, the continued existence of Johannesburg is ensured not because it has secondary economic activities, but because it is also starting to develop tertiary economic activities now. Johannesburg has become the financial capital of South Africa. It is Johannesburg which offers a home to our financial institutions, to our industrial banks and to our share market. South African history shows very clearly why we have the specific concentrations of populations we do have at present, i.e. mainly in the Witwatersrand area and in our coastal cities.

But there is of course a second factor which promotes and accelerates this process, i.e. industrialization. Industrialization and urbanization go hand in hand. Both of them are cause as well as effect. Industries will always move to those places where there are the biggest concentrations of people, not only because there is a distribution of talent there, but also because such a combination and concentration of people result in a concentration of purchasing power. This is one of the most important factors in industrialization these days. But when we have the industries there, there is also an influx of people there, in precisely the same way as water will flow to low-lying parts. The only way in which this can be stopped is by building dams. This is what should have been done in South Africa long ago. We should have built those dams. Let me say that what we have to deal with here, the depopulation of our rural areas and the urbanization of our people, is a universal phenomenon. It is happening throughout the world. In the United States of America 80 per cent of the population were living on the land at the beginning of the last century. To-day it is calculated that hardly 8 per cent are still living on the land. But although this could happen in America—and this is my theme—we dare not allow it to happen here in South Africa, because there are important social, economic, political and indeed strategic reasons why it should not be allowed.

I do not want to take up the time of this House by furnishing detailed statistics, but I just want to point out how this position is deteriorating. We are dealing here with a party that has been in power for 20 years, and I therefore specifically take 20 years as my norm. Over the past 20 years the number of Whites in the agricultural sector of South Africa decreased annually by 10,000, while the non-white section increased by 70,000 annually. The ratio between White and non-White in our agricultural sector was nine to one in 1950. To-day it is 16 to one. There is every indication that this ratio will be 25 to one in 1975—and that is only six years hence. That side of the House has always been so concerned about the black spots in the white areas. But we have passed this stage long ago. We are now left with a few white spots in the black areas. At present the whitest part of South Africa is the Witwatersrand. There the ratio is one to one. If we look at the white population of the Transvaal, we find that more than 50 per cent of them are living on 1 per cent of the available area. Only .1 per cent of the Transvaal area carries more Whites than non-Whites at present. That is how white South Africa has become. In 1960 the white part of South Africa in the rural areas was indicated as 16 per cent. To-day it has decreased to 10 per cent. The rural areas are running empty. Our towns have become ghost towns. An article appeared in Die Burger recently in which, inter alia, Mr. Theo Gerdener, the Administrator of Natal, was quoted. He also said that the numerical preponderance of non-Whites in the rural areas was becoming one of South Africa’s major problems. Here they refer to luxury hostels for children at schools in the rural areas standing empty. One of our villages, Matjiesfontein, was recently sold as a museum piece. This is what is happening in our rural areas, it is running empty.

This is happening after 20 years of government by that side of the House. But it is clear why it is happening. It is clear why our rural areas are becoming depopulated. In the first place, a very small part of South Africa is really suitable for agriculture. Certain experts are of the opinion that only the coastal areas, Natal and a part of the Witwatersrand are suitable for agriculture. In the second place, the fertility of our soil is low. Our rainfall is poor. It is in very few places that our farms reach the optimum size. Our farms are either too large or too small. But there is also an important social factor. The cities can offer better schools. The cities meet all kinds of social requirements, and this serves to attract more and more people to the cities. But the main reason for the draining of the rural areas is an economic one. The market value of our land is too high. Land is too expensive. I am told that, in order to be able to start a farm these days, apart from the value of the land, one has to lay out R30,000 to R50,000 in capital. Surely this places farming quite beyond the reach of the ordinary beginner. The transport facilities are inadequate. Our marketing system is wrong. Our production costs are too high. And then we are also saddled with an inadequate and outdated taxation system which has burdened the farmers for many years and which is forcing more and more people to move to the cities. These are all factors we must counteract.

There are important social and cultural reasons why we should counteract them. Land tenure, the traditional approach in South Africa, gives us spiritual stability. It is precisely our organic connection with the soil which has formed the framework of our cultural institutions all these years. In fact, our whole existence is symbolized by this. The word “Adam”, denoting the father of mankind, is derived from the Hebrew word “Adamah”, which means “cultivator of the soil”. It is precisely this agrarian tradition we have had all these years which has given our people their cultural values. With the severance of this, as they move to the cities, we immediately find a change in our social values and in our cultural system. It is precisely in the rural areas that there is still personal contact on a large scale between White and non-White, and it is the white culture which serves as the cement, as the binding factor, to keep our cultural system stable. But this white group is becoming so small, the cement is becoming so thin that the entire building will collapse in time.

But there are also economic reasons why we should counteract the depopulation. Even at this stage the agricultural sector is still responsible for one sixth of our national income. As an earner of foreign exchange our agricultural sector is still responsible for more than R400 million per year. This is exceeded by one other sector only, and that is mining. And the hon. the Minister of Finance should be very glad at present that he has the agricultural sector, because if he cannot sell his gold, where will he get exchange from? It is agriculture that is helping him. But who can feel happy about the present situation, because the indications are that in 1975, which is just around the corner, there will be less than half a million Whites and more than 12 million non-Whites in the rural areas, which is a ratio of 1 in 25. Have you ever heard of any community which would be satisfied to leave primary food production and the processing of its products almost completely in the hands of one specific sector of the population? I therefore say that economically speaking we are vulnerable, and that is another reason why the position cannot be left as it is.

But there is also an important political reason why we must counteract this. The rural areas in general give us those people who, politically speaking, are more conservative and stable and more consistent. It is the people in the cities who display deviate tendencies and who adopt an outward approach. It seems to me as though this is a sphere in which there is so much activity and where the hon. member for Ermelo is involved in such a duel with his colleagues that I do not want to take this point any further at this stage.

But I think the most important reason still why our rural areas should not be drained is a military or a strategic one. The kind of situation which is developing against us is very clear. There are people who want to grasp us in a stranglehold of terrorism, and the terrorist movement is aimed at three targets. In the first place it wants to pin down the security forces of Southern Africa. In the second place it wants to blockade our diplomatic movement to the North, and in the third place, it wants to dramatise the confrontation with white Southern Africa, because for their purposes and for propaganda purposes this is absolutely essential. Suppose the terrorists come closer and cross South Africa’s borders. What will they find there? A thin screen of police and security forces, which from the nature of the case has to be rather thin. And once they have penetrated that screen, they will find a white vacuum. It is a fact that one can drive for 100 miles or further to-day without meeting one single white man on his farm. They will meet a completely non-white element. Is this not precisely what communism is aiming at? As recently as last week Mao Tse Tung once again made a speech in which he indicated precisely that this was the breeding-ground of Communism.

But this is no unique situation either. Other countries have experienced the same. The Israelis experienced exactly the same situation, and what did they do? They established a group of outposts in the form of kibbutzim and Mushav, and it seems to me as though that is the kind of approach we will have to adopt as well. Here I am not thinking in terms of agricultural spots only. I am thinking in terms of combined regions where there will be agriculture as well as industry. I do not necessarily see them as being outpost laagers only, or front-line strongholds only. I see them as active, dynamic industrial spots. It seems to me that, if one has such a series of these industrial spots, one will be able to control the situation, because then it will also be possible to provide extra-urban electricity. From the nature of the case the cost of living will be lower in these areas, and on account of this more and more white people will return there. These areas will become permanent. It is not the Government’s border area endeavour that I am supporting here, because the Government is moving certain of our strategic industries to the borders, which is something I will oppose at all times. The Government is also moving to the border areas because they will find non-white labour there, but I am referring to industries which will be white labour intensive. But in this general system that we have to establish in this way, I think that all South Africans, and also the new South Africans, have to play a part. Here we have a new Minister of Immigration, who tells us how many thousands of people he brings in per year. He is an energetic Minister, and he has an even more energetic Deputy Minister, and between the two of them the immigrants will come in rapidly now. But I am just asking how many of these immigrants are going to our rural areas? They are all coming to the cities to-day. I think we should urge that a certain percentage of the new immigrants coming in should go to the rural areas. After all, this is where the 1820 Settlers started, on our borders. This is where the French Huguenots started. Why must all the new immigrants go to the cities, where it is not so easy to absorb them either? But here we need a national plan. We must create a new body, a rural areas development board. We already have the I.D.C., the Industrial Development Corporation. It is so handy to be able to use these abbreviations; we also got a B.O.S.S. recently, but what I am referring to now, is a rural areas development board (plattelandse ontwikkelingsraad) and if this is abbreviated in Afrikaans, we get the form P.O.R.. and it seems to me as though we need a body to urge on (aanpor) this development.

The hon. member said we should be positive. Here is a positive proposal. Create a rural areas development board which can do exactly what I have suggested to the House here. But what do we get from the Government? Only promises and slogans which can never be implemented. Sir, there are many laws. There are the laws of economics and there are the laws of physics, but there is of course also a political law, and the political law states that the longer a Government is in power and the stronger it becomes, the more it neglects the interests of the country. This is what we have now. We have never had a Government that was stronger than this one, and we have never had a Government that was in power longer. Sir, I can assure you that the neglect of the interests of our country and of our people is now assuming horrible proportions, and therefore a change must be made.

The hon. member who has just sat down, said that the only things this country was getting from this Government were slogans, but what is the truth? The truth is that for 21 years this country has been getting deed after deed from this Government.

The Government has been committing nothing but crimes.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it.

When those hon. members are in a different mood they refer scornfully to the vigorousness of this Government. Therefore that hon. member is guilty of the charge he levelled at the National Government, because he has come forward with a slogan, and that is that the National Government has nothing but slogans, whereas the opposite is true, as I have just said. In the course of what I am going to say I shall come back to the hon. member for Hillbrow. However, I should like to react to certain questions posed here this afternoon by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Before doing so, I just want to point out that I found it very interesting to note, after the reception which I had on a previous occasion from the Opposition on the de jure population of our Bantu homelands and on the per capita income in those homelands, that hon. members gave that matter a very wide berth indeed. This does not surprise me, because it is very clear how they come to fall into that trap. [Interjection.] Those were irrefutable facts which I gave, from which you cannot run away, and you know it, but I am only referring to that matter in passing now.

I want to point out that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to two things which relate more particularly to the field of operation for which I am responsible. He asked, “What has happened to the so-called time-table? They have abandoned it. There is no longer a time-table and they no longer have an objective towards which they are working”. This is one of the points which he raised, to which I want to react. The other point which he raised—and I hope I shall have the time to come to it—was the question of Randburg.

In connection with what he said here about the “time-table and objective”, let there not be the least bit of doubt about one thing. The ideal which the National Party is actively and vigorously pursuing from day to day and from week to week and from month to month and from year to year is to have the minimum number of Bantu in our white areas as against the maximum number of Bantu in the homelands. I say this is always our task, and as regards the so-called time-table to which the hon. the Leader referred, I just want to point out that Dr. Verwoerd had said at that time that the object was to have one Bantu for each white person in our white areas by the year 2000 and that the ratio should not exceed that. In addition he said that by the year 1978 an attempt would be made to reverse the point of increase in the direction of a movement of Bantu back to the homelands. In other words, the impression should not be created now that he said anything but that. That was the point Dr. Verwoerd made, and in this regard we should not have any misunderstanding.

This afternoon I want to stress, against the background of what I said before, that we are working from day to day to settle the maximum number of Bantu in the homelands and the minimum number in the white areas, and that we are not only succeeding in doing so, but that there is no question whatsoever of any change in our ideal, in the plans under our policy and in the implementation of our policy. I say this with the greatest emphasis, and I want to give the undertaking once again this afternoon that I shall make it my business, as I have been doing since the day I was appointed to this position, to try to do precisely this under all circumstances. I shall come back to this matter, but I first want to give three examples out of many more which I can mention. I am firmly convinced, also from what I am about to say, that we are not only succeeding at a faster rate in achieving the objectives we have set ourselves, but that we shall have more and more success in the years to come. I say I want to give three examples in order to show to what extent we have already succeeded. In a previous debate I furnished figures which showed that for the first time in 78 years we had decreased the total Bantu population in the Cape Peninsula from 113,000 to 109,000. This was a major achievement, one which was rendered possible only as a result of the steady implementation of the policy from day to day and from month to month. I shall give a second example, one which I also gave during the no-confidence debate at the beginning of the year. [Interjections.] If the hon. member will just give me a chance …

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister should proceed with his speech; it is not necessary to pay attention to interjections.

I want to tell hon. members opposite that this is no easy task. This is a very difficult task which would present a grand challenge to any nation in the world, one which therefore presents a very great challenge also to this small nation. The second example I also gave during the no-confidence debate at the beginning of this year, and I remember very clearly that I held up the diagram for hon. members on the opposite side to see. I said on that occasion that as from 16th January, 1968, the number of Bantu in Port Elizabeth had been showing a very marked downward trend. Surely this is a great achievement. I want to mention another case here this afternoon.

What was the decrease in Port Elizabeth?

I do not have the exact figure now. I refer hon. members to that debate which they may consult again. [Interjection.] I gave the figure here on a previous occasion and I do not want to repeat it. I am only giving these three examples, because the difficulty is that if one quotes too many statistics here that is tantamount to throwing them down a bottomless well. That is why I am only giving three examples in order to illustrate how we are succeeding in this difficult process from day to day. The third example which I want to give relates to a town like Krugersdorp. In 1956 the total Bantu population there was 51,720; in 1960 it increased to 56,504; in 1962 it increased to 59,962, and in 1968, as a result of more rigid influx control and other measures, it decreased to 48,249. This, Sir, surely is a major achievement. I want to quote to hon. members a passage from the report of the United Party Town Council, Forward Planning No. 4, which was published towards the end of last year, and which they readily conceded this point. I quote from that report—

Sir, I have statistics which show that in the times in which we are living now we have already reached a position, as a result of the daily implementation of the policy of the Government, where the natural increase of the Bantu in our urban complexes is considerably in excess of the influx of Bantu from outside. In the Johannesburg complex, for example, the natural increase during the period 1946 to 1951 was 176,000; in the period 1951-’60 the natural increase was 717,000. In 1946-’51 the influx was 313,000 whereas it was 363,000 during the period 1951-’60. During the period 1946-’51 the influx of Bantu was 1.8 for every one birth; in the period 1951-’60 this figure decreased to 0.5. During the period 1946-’51 the influx figure was 1 as against a birth figure of 0.56; and during the period 1951-’60 the birth figure was 1.98. Sir, this confirms what the United Party Town Council stated so clearly in its report. I am giving you hard facts in order to illustrate how the Government is succeeding in realizing the objectives it has set itself and in the implementation of its stated policy and ideal. We can achieve this to the extent to which we are doing so, only as a result of the dedication of officials, but the first, primary, basic reason is the fact that unlike that side of the House, we on this side of the House do have a policy which we are implementing. We do have a policy whereas those hon. members unfortunately do not have one.

Sir, I should not like to waste my valuable time, but I want to read to you a quotation so as to illustrate and emphasize the lack of any policy on that side, seeing that the hon. member for Hillbrow said we only had slogans and seeing that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked what had become of our so-called time-table. I have replied to him now and I shall come to it again. I want to quote to you from the Rand Daily Mail. This is not a newspaper which I like quoting, but on 25th August, 1967, the Rand Daily Mail wrote, inter alia, the following—

But then the Rand Daily Mail said that something was lacking—

Sir, this is the only point I wished to make. This is not what I am saying.

Do you believe that?

This is what the newspapers of those hon. members are saying.

And if their supporters are saying so, what are the other people saying?

That is the difficulty of that side of the House. Sir, I now want to show further how we are implementing our policy in respect of this very difficult problem of the number of Bantu in the white area. While it is true that there were approximately 530,000 Bantu employed in our industries—this is an estimated figure which I received from the Department of Commerce and Industries—in the country as a whole in 1967, this figure represents an increase of only 156 per cent as compared with the 1947 figure. But over against that the gross value of production increased from R922 million in 1947 to R5,812 million in 1967. Expressed as a percentage, there was an increase of 530 per cent in the gross value of production. Sir, what does that mean? Surely the implications of this figure are very clear. While we did make use of essential Bantu labour in the white area—we have always said that this is our policy and that we do not intend doing away with it, because we cannot do so, and it was also the policy Dr. Verwoerd stood for when he said that we were striving to have one Bantu for every White in the white area of South Africa by the end of the year 2000—this increase of 530 per cent in the gross value of production was an almost super-human achievement in the light of the increase of only 156 per cent in the number of Bantu employed in our industries. [Interjections.] I know it hurts, because these are facts which I am giving the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention one last figure in this connection. On 16th January, 1968, the Physical Planning Act came into operation in South Africa. That is a very important Act. It has brought about large-scale changes in many fields here in South Africa. That hon. member is aware of the fact and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is aware of the fact that we can no longer simply give permission for the proclamation of industrial areas in the white areas. We put a stop to that. Are those hon. members really so childishly naïve as to think that this does not contain a definite implication; are they so childishly naive as to think that if in the next decade we implemented that Act as we did during the past year, as I shall illustrate to you now, it would not necessarily have important results in South Africa in connection with the matter which is under discussion now, as it is already having? I want to mention one single figure to you: from 16th January, 1968, to 31st December, 1968 employers asked for 42,271 Bantu workers, single Bantu workers, in terms of this Physical Planning Act, and they were granted only 26,916. In other words, based on the demand as against the number granted, there was a saving of 15,355 single Bantu. On a family basis the number would have been considerably more than 15,355. This is the number that was kept out of our white areas and white industries in this way.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, it is an interesting interjection that the hon. member made there. There is one thing which hon. members on the opposite side must understand very clearly and that is that as a result of the fact that we stand for a policy of contract labour, a policy which the Bantu are not only accepting more and more, but are also appreciating more and more, as a result of the fact that this policy of contract labour has already become so streamlined that the Bantu can very easily go and visit his home because of better transport facilities—we go out of our way to make it as easy as possible for the Bantu to visit his homeland as often as possible—and as a result of other factors in connection with this contract labour, we are finding to an increasing extent that the Bantu are no longer interested in bringing their families from the Bantu homelands to the white area. In this respect the National Party Government has made a large-scale breakthrough which cannot be under-estimated.

And you are proud of that?

Of course; we are very proud of it. Our policy on this side is to have the minimum of Bantu in our white area. We have confirmed this by our deeds, as proved by the statistics which I could give you in the limited time at my disposal. In contrast to that the policy of that side of the House, as they have said repeatedly, is to settle the Bantu here on a family basis. I do not want to cover that field again; I have done so before in order to show what it would have cost. [Interjections.] Sir, if those hon. members mock me, I shall discuss that again. The fact of the matter is that it is an almost unbelievable achievement for any Government to be able to say that under the circumstances in which we find ourselves in this country, there are 1,664,000) contract labour Bantu in South Africa in terms of the contract labour system, which is coupled with law, order, peace and prosperity for all, both White and non-White, in this country. Those hon. members can quibble and complain as much as they like. This figure is the correct labour bureau figure for July, 1968. It is the latest figure which we have at our disposal. They can quibble and complain and do whatever they like, but the fact of the matter is simply that under their policy we would have had to multiply those 1,664,000 Bantu, who are here as contract labour, with four or five persons per family, according to what the generally accepted concept has always been in the past, because they want to settle the Bantu on a family basis here. If we should find then that the total number of Bantu in our white areas is below 6 million, I am prepared to give those hon. members just what they want. That is why they mock when one gives them these facts. That is also why they try to get away from them. I challenge the United Party now to react effectively to this figure which I mentioned previously and which I have repeated now. Actually I was not intending to repeat it. They should not try simply to laugh it away or think it away. Let them react to it effectively. They are caught in a trap from which they cannot escape, and from which the country cannot escape. Either we use these Bantu under a contract labour system in our white areas, as we are doing, or we use them on a family basis here, as the United Party say they want it. Now Lam repeating to them that the official figure in respect of the Bantu who were here as single Bantu on a contract labour basis in July last year was 1,664,000. If one wants them here on a family basis it is obvious that many more than 1,664,000 will be here. Even a small child can understand that. Those hon. members ought to understand it. Why do they jeer at these figures now? It is because they are being dealt a very severe blow in this connection. It is their declared policy, in the words of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who said repeatedly during this session, that they want to establish the Bantu here on a family basis. This is one of the dilemmas with which this country is faced. I now challenge the United Party to escape from this dilemma in terms of their policy, and to declare how they will prevent the number of Bantu in the white areas from increasing beyond the number which is in the white areas under National rule. Let me see whether they can do it. I repeat that a small child can understand this. One does not expect that kind of attitude from adults.

May I ask the Deputy Minister a question? If each of these 1,664,000 Bantu were to bring in five relatives, on the average, it would mean that there would be almost an additional 8.5 million people here. Where would they come from?

That is an old question which hon. members on the other side always ask. There are two places where they will have to come from.

What are they?

Just give me a chance to reply. There are only two places from which they can come and from which they will come. As I said previously, they will come either from the white farms or from the Bantu homelands. That is where they will come from. Even a child can understand that, Sir. One should not ask such an unintelligent question. That is precisely my objection. I have stated this very important fact repeatedly in this House. Now the United Party is trying to get out of this in a ridiculous way. However, they cannot get out of it, because if we have single South African Bantu males here on a contract labour basis, it means that there will be far fewer of them than under the policy of the United Party, who want to settle them here on a family basis. It is absurd to argue further about this matter. The United Party cannot get away from this. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

This policy of ours of having a maximum number of Bantu in the Bantu homelands and a minimum number of Bantu in our white areas very clearly implies vigorous economic development around and within those homelands, and also in particular, greater self-government for the Black peoples in their own territories. It means more and more self-determination for each Bantu people in each one of the homelands. We are not running away from this either. That is why I am repeating these points very clearly in the House this afternoon. Under our policy the road for each Bantu people to develop to full self-determination is clear. This does not exclude independence. This has always been our declared policy, is still our declared policy, and will be our declared policy in the future. All possibilities are open to the Bantu peoples in their own homelands, and when the time arrives, full independence for them can be considered. That time may be soon or not, and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said in the Other Place the other day that it was quite possible that that time would arrive long before the year 2000. It will depend on the Bantu themselves, and on other circumstances which may come into play. The point which the United Party cannot get away from is and remains the fact that the Bantu nations can achieve self-determination under our policy, and that we are leading and assisting them along that road. As a result, we are getting an increasing measure of appreciation from the Bantu.

In connection with the economic development of our Bantu homelands, I now want to say the following: We on this side of the House continually keep in mind the final conclusions of the Tomlinson Commission of 1955. That Commission said at that time: “It is the conviction of the commission that the development programme of the Bantu areas must be tackled in the spirit of an act of faith.” The commission compared this challenge to that of the rebuilding of the war-ravaged countries in Europe in 1945. The commission concluded its report with these words: “The choice for South Africa is very clear: either the challenge must be accepted, or the inevitable consequences of the integration of the Bantu and European population groups into a common society in South Africa must be endured.” As I said, we are continually keeping in mind these important words. It is now almost 15 years since these words were written, and what has happened in the meantime? As I pointed out just now, there is no integration in South Africa to-day, as a result of the vigorous action of the National Party. We have so far succeeded in implementing this policy of separate development on a sound basis in South Africa. We are constantly doing so with a view to the future. I do not want to go into it again now, but we pointed out very clearly in the no-confidence debate how we had progressed in this direction. I now want to say with emphasis that as far as the economic development of the Bantu homelands is concerned, I believe that a new era of homeland development has arrived under National Party rule. A new era of development has arrived as a result of the actions of the Bantu entrepreneurs themselves, as a result of the agency basis and the agency system, and the rapid development thereof, and also as a result of border area development and other methods which we are applying there under the able direction of the hon. Minister M. C. Botha. Let there be no doubt whatsoever: As I said with great emphasis at George, I believe that a great deed is called for. The view of the National Party Government is that a great national deed is called for, so that we can have smoke rising from the chimneys in and around the Bantu homelands. This is perhaps the greatest challenge faced by any small nation in the world, i.e. not only to tackle this great challenge with pluck, determination and energy, because we are already doing so from day to day, but to overcome it in the interests of all the people who are settled in this country. That is why I say that I believe a new era has arrived. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education appears to have taken over the role of the present Minister of Community Development as the fortune-teller of the Nationalist Party. As was the case with the present Minister of Community Development, he was full of predictions of reversing the racial tide in South Africa. I noticed particularly that he did not sound quite as sincere as the hon. the Minister of Community Development used to sound when he used to predict these wonderful figures for us. I think he did not sound quite as sincere because I believe he does not quite accept his figures himself. After 21 years figures in fact now prove absolutely nothing at all, as we have said time and again in debates in this House during the present Session. During the course of my speech I will show just how fallacious the hon. the Deputy Minister’s figures in fact are.

Before I do so I want to deal with another matter which was raised earlier in the debate this afternoon, namely the question of national unity. An hon. member on the other side raised this question and said that the Nationalist Party had always been the party for national unity. I just want to remind hon. members opposite that I as a person not born in South Africa am labelled by the Government as a third-class citizen. I who have lived most of my life in South Africa and have served in its Forces have been labelled a third-class citizen by those hon. members who preach national unity. I want to say to the hon. members on that side that we do not have to talk national unity, since we are in fact the living examples of it. Our whole record over the years of our existence has proved this time and time again.

Tell us more about your patriotism. Why did you vote against our becoming a Republic?

If the hon. member would like me to deal with patriotism, I certainly will, but in view of the fact that I have other things to say, possibly to that hon. member, let me just say to him that the record of the United Party over the years has certainly shown us to be far more patriotic than hon. members on that side. If the hon. member wishes to have a debate on that party’s war record, I am quite prepared to have such a debate. In just a few moments’ time I will show just how unpatriotic hon. members on that side were, and I will not embarrass them by mentioning the years from 1940 to 1945. I should like to mention the years after they came into power. We had an hon. member on the other side talk about the shortage of skilled labour in South Africa. I should like to suggest to that hon. member in particular that if the Government party had been truly patriotic, we would not to-day be as short of skilled labour as we are, because it was the Government party that halted immigration in 1950. When history comes to be written of this time, I believe that that will be the greatest crime levelled against the Nationalist Party, namely that they halted immigration and cost South Africa approximately one million white citizens. This debate and the entire Session has illustrated time and time again that the Government has floundered on its race policies. We have heard from hon. members on that side that even the non-White groups now accept Government policy.

That is correct.

I would like to quote just one short paragraph from a newspaper report. The paragraph reads as follows: “Although a growing percentage of non-Whites have accepted the policy, it must be borne in mind that they have had little alternative.” That comment came from the Administrator of Natal, Mr. Theo Gerdener, who is a well-known Nationalist. I want to repeat what he said: “Although a growing percentage of non-Whites have accepted the policy, it must be borne in mind that they have had little alternative.” This Government has no answer to the race problems of South Africa and it never has had one. It has succeeded in bluffing its supporters over the past years, but this bluff is now coming home to roost. I think the essence of this is that fear has regulated Government thinking for the past 21 years. Firstly, they fear losing power. If they did not fear losing power, why is it necessary for them to go to the extent that they do and in fact boast about the indoctrination of children at schools? Why is it necessary for them to control their Press in the manner that they do and threaten the Press they do not control? Why is it necessary for them to control the South African Broadcasting Corporation? Why was this necessary if they did not fear losing power? Why was it necessary for them to stop immigration? Why was it necessary to use State bodies to the extent that they do to put out party propaganda?

Give us examples.

If the hon. member wants an example of that, let me remind him of the debate we held here recently in regard to the Information Vote which showed that the Department of Information has opened up information offices in many of the villages and drops of South Africa where it is quite obvious they will have no effect whatsoever, except on the local inhabitants.

Then there is the fear that their own supporters will learn the truth about the facts of South Africa. As a result of that fear we have the hon. the Deputy Minister quoting figures here ad lib while in fact they do not mean anything. If all we have from the Government after 21 years is figures, then heaven help us!

And figures do not count.

Yes, figures do not count. But the Nationalist Party’s greatest fear of all is their fear of the non-White races of South Africa. They especially fear the black man. I think that if the truth be told, the “winds of change” speech terrified the life out of them. If one lives in South Africa for a very short space of time, one quickly appreciates that only a frightened person would vote Nationalist, because a man who has confidence in himself and his ability would no more vote Nationalist than communist.

The other matter they feared during this Session was, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) said, that the “verkramptes” had captured the Nationalist Party hook, line and sinker. What few “verligtes” there were in the Nationalist Party are now for ever imprisoned by the “verkramptes”. [Interjections.] I should like to show how the “verkramptes” have behaved during this Session. I will just choose two examples, namely the two members from Natal.

What about the hon. member for Umlazi?

I shall deal with the hon. member for Umlazi if the hon. member wants me to, but it will not be to his credit. We had the hon. member for Umhlatuzana whose sole contribution to this Session was to suggest that job reservation be applied in restaurants, cafés and shops.

That is an excellent idea.

Then you could do a job which you are fitted for.

We have dealt with this matter during this Session and I do not propose to deal with it again. I think that if one left the hon. member to the people of Durban who have commented on this stupid remark, he would then realize himself just how ridiculous it is. His other priceless contribution to the Session was the suggestion that the number of domestic servants should be reduced.

Are you misquoting me?

There we had the two major contributions of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. One would think that the whole of South Africa had nothing else on its mind and nothing better to do than heed this contribution which came from one of the Nationalist Party members from Natal. While the whole country is waiting for some solution, that is his contribution. But this is not all.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, before the adjournment I was dealing with the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and his contribution this Session in particular. I suggest that the Government would get no help from that hon. member. I should like to quote from an article which appeared in the Nataller of the 3rd January, which reads as follows:

This is a new angle to the Nationalist Party policy. But if there is any doubt, I should like to quote an article published in the same newspaper. I do not claim that it was written by the hon. member, but I would suggest that it expresses his views. It appeared on the 10th January, of this year and reads as follows:

It went on to say:

This expresses the attitude of the Nationalist Party, but I should like to suggest that when the Government Press starts telling the factual truth to South Africa, the Government, and that hon. member in particular, should point out to businessmen that if they do not go to the homelands and the border industries, the Government has every intention of forcing them to go there. This is what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said. But he is not alone in this attitude, because the hon. member for Klip River, the leader of the Nationalist Party in the Province of Natal, said just the other day in a report that the Government is to force African farm labourers to work on white farms. It would prevent them from returning to their homelands until the farm labour shortage ended.

Now we come to the crux of the whole matter. Other members on that side talked about returning the Bantu to their original homelands. But that hon. member and the Government as a whole now comes out with the statement that they will only be returned to the homelands if the Whites have no further use for them. If they can no longer be employed in white areas, they can go to their homelands. In other words, Natives must be forced to return to the homelands. First they must go, according to the Government. But now they must stay away, providing they can work for the white race. So this is the policy we are concerned with. Then I should like to read a little further:

He referred to African labour.

There are roughly five million Africans working in South Africa to-day. Now one must assume that these Africans will not be able to go back to their homelands, because they are needed in the White economy.

You know you are talking nonsense.

If I am talking nonsense, I am only repeating what the hon. member said in a statement not more than two or three days ago. The point is now that these Africans cannot return to their homelands if they work in the white economy. This is what the hon. member has said. This is the policy of a Government which has been in power for 21 years. No longer has the African a choice of where to sell his labour or for how much he can sell his labour; he will now be told by the Government where to work. I suggest that this is nothing more or less, than forced labour. I could call it other names, but I will leave it at that. It is forced labour. I would like South Africa to be the judge of a government that acts in this manner. According to democratic principles, a man is entitled to sell his labour where and when he wishes. But so much for the homelands. The Government says that the Bantu must return to the homelands, but the hon. member for Klip River lets the cat out of the bag and says they can only return to the homelands if the Whites have no further use for them.

Did you say that?

He says yes!

Now I will point out the fallacy of this remark to the hon. the Minister of Transport. At the moment there are 9,000 Blacks doing jobs previously done by Whites on the South African Railways. I think the total of Blacks working on the South African Railways exceeds 100,000. So one must then assume that those 100,000 can work for the South African Railways, provided there is work for them. Immediately when there is no work for them, they can all scatter off, back to some homeland which they probably have never seen.

But the position even becomes worse. Fifty per cent of all the economically active Bantu in South Africa work in essential services for all race groups. That is over two million Bantu. In other words, they can only be replaced if there is no further work for them. I should like to ask that hon. member, where are they going to find two million Whites to replace these Bantu? Because that is their policy. The economically active non-Whites in South Africa increased by 439,000 in the past four years, while the Whites increased by 110,000 in the same period. The hon. member for Primrose, who trots out so many figures here, had better look at these figures a little more closely than he has been doing; because here is the crux of the matter and the failure of Nationalist Party policy for 21 successive years. Every four years 100,000-plus non-Whites come into South Africa’s economy, and the hon. member says they will only work while they have jobs. That obviously leads to one thought only—separate development only exists if it means the development of the white race, and let the devil take the hindmost. I should like to ask hon. members on that side, what progress has there been in the border areas? What progress has there been in the Bantustans themselves? None whatsoever, or precious little. The South African economy has boomed, but wherever it has boomed, separate development does not exist, and hon. members on the other side know it.

Mr. Speaker, we already in South Africa employ one White in three in Government service.

Is that another fear of yours?

The hon. member has the fears; I have nothing. I have confidence in the white man in this country. [Interjections.] Hon. members on that side of the House are frightened of their own shadows. That is why they come forward with legislation of the sort year after year. Already in South Africa 32.7 per cent work for the State. In the United States the figure is 11 per cent. I also can trot out figures like the hon. the Deputy Minister. In France it is 8.8 per cent. I can go on. In other words, in South Africa the number of people working for the State is three times probably the next highest in the world.

So what?

He says it is a good thing. Is it any wonder why we are short of white labour, when in the six years from 1960 to 1966, the South African population increased by 15 per cent, but the number of State employees increased by 46 per cent?

So what?

The hon. member says “so what?” In Durban alone the number of Bantu have increased considerably since this Government came into power. But there is an alarming feature about this. It is estimated that 140,000 Bantu entered white areas in 1965. Of this figure, 90 per cent were males. I should like, without any political overtones, to suggest to the Government that it is about time they investigated this position. Ninety per cent of the Bantu labour in the white cities that have entered these cities in the last few years are males.

[Inaudible.]

I believe that this whole aspect is worthy of an inquiry before too much damage is done by this imbalance of races. Hon. members get up blithely saying that they have moved 100,000 Bantu from black spot’s in the last 10 years. But while they were removing 100,000 from one black spot to another area, much as you do with blotting paper, 1½ million more Bantu entered white areas. This has nothing to do with the black areas.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is an hon. member allowed to call another hon. member a “bobbejaan”?

Order! Did the hon. member call another hon. member a “bobbejaan”?

Mr. Speaker, I called the hon. member an hon. “goggejaan”.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

That is the sort of intelligence you get from an hon. member after 21 years in Government and having solved not one problem in South Africa. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what he intends to do with the two million Bantu that have to be resettled in Natal. How is he going to find 300,000 houses that have to be found for them in terms of his own report? How is he going to find jobs for them? If he were even to attempt this he would have to build 10 cities the size of Durban alone. But while this Government has been busy building Berlin Walls round different groups, I should like to remind them of the song: “Why build a wall round a graveyard when nobody wants to get in?”

Mr. Speaker, to me the hon. member for Port Natal is a very clear symptom of the ailments from which the hon. Opposition is suffering, namely political frustration. The hon. member for Port Natal spoke in a politically vicious, malicious and biting way both before and after dinner. If he had done so only after dinner, one could probably have understood it. But both before and after dinner the hon. member spoke in a politically vicious tone and made certain statements which did not redound to the credit of the hon. the Opposition.

Answer his statements.

For the information of the hon. member for Durban (Point), I shall answer his statements. It shocks one when a member acts in the way the hon. member for Port Natal acted in this House to-night and to hear the statements he made. I have never believed in labelling anybody. I have never been a snob in my life. But the hon. member said this afternoon that he was being labelled as a third-rate citizen in the Republic of South Africa. There is no need for that hon. member to be labelled. He is labelling himself. It is a pity that an hon. member should act in this Chamber with only one object in mind, i.e. to break down relations that have been established by the National Party. What is the reason for it? I notice the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not in the House to-night. I can understand that, too. Having acted the way he did in this Chamber this afternoon, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition ought to take a good rest. The hon. member for Yeoville sat next to him guffawing. However, we still have a few responsible members on that side of the House. In this connection, my political instinct told me that members were deeply shocked by the actions of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition dealt with patriotism and nationalism. As regards South Africa, I say to you, Sir, that the concept of patriotism and nationalism is synonymous. I want to tell the Leader of the United Party and to the members representing that Party in this Chamber that patriotism and nationalism are synonymous.

On a point of order, Sir, is an hon. member allowed to say that members of the Opposition and leaders of the Opposition are not synonymous with patriotism in South Africa?

The hon. member may continue.

What do you know about patriotism?

I have made that statement and I am making it again for the information of the hon. member for Durban (Point), the hon. wielder of the stick who is trying with political viciousness to cause friction between Afrikaans and English-speaking people in South Africa. I say again that, as far as my own opinion is concerned, I want to say quite frankly that as regards patriotism and nationalism, affecting those people represented by the United Party in the Republic of South Africa in this House, I regard these two words as one concept and as one and the same thing. I shall prove it again to-night. Let us be realistic.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Orange Grove should please not talk about nationalism. He does not know what the word “nationalism” or “patriotism” means. He does not know what the words “integrity” and “decency” mean. I leave him at that.

Order!

I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

What did we see happen here this afternoon? What happened here this afternoon? It was proved quite clearly again this afternoon that it was no longer possible to conduct a debate in this House in which one principle was contrasted with another and in which one ideal was contrasted with another. It is no longer possible to conduct a debate in this Chamber on the question of whether there is any efficiency or not. When one presents this House with figures, one is laughed at as has happened with the hon. the Deputy Minister. This year the Department of Bantu Administration went to a great deal of trouble to make certain figures available to members in detailed form. Then the hon. member for Port Natal comes along and says that absolutely nothing is being done as far as the development of the homelands is concerned; absolutely nothing is being done for the Bantu. That is the kind of statement we get. What are we to do when dealing with an official Opposition that is giving preference to only one thing—and a shocking thing at that—and that is to disrupt relations. I can tell hon. members and particularly the hon. member for Durban (Point) that they will never succeed in what they have set out to do. The hon. the Opposition will never again have the privilege of being the government of South Africa. The hon. member for Hillbrow, with the great ideals and clever thoughts he entertains, said to-night that the longer the Government was governing the weaker it will get administratively. This is merely a contradiction in terms. In South Africa we are dealing with a problem we appreciate fully, namely that we as the Nationalist Party should display a sense of responsibility because we do not have an official Opposition which we can ask to come forward with a new direction and some new ideas as is the case in many other countries where they have a different political concept. Oh no. Mr. Speaker, it will be disastrous for South Africa if they ever came into power again. What are we dealing with? We are dealing with the breaking down of relations. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition spent a great deal of time this afternoon making certain statements against this side of the House, statements he would never be able to prove. We are dealing here with an hon. Leader of the Opposition who acted in an undignified manner. When an hon. Leader of the Opposition is so utterly concerned about the domestic affairs of this side of the House, I just want to tell him that it has got nothing to do with him. Why does the hon. Leader not rather concern himself with the problems he has? I think those problems are too great a head-ache and too complicated for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to consider. When considering these problems, they seem to me to be a dreadful head-ache. What else has the hon. Leader done? He tried to break down the relations between the Afrikaans and the English-speaking people in South Africa. The hon. member for Durban (Point) followed him in his arguments. The hon. member for Durban (Point) does not know and will never appreciate what an Afrikaner is. The hon. member for Port Natal also took pride in the fact that he had the privilege of being an immigrant in this country. If this country of ours had not been such a democratic one, it would not have been possible for that hon. member to be sitting in this House to-night. The hon. members spoke about relations and alleged that the National Party was giving preference to the interests of the Afrikaner. I want to say here that preference is being given to the interests of the Afrikaner …

May I ask the hon. member a question? Was a certain doctor who had made a speech at Potgietersrust and who was a registered member of the Nationalist Party … [Interjections.]

Could the hon. member please repeat his question. I did not hear what he was asking.

I should like to ask the hon. member whether a certain Dr. Beyers … [Interjection.]

He lives in Botswana.

Order!

Has a certain Dr. Beyers made a speech on race relations at Potgietersrust as a registered member of the Nationalist Party on behalf of the Party?

I shall reply to the question of the hon. member most willingly. Dr. Ras Beyers is not a registered member of the National Party. What I am saying now hon. members can use against me as much as they like, because that hon. member for Durban (Point) is fraternizing with the Van der Merwe group. I regard Dr. Ras Beyers as a political anarchist and I repudiate him. [Interjections.]

Order!

I am dealing here with the relations between the Afrikaans and the English-speaking people in South Africa. It is true that the National Party attaches primary importance to the interests and the identity and to that which is our own, namely our culture and our church, as far as the Afrikaner is concerned. I go further and I say that the English-speaking people in South Africa owe it to the National Party that primary importance is also attached by this Party to their own identity and to their right to have a culture and a church of their own. If that hon. Opposition had been in power in South Africa, it would not have been the case. On the contrary, after Mr. Macmillan’s speech we saw what a great so-called Afrikaner the hon. member for Yeoville was. That hon. member may probably be accommodated somewhere, but that is not what I want. South Africa is my country. Not only is the relationship between the Afrikaans and the English-speaking people in South Africa being promoted but the individual identity of Afrikaans and English-speaking South Africans is being protected under the National Party because after South Africa had become a Republic the English-speaking people in South Africa realized to an increasing extent that we had our own identity. I should not like to say it in this House, but I will have to say it. If the hon. member for Durban (Point) wants to hear it, I want to tell him that I am married to an English-speaking lady myself. Would the Afrikaners have elected me as their representative if the National Party had rejected the English-speaking people? It is a ridiculous approach. In this country recognition is being given to both language groups. I come into contact with many people and I know that the English-speaking people are becoming more and more conscious of nationalism. They are realizing to an increasing extent that nationalism and patriotism are synonymous concepts. To English-speaking people in South Africa patriotism has always been an important factor, and they are realizing to an increasing extent that to act in a patriotic way in South Africa one has to be a member of the National Party. Every former leader of this Party bad a special gift, as the present hon. Leader of this Party also has. Even the hon. Opposition with their political obtuseness has noticed this gift. The Leader of this Party understands human nature and one can understand human nature only when one has integrity and singleness of purpose. I do not want to mention names, but there are hon. members sitting in the front benches on the opposite side of the House who think highly of my Leader. I can see and sense it. I can see that some of the hon. members opposite think highly of the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Transport, because they regard the Prime Minister as an expert on human nature and as somebody who, despite negative criticism, will never abandon his principles. In the political arena, as soon as one runs away from one’s principles, one lands up in a political quagmire like the one the United Party is finding itself in at the moment.

Which principles?

It is essential that I state quite clearly that there are thousands of cases in the Republic of South Africa where Afrikaans-speaking people have married English-speaking people. Such cases are to be found in this House as well. These two streams of culture serve to enrich and develop South Africa so that it has a distinctive identity. We have an Afrikaans and an English culture, but a South African nation. It is my right to talk about my Afrikaner people and it is my privilege to talk about a South African nation.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I just want to make this one statement and after that the hon. member may ask as many questions as he wants to. I regard it as essential that, in the case of mixed marriages, the parties concerned should choose which stream of culture to adopt. I shall never dictate to people whether to adopt the Afrikaans or the English culture. Nobody can go through life without having a culture or a church. That is the solution and that is the course this National Party is following. We maintain the two main streams of culture and we give full recognition to both language groups. There was no need for hon. members opposite to have flung this question of intermarrying at us and to have used it against us in a disparaging way. They need not have done it, because every one of us has the right to adopt one of the streams of culture as one’s own. I shall now give the hon. member for Sea Point the opportunity of putting his question.

The hon. member says that he and his wife, who is an English-speaking person, have separate cultures, but what about the children?

I have tried to explain it just now, but the hon. member was too busy thinking up a question. [Interjections.] I say again that it is the duty of an Afrikaans-speaking person and an English-speaking person, when they marry, to decide which culture their children will adopt. In my case, my children are entirely Afrikaans, but I shall not take it amiss if somebody should decide to adopt the English culture. That is why we find among us people with the name of Nicol and McLachlan, and so forth, all of them who are staunch Afrikaners. Where have they come from? They are people with English surnames and who are members of our Party and who need never be ashamed of their past. It is a pity that a Party such as the United Party is always disrupting relations.

Moreover, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has tried to-day to disrupt labour relations. Surely the hon. Leader and the hon. member for Yeoville, who is hanging his head now—and he has reason to hang his head—can never compete with the hon. the Minister of Transport. They say no attention is being paid to the interests of the white labourers. Sir, I am speaking of white workers, because to me there is no longer such a thing as a labourer; there are only white workers, and we, as the National Party, have never been snobs. Some of the best people in my constituency are workers. They are not materialists; they are living a decent life and they are just ordinary workers, and the ordinary worker in South Africa rejects with contempt any person who does not mean it honestly with him. That is why the hon. the Minister of Transport can visit any of the workers’ constituencies in South Africa where he will be treated respectfully. But I challenge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Yeoville to visit one of the workers constituencies. When one suddenly pretends to be the champion of the white workers it amounts to violation of human rights.

Questions were asked here this afternoon as regards the training of the workers. Hon. members should visit all the technical schools throughout the country and the technical colleges which are being erected throughout the whole of the Republic. I say the Opposition should not look down upon the workers of South Africa, because the workers are playing an important role to meet the challenge of increased production and development. The workers of South Africa are supporting the National Party, and the English-speaking people of South Africa are supporting the National Party to an increasing extent, and it will be a happy day for South Africa when that Opposition will disappear from the scene and we shall have a new political set-up in the interests of South Africa.

I want to refer to a report in the Cave Argus of 14th June this year, which purports to report a speech of the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, Mr. Vosloo. This report is rather interesting, because right alongside it is published the report of a speech by Dr. Ras Beyers, who claims to be a member of the Nationalist Party.

Well, I am not responsible for that. Blame the Cape Argus.

I am quite prepared to accept that the Minister is quite irresponsible and that he will not be responsible for what appears in the Cape Argus, but I would like to deal with the report of the Deputy Minister’s own speech, particularly in the light of some of the speeches we have had this afternoon. He said—

Why does he refer to the opponents of the Government only? Let me read what appears in the column alongside that report—

He is not a Nationalist.

I take it that the Deputy Minister’s condemnation applies equally to the speech made by Dr. Ras Beyers. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. But I want to remind the hon. the Deputy Minister of a document which was issued in 1944 and which was claimed by the Government propagandists and policy makers of the day to have had a very great effect on the 1948 election, because it was published and republished. It said this—

When the Deputy Minister then makes a speech like he made the other day, I suggest that he look into his own party’s background when they published documents such as this. This was a pamphlet issued by Mr. M. D. C. de Wet Nel, then Secretary of the Nationalist Party, on 12th April, 1944. This pamphlet was issued by the man who later became the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

That was a quarter of a century ago.

This is a most revealing attitude, Sir. The Deputy Minister says it was 25 years ago, so the lapse of time apparently wipes out the sins of that side of the House. But they go back to the Boer War before the alleged sins of this side of the House can be washed out.

You did not do anything for those poor people and the old people.

That can be proved from the Estimates of that time to be completely untrue, but what was the complaint here? The complaint was that our Government was doing too much for the non-Whites. The complaint was not that we were doing nothing, but that we were doing too much. Mr. De Wet Nel was complaining bitterly that too much money was being spent on the Bantu and that there was no money for the “oudstryders” and the poor white people. Let the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development be quite clear that when he makes a speech like the one he made the other day, he should see that his own doorstep is clean.

Now I want to deal with another matter. Having listened to the debates here to-day, I have wondered what part exactly does Parliament believe the Bantu should play. I have taken this quotation from the Deputy Minister’s speech, not only because I want to criticize him but also because it seems to me one of the most reasonable statements that I have heard from the mouth of a member on the Government side for many a long day. Here was the Deputy Minister saying: “What white South African could honestly claim that he would have reached his present level of prosperity without the part played by the Bantu?” But that is what we have been saying here month after month and year after year, and it is continually repudiated. Does the Government’s policy lend itself to a continuation of the basis of the white man’s “know-how” and his capital, together with the labour of the black man?

Nobody has denied that.

I say that was a most reasonable statement, entirely in line with United Party policy and the words of the United Party for years past. It is precisely what we have been saying, and now the Deputy Minister comes along and says precisely the same. I must say that we on this side of the House agree with him. But when we have debates of this nature I begin to wonder just how Parliament views the Bantu in South Africa. Sometimes I think he is viewed as Public Enemy No. 1, but then again you get a statement such as this made by the Deputy Minister. From this statement it is clear that they are recognized as being the basis of the prosperity of the whole of South Africa, so they cannot be Enemy No. 1. But if anyone stands up here and pleads for a part in the economy of South Africa to be allotted to the Bantu as his right, does he not run the risk of severe criticism from hon. members opposite?

Then he is a “kaffirboetie”.

We on this side of the House believe that one of the fundamental principles is that there shall be one economic law and one economy in South Africa, and that to this economy every person brings his little mead of contribution, however small it may be, and that the Bantu are entitled to get their share of the economy, although it may be a small share.

When we get speeches such as we have had, I wonder how far we can go in pleading that the Bantu are entitled to get something back out of the common pool of the economy of South Africa. [Interjection.] The hon. member behind me says they get it. Sir, I will tell you what they get. They get what they got from the other Deputy Minister this afternoon, Dr. Koornhof, namely statistics. If statistics could fatten and prevent soil and water erosion, then the Bantu areas to-day would be swimming in milk and honey, because that is all they seem to be getting from that Deputy Minister, rows and rows of statistics, but they cannot live on statistics. The Deputy Minister gave statistics of Bantu who have been sent back out of the white areas, to show how the Bantu have been reduced in the white areas, but where have they gone? If the Deputy Minister would come to Natal and put himself under my guidance, I would show him where they have gone. If he thinks they have gone back to the homelands, he is wrong. They have not gone back to the homelands. They are going to what is to-day called by the euphemistic term “irregular urbanization”.

They go and squat not in thousands but in tens of thousands until they are uprooted and pushed on again. They do not go to the homelands. What are they going to do in the homelands, Sir? They have to work to live, and if the Deputy Minister, pursuant to Government’s policy, uproots these people in vast numbers and sends them back to the homelands, there is nothing for them to do there; there are no wages for them to earn there; there is no master to employ them. What do they live on? The bulk of the Bantu in the reserves, whether they are de facto or de jure, are living on money that is brought in by wage-earners who are working outside of the homelands. Sir, the Deputy Minister nods his head; he agrees. That is the true position, so every time Bantu are taken from outside of the reserves and sent back again, they are taken out of a job; they are sent back to the reserves and they cease to be wage-earners; they become people who cannot earn the wherewithal to buy their own food in the reserves, so they come back again, irregularly, in their tens of thousands. The Deputy Minister probably knows it but he will not admit it. He wants nice, tidy figures to show that the Bantu are being sent back to the homelands. They are being sent away from what he calls white areas, but they are not being sent back to the homelands. If they go to the homelands they are turned down and they come back and squat on the verge of the white area once more, and so the whole merry-go-round continues with the Bantu continually looking for a job. Sir, I come back to the point which I made just now: Who can defend the Bantu in this House without fear of being taken to task almost for having the effrontery to plead the cause of the Bantu? How can we get up in this House and say to the Government: “Before you send the man back to the reserve please see that he has a job to go to; before you send a widow and her children back to the reserve, please see that she has a job to go to so that she can work there.” Sir, how can you say to the Government, “Please see that the simplest things in life, a roof over their heads, and food, are available to them”? Sir, I challenge the Government to tell us the precise method that is adopted in the various so-called homelands to prepare in advance for the people who are being endorsed out from the so-called white towns. What steps are actually taken before 50 or 100 or 500 Bantu are sent back to the homelands; what takes place in the homelands; who goes there and finds out whether there are homes for them and whether there is food for them and whether there are jobs for those who want to work? Is such a survey undertaken?

Of course. Have you haver heard about the Bantu townships around Durban?

Sir, the Deputy Minister asks whether I have never heard about the Bantu townships. Yes, I have heard about them and that is just about as far as it has gone. But, Sir, I am not talking about the people who are sent to towns; I am talking about the people who are sent back to the tribal rural areas.

Now. Sir, I want to move on from this point and come to the next one, and here I would like the hon. the Minister’s attention, if he would kindly show me the courtesy. I want to deal again for a moment with a matter with which I have dealt here before and that is the question of Zululand and what is taking place up there, as well as the position of the Bantu up there. I want to say this, and I am weighing my word very carefully. I am quite sure that the Minister will be able to read between the lines what I am going to say. Not long ago, Sir, the then Paramount Chief of the Zulus was summoned to Pretoria. I understand that he went with one or two supporters or indunas.

There were more than two.

Can the hon. the Deputy Minister tell me how many there were?

About five or six at least.

Very well, he went with five or six retainers to Pretoria. While he was up there certain discussions took place between him and the Minister and he then returned to Zululand. Sir, I do not want the two things to be linked together, but within two or three days or within five days he was dead. He was a sick man; he came back to Zululand and he was dead within a few days.

No, you are wrong. It was two weeks.

Very well, two weeks. So you are going to argue!

The Minister or the Department issued a statement when the Paramount Chief left for Pretoria to say that while he was in Pretoria, he had asked the Minister to introduce the tribal authority system and to create territorial authority in Zululand. Sir, I want to make this clear. There is a doubt cast on whether in fact that was a request from the Paramount Chief, because we know the Zulus and we know their traditions. The Paramount Chief never had authority from any gathering of Zulu people to go to Pretoria with such a request. There was never a gathering of the Zulu nation or of its elders or of its tribesmen or of its chiefs where such a request was made and where the Paramount Chief was authorized to go to Pretoria to make such a request. Meetings had been held, Sir, and precisely that issue had been put to the Zulus and they had turned it down, and to-day the trouble flared up again. The Deputy Minister of Bantu Development is reported to have issued a statement the other day to say at another gathering that the Zulus had not reached the stage of having a territorial authority established there because they were still in mourning for the late Paramount Chief Cyprian.

I gave other reasons as well, but that was one of the reasons.

The Deputy Minister knows perfectly well that that has nothing to do with it. Why does he make a statement like that? It has nothing to do with the fact that the Zulus were in mourning. The Deputy Minister knows that the Zulus do not want it. He knows that the greatest care should be taken to take the Zulu nation along with the Government and that this should not be forced on them. The trouble that is arising in the Royal family at the present moment is due to the fact that the Government is partisan in regard to what is taking place in Zululand, and the Minister knows it.

I know much more about it than you do.

That will be the frosty Friday!

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to accept that because the Minister has access to official records of all kinds and to official channels, and I say to him that because of what he said himself, he stands condemned out of his own mouth, because what I know is enough to condemn him for the part that he is playing, and if he knows more than I do then he has that much more knowledge …

Of his guilt.

… of his guilt. Sir, the first and primary object to-day in Zululand is to get the members of the Royal family together so that they can heal the breach which has been created. I want to put that to the Minister, not to the Deputy Minister but to the Minister himself. I want to put it to him that his diplomatic people up there, including the Commissioner-General, should be used at this stage for one specific purpose—leave all the politics out of it—and that is to get the Commissioner-General and the members of the Royal family together to heal the breach, to get that split in the Royal family resolved. Sir, there are good men there; there are men of high integrity; there are men of great responsibility among the elders in the Zulu nation. The man there who is the hereditary Prime Minister of Zululand is at the present moment being slighted. There is no need for it. His attitude is perfectly clear. He is a democrat and he works on what the nation wants, and when meetings are held and a decision is come to, he accepts that decision and puts it to the authorities. Sir, I hope that the Minister is going to accept my statement that the division, the schism, which has arisen amongst the members of the Royal family in Zululand to-day, is threatening harm not only to the whole of the Zulu nation but to the whole of Natal. Traditionally, Sir, we have never had trouble in Zululand without also having trouble in the rest of Natal. That is history, Sir. I ask the Minister not to make party politics out of this and to put the Commissioner-General, with his advisers and officials on to the job and to let them heal the breach. It can be done, and when that breach has been healed it will be time enough then to go forward with further politics.

Then I want to come to another matter dealing with this question of politics in Zululand. I have here a paper called Africa South. I see the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development nods his head; he evidently knows about this. I wonder how far the Government are behind this. This journal says this—

I wonder what “official” means. What are the official African political parties? Does it mean that they are officially recognized by the Government? Are they officially recognized by the Government? Sir, this gives the background to the eight Bantu groups, and the big heading in the case of each of these groups is this, if I may begin with the Zulus—

In the case of the Tswana, it says—

These are the officially recognized political parties, whatever “officially recognized” means.

It used to be Ronny Segal’s magazine.

The Bantu are asked to join these parties so that they may get their independence. What do they say about that? It says this—

Presumably with us in South Africa, Mr. Speaker—

Sir, I hope the Government is going to say what is an official political party for the purpose of this document. Has the Government accepted this document? Are they behind it; are they supporting it officially? How far are they supporting these policies and these parties officially? Have they accepted the proposition that these parties are formed, as they say, to gain their political independence? Can we go and quote this and say that the Government is so determined to give the Bantustans their independence that in their magazine they have named eight such authorities and the Bantu are being advised to join the national party of each of the various groups—the Zulu National Party, etc.—to gain their political independence, and that the Government is behind that concept?

Could we have a copy of it?

Surely you have one.

How naïve can you be!

Sir, I am quite willing to let the Deputy Minister have a sight of this document, but I am surprised by his question as to whether he can have a copy of this. He means that officially within their circle they have not got a copy.

What do they know about the Bantu?

Sir, the Minister himself told me just now that he knew much more about what was going on in Zululand than I did, and here I have a wonderful document like this and he does not know anything about it.

He has not even seen it.

What is the book called?

What he means is that it was not approved by the Broederbond.

It was published by Africa South Publications, No. 2558, 10, Meadowlands, Johannesburg. It is circulated and distributed by the African Foundation of South Africa, and printed by the Condate Litho Press, Jacobs Street, Gezina, Pretoria.

It is unofficial.

Sir, it says that it is the official organ of the African political parties of South Africa, and if the Government are going to repudiate it, then I hope that they will say so in terms loud and clear because, Sir, this is exactly what we warned the Government about; we said to them: “You have been promising these states independence year after year; they will claim it from you one day. You think that you have your foot on the accelerator; you will find that you have not; you may try to put your foot on the brake; it will not work. You will find that the states that you are manufacturing have their foot on the accelerator and you will not be able to control the pace.” Sir, what is wrong with the document that comes out and says clearly exactly what the Government has been saving is the object to be aimed at? Sir, the Government has said all along that the Bantu will have their political independence, and now when the Bantu say so in white and black, for the eight ethnic groups in South Africa, the Government is shocked and surprised and they would like a copy of this document and the next thing is that they will repudiate it. Sir, nobody is going to be more unhappy, more flabbergasted than the Government if the Bantu take them at their word and come along and say: “We are now out for political independence.” Mr. Speaker, I am running short of time. There is an article in here which goes for Mr. Guzana, the Leader of the Opposition in the Transkei. It slates and castigates him for one reason, and that is because he will not fight for political independence of the Transkei, because he leaves that to Kaiser Matanzima with all the other difficulties he has with the Government. And Knowledge Guzana, the Leader of the Opposition, should be the man who is fighting for political independence. Instead of that, he says he must co-operate with the white man. What nonsense. Kick him out, he says, at the next election; get rid of this man who does not understand Black nationalism in South Africa. It is all here, Mr. Speaker, I hope the Government is going to tell us what is officially recognized in so far as this document is concerned.

The hon. member for South Coast does me the honour of quoting time and again from the English language Press in regard to speeches I have made.

Can you speak English?

Must I reply to the hon. member for South Coast now, or to the childish remarks of the hon. member for North Rand who does not really know why he is here or why he is at present sitting in the Leader of the Opposition’s seat? Or has he suddenly become Leader after the display we had here this afternoon from the Leader of the Opposition? [Interjections.]

Order!

Let me return to the hon. member for Natal South Coast. If the hon. member is interested in my speeches I shall have copies sent to him each time, and if his Afrikaans is not good enough to enable him to understand an Afrikaans speech of mine, I shall send him a translation. Last year he quoted here from a speech I made before Sabra in 1967. That speech dealt with the consolidation of the Bantu areas, a speech which is regarded, not by me but by other concerns, concerns which are competent to judge in this matter, as an authoritative document on the consolidation of the homelands, whether hon. members like this or not. And now this speech which I made last Friday evening at Barrydale …

Whom did you address there?

I addressed the Rapportryers there, and it is a pity that the hon. member does not read as much as the hon. member for South Coast. I do not know whether the hon. member has ever had the privilege of addressing the Rapportryers.

Yes.

Very well then; then we have something in common. The hon. member and I address Rapportryers when it is necessary and we each state our policy, not so?

How many Rapportryers were there?

That makes no difference. But I can inform the hon. member that all the Rapportryers were there that evening. [Interjections.] I cannot tell the hon. member how many Rapportryers there were …

I called for order, but the hon. member for Durban (Point) is ignoring me.

Why does the hon. member not also ask me how many people I addressed the following evening at Bonnievale, when I addressed not a Rapportryers meeting but an ordinary political meeting? It was in fact against people like the hon. member for Durban (Point) that I spoke that evening at Barrydale. I now come to what I said that evening at Barrydale. It was a long speech but I just want to confine myself to that part in which the hon. member referred when he quoted from the Cape Argus, the Cape Argus of Saturday evening. It is such a pity the hon. member did not read my speech himself in order to see what it contained, because I feel quite inclined to think that the hon. member for South Coast would agree with me. I also think the hon. member for South Coast regards attacks and allegations which are being made to the effect that too much is being spent on the Bantu as a despicable thing. I spoke that evening about the development of the homelands, among other things. I mentioned figures of the amounts which have been spent on the homelands during the past number of years. I also referred to the amount which has been appropriated for that purpose for the present financial year, i.e. R67,637,000, as a provisional estimate. I went on to say—

I do not know whether the hon. member agrees with me that it is not too high, or that it should be more, or less. I went on—

And when I speak of “Government opponents” then I do not care a rap whether those opponents are a Vause Raw, a Sannie van Niekerk, a Ras Beyers or a Senator Swanepoel, It makes no difference to me. If a Government opponent employs this despicable insinuation to mar race relations then I will, under all circumstances, repudiate him. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir, I would even have the greatest contempt for an hon. member who states that under this National Government Whites and non-Whites are swimming together at Sea Point. I do not want to hear anything from him. The hon. member for Sea Point may as well keep quiet now. In any case I am not replying to him; there are other things I must discuss.

Are the Barrydale Rapportryers verligtes?

What I am dealing with is the custom of sowing suspicion among white voters in regard to the amounts which are being spent on the development of the Bantu in the hope of catching votes in that way. Do you not agree with me, Sir, that this is a despicable method? Surely the hon. member for South Coast agrees with me.

But that is how you got into office.

Government opponents are employing a new method; and now I want hon. members to take note of what the new method is, as I have observed it. The new method is not to say they are opposed to the spending of money for the development of the Bantu; the cry is no longer, as it was in the old days: “Look what is being done for the Kaffir and you are getting nothing.” Now it is: “See what large amounts are being wasted on the Black man, and you are getting nothing.” I make no excuse for the speech I made last Friday evening at Barrydale. I think if the Rapportryers invite me to come and address them again, I shall have to repeat this speech at the risk of being boring, for I think it is absolutely essential that I repeat this speech. Is the hon. member for Durban (Point) now going to inform me that he is innocent, that he is not one of those persons making use of this despicable method? Does he not select his own places as well. He can now tell me that this is untrue, but there are hon. members sitting here …

I just want to put a question to you. Can the hon. the Deputy Minister mention to me one example where I did that?

We need only go back as far as the recent by-election in Newcastle. But unfortunately I do not have the time now to mention each case to the hon. member, for there is not only one case, but more than one …

Just mention one to me. I challenge you to name one instance.

I undertake to do so on some occasion or other. I do not have all the particulars with me now. If that hon. member can get up here this evening and state with a clear conscience that he was never guilty of that, I will, so help me, withdraw what I have said here. I do not want to be unfair to him. However, I am aware that he also makes use of that method. He cannot …

I challenge you to mention one instance.

The hon. member is sitting here screeching like a parrot. He is sitting here screeching and shouting as if he was the most innocent person in this House.

I challenge you.

He can issue challenges to me left right and centre; I am not afraid of his challenges. Where does he come from? After all, he comes from Newcastle and from Point. He has already been at places where he has made use of this unsavoury method of …

Mention one instance to me.

He is still saying that I must mention an instance to him. I undertake, if I cannot mention an instance to him, to apologize to him. I am courteous enough and man enough to do so. But, Sir, I now want to mention an example to you. I am going to mention an example to you which you will find to-morrow in Hansard. While the hon. member for South Coast was speaking, and when he was attacking me, the hon. member for Durban (Point) said to me across the floor of the House: “You are a ‘kafferboetie’ ”. Does he deny it?

No, it is untrue.

Sir, we can go and listen to the Hansard report to-morrow.

Very well then, we challenge you to do so.

Very well. We can go and listen to the Hansard report tomorrow, but we will not look at the written Hansard, we will go and listen to the tape recording of Hansard.

Order! What does the hon. the Deputy Minister mean by saying that he will not look at the written Hansard? Is the written Hansard not authentic?

Sir, sometimes we correct what was previously said.

Then it is a different matter.

We can go and listen to the tape recording of Hansard tomorrow. [Interjections.] Does the hon. member now want to allege that he has never corrected his Hansard? I correct my Hansard if my language was incorrect.

Do you also improve what other people said?

I do not know what point the hon. member is trying to make, but I know that the hon. member for Durban (Point) cannot state with a clear conscience that he is not guilty of that.

We shall listen to the tape. You are going to apologize.

Sir, if I have to apologize to the hon. member for Durban (Point), I shall find it easy to do so. If I was wrong, I shall apologize to him. I am courteous and man enough to do this. But he must also put his hand on his heart and tell me that he has never been guilty of accusing the Government, the National Party and the Ministry of being nigger lovers (kafferboeties) and of wasting their money on the Bantu or spending too much money on the Bantu.

Wasting money, yes; that is a different matter.

Yes, but that was not the hon. member’s only premise.

I congratulated you on what you were spending. [Interjections.]

No, I am not put off as easily as I have seen people being put off this afternoon. I have not even rubbed my hands together yet.

Order! The Deputy Minister must now proceed with his speech and stop listening to interjections.

Yes, Sir, but I would also be glad if the interjections would stop for a change. The hon. member for South Coast also made the point that there were objections because the Bantu were being financed as he put it, “out of the common pool”. Now I want to tell him where the objections are coming from. If a Ras Beyers is guilty of this, that does not mean to say that the National Government should be guilty of it. After all, we have no objection to spending the necessary money on Bantu development. We did not object to money being spent on Bantu education or higher education for the Bantu. That was in fact the premise of my speech at Barrydale. I said it was necessary that the Bantu homelands should be developed so that the Bantu homelands could accommodate a larger number of Bantu. My premise, and the premise of my colleague on my right who spoke this afternoon, is that it must be possible to accommodate the largest possible number of Bantu in the homelands—as many Bantu as those homelands could possibly take—so that the numbers left in the white cities will be smaller. In addition they will be able to live under better conditions in their homelands.

This brings me automatically to the next point raised by the hon. member for South Coast. He said that when we return the Bantu to the homelands we should see to it that the necessary housing and work is available for them there. That is our policy, but that does not mean to say that if a Bantu enters a white area illegally, and if he does not have the necessary leave from his homeland authority to be there, we should not send him back to where he came from. That, after all, is what influx control implies. This is after all the influx control which were being applied by the United Party as well, or am I wrong when I say that? Am I wrong in my deductions, now that I have listened to responsible members of the United Party? I am not referring now to the people who sit at the back and talk about the “hardships” and the freedom which people must have to sell their labour where they want at the highest price. I am referring now to responsible members, such as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for South Coast. I am going to do the hon. member for Durban (Point) the honour of calling him a responsible member. These are the people who state that they are also in favour of influx control being applied. Is it not also their policy that the Bantu, who enters a white area illegally, must go back to where he came from? That is, after all, what we are doing, Sir. But I want to inform you that even in those cases where Bantu are in the white areas illegally, we do not act un-sympathetically towards them. I have repeatedly mentioned the townships which are being built, and the treatment being received there by the Bantu. I have already spoken about how those who are receiving old age pensions are given a free plot with a free house on it. I have already explained here how welfare services are made available, to those who are without a means of subsistence or income there, and how they are given relief work in order to keep them going. But that field I have covered before. It is probably not necessary to repeat it to-night. I just want to assure hon. members that we do not act in an un-sympathetic way towards these people. We do not simply dump them there and leave them to their own devices.

The hon. member asked me whether it was being ensured that there was housing and opportunities for employment for them there. The reply is “yes”, provision is being made for them. We have welfare officers and agricultural officers, the people who have close contact with the Bantu in the homelands, who are looking after this. Where there are cases of people who are in need of assistance, they are being looked after. We are not the heartless people we are often made out to be. I think I can leave this matter at that. I think the hon. member will agree with me that he and I have nothing but contempt for people who want to make political capital out of this matter, by saying that too much is being spent on the Bantu when we know that we have trusteeship over the Bantu and that it is we who have to lead the Bantu along the road of self-development in South Africa.

There is another matter I should like to discuss with the hon. member for South Coast. The hon. member for South Coast made an allegation to-night which was incorrect. He stated here that the former Paramount Chief, Cyprian Bekezulu, had requested that a territorial authority for Zululand should be established, but the hon. member alleges that he does not have the consent of the Zulu nation to do that. Mr. Speaker, allow me to say that long before Paramount Chief Cyprian Bekezulu came to see me and the hon. the Minister in Pretoria, I opened a regional authority complex at Vula Mehlo. The hon. member will know where that is. I think it is in his constituency on the South Coast of Natal. The Paramount Chief raised this matter on that occasion. He said that they were remaining behind. I can quote his words here. He said that they had noted that the hon. the Minister had gone to the Tswana territorial authority and that the then Deputy Minister and I had gone to the Venda territorial authority and to the Tswana territorial authority. He asked why they could not also have a territorial authority. Why were they being neglected. I availed myself of that opportunity to reply that we did not want to serve a territorial authority on them. I said that if they asked for it, that request would receive attention.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member must keep quiet now because he knows I must finish off now. I told them that if they wanted to address this application to us, it would be considered. The Paramount Chief, Cyprian Bekezulu, came to Pretoria to see us. He brought his indunas and his secretary with him. He said that they also wanted a territorial authority for the Zulu ethnic unit.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member must wait a moment now. We told him that there were certain problems. We told him this: Not all your regional authorities and tribal authorities are functioning yet; you already have numerous tribal authorities, but go back and organize your regions. The hon. Minister must correct me if I am wrong, but I think that at the time 12 Zulu regional authorities had been organized. We thought that the minimum number of regional authorities which would cover the majority of the Zulu nation was 17. This is also my reply to the statement made by the hon. member for Durban (Point).

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Deputy Minister a question? Was the Paramount Chief, Cyprian Bekezulu, invited to Pretoria by the Government, or did he go there because he himself wanted to go without any invitation from the Government?

He addressed a request to us to come and see us. We told him that he could come and see us. Our office doors are open to Whites and non-Whites; that is why our office doors were open to him as well. He came and we told him what the problem was. We told him: “We want to make sure that we have the Zulu nation behind you when you organize the area.” The Commissioner-General. Mr. Boshoff, is doing his duty. He is furnishing guidance in this respect, and I am not able this evening at this stage to say how many of those regional authorities have been established. However, I think the vast majority of those regional authorities have already been established. The hon. member for South Coast must not belittle me here by saying that I had said that the Zulu people was in mourning. The hon. member is acquainted with the Zulu people. He knows that after the death of the Paramount Chief, Cyprian Bekezulu, they are in mourning. They also know that when the regent was appointed this nation did not want to hold any great festivals because they were still in mourning. I now want to make an appeal to the hon. member for South Coast. I will not make a similar appeal to any other hon. members opposite because not all of them have a sense of responsibility. However, the hon. member for South Coast is a responsible member in Natal and in addition the hon. member for South Coast is also acquainted with the Bantu, particularly the Zulu people. [Interjections.] Hon. members must not laugh about this. Why do they want to laugh about this? After all, it is the truth, or do they not agree with this. Because the hon. member for South Coast is a responsible member, and because he does not differ with us on the need for the survival of the Whites in South Africa, and because he does not differ with us on the need for the peaceful co-existence of Whites, Bantu and the other Coloured groups, it is the duty of this hon. member, just as much as it is mine, my colleagues and my Minister’s, to keep the relations between the Zulu people and white South Africa favourable. I want to ask the hon. member not to confuse matters. Do not make things more difficult than they are. Rather help us. You are able to do so. You know the Zulus and can help us. I am saying this to you more than to any other person, because you are able to do so, but in God’s name stop sowing suspicion of the Government and sowing suspicion of the motives of the Government. [Interjections.] There I hear the same old cry from the hon. member. Stop wanting to incite the Bantu against the white man in South Africa.

That is untrue. He never did anything like that.

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. the Deputy Minister entitled to say that the hon. member is inciting the Bantu against the white man?

That was never said. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I am usually very clear in my statements.

That was a shocking thing to say. You should withdraw it.

If I have been unclear to-night, I want to rectify the position straight away. I want to tell the hon. member what I am asking of him. He must contribute his share so that if there are persons, and I want to affirm that there are such persons within his Party, and if things happen which mar relations, I am making an appeal to those hon. members to eliminate those methods so that better relations may be established between Whites and Bantu, and particularly between Whites and Zulus.

Will you try to heal the breach in the Royal family in Zululand officially?

I was just coming to that. The next point I wanted to discuss is the breach in the royal family of the Zulus. We are also aware of what is going on in that royal family. The hon. member is also aware that as far as the Bantu are concerned, only the male descendants count as those who are of importance in the tribal genealogy and not sisters or other family. The hon. member also knows what differences exist in the royal house of the Zulu at the moment. The hon. member knows that if we were to interfere in a matter such as that we would only be marring the relations and that we would not be doing the Zulu people a service and would be offering them no assistance if we were to interfere there. This is a matter they have to solve themselves. I have every confidence in the Zulu people being able to solve this problem of theirs. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister who has just resumed his seat made appeals for reasonableness in regard to matters of policy. However, before that he reacted rather fiercely to the fact that the type of propaganda used by his party in 1948 is now being turned back on his party by Dr. Ras Beyers, the verkramptes and Barry Bothas of to-day. But I would say that this would come better from the hon. the Deputy Minister if he himself was a little bit more careful in the accusations he makes during the course of political speeches. I should like to remind him of a speech he made in Newcastle on 2nd December, reported in the Natal Mercury …

Why must you always quote me from the English Press?

Typically, the report says—

That is bad enough. That is right at home. But where I do take exception to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s statement when he asks others to be reasonable, is that he should have made the following statement. Unlike the hon. member for Durban (Point), the hon. the Deputy Minister was unable to bring proof of his allegations against this member and in the circumstances I want to read to him what he said at Newcastle and to ask whether this was reasonable criticism. According to the report the hon. the Deputy Minister said—

[Inaudible.]

Did the hon. the Deputy Minister not make that statement?

Of course not.

I will accept from the hon. the Deputy Minister that he denied having made that statement. Unfortunately I have not seen any public denial of it in any Press.

I should like to revert to another matter in regard to Government policy. I believe that during this Session there has been a marked and noticeable development in a wider field of public debate on public issues, more so than in any previous period in our history. I believe that this public dialogue is most valuable. The exchange of opinion which we are now fortunately having in this country between the editor of one newspaper with another in the respective newspapers, is a good thing in South Africa at the present time. I believe that we are finding that the electorate is seeking more than mere slogans and superficial assessments in regard to our problems in South Africa. For that reason I want to return, if I may, to some of the unfinished aspects of the first debate of this Session, namely the No-Confidence debate; since then we have waited for five months, waited for clarity from the Government. No clarity has been forthcoming. In his reply to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in that debate, the hon. the Prime Minister took the House into his confidence and confessed that in so far as the Coloured people were concerned they would have their representative council and that they would be able to look after their community interests through that council. In regard to that aspect, there was no argument as far as we on this side of the House were concerned. But he then left the picture quite incomplete. Whilst we have stated our position as to what the political future of the Coloureds should be in this country, the hon. the Prime Minister merely said that the completion of the picture as far as the Nationalist Party was concerned, had to be left to future generations.

That is not correct.

I want to deal with the hon. the Prime Minister’s attitude in regard to various matters in that debate. When the hon. member for Stellenbosch says that that is not correct, I want to ask him whether he will get up after me this evening and tell me what the political future is of the Coloured people in South Africa, other than that they will have a representative council.

Now, Sir. I want to refer to the question of the urban Bantu. We have dealt with the homelands to some extent. I want to repeat what I quoted in February. The hon. the Prime Minister said that I had correctly quoted the late Dr. Malan, who said:

That is, in the development of apartheid—

That was quoted by Dr. Malan as being his view and his approach to the question of the Natives, as they then were known, in the urban areas. The fiction of a Bantu citizenship, the fiction that the Bantu in the towns and in the urban areas, who are permanently settled in the area, Still have roots in some homeland, was of a later vintage, after Dr. Malan. That came first in 1959 with Dr. Eiselen’s report and the prelude to the Dr. Verwoerd scheme so far as the Bantu were concerned. The hon. the Prime Minister agreed during the debate this year that the position had been correctly stated. The Prime Minister said that he agreed with Dr. Malan’s assessment of the position. He went further. The Prime Minister’s words were the following:

The hon. the Prime Minister continued and repeated certain quotations from the late Advocate Strijdom and the late Dr. Verwoerd, in which they said that the national policy must be drafted in such a way as to promote the ideal of ultimate total apartheid in a natural way. Then he quoted Dr. Verwoerd, who said—

Sir, that is the factual position. It is accepted that that is the position. We have then the policy which emerges, so far as the urban Bantu are concerned, from the statements of the previous Prime Ministers to which I have referred. First of all, total territorial separation is unattainable. That is basic from Dr. Malan’s days. Secondly, the policy must be drafted towards the attainment or the promotion of an unattainable ideal. That is to try and work towards something which Dr. Malan has said is, and which the Nationalist Party has accepted as being unattainable.

He did not say it was unattainable.

But Dr. Malan said it. The hon. the Deputy Minister is not aware of these quotations. They were quoted and accepted by the hon. the Prime Minister in February as being correct. Dr. Malan said that, in fact, the policy was that total apartheid was an Unattainable ideal.

Now, Advocate Strydom laid foundations to build towards this attainment of total separation. Dr. Verwoerd assured us that the policy of apartheid constantly moves towards ever-increasing separation. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Justice agrees with me that these are the aims, and the hon. the Prime Minister said that they have been the consistent aims over the 21 years of the Government’s policy. That is the moving towards the achievement of ever-increasing separation. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education has said to-day that the aim is the minimum of Bantu in white areas and the maximum in Bantu areas. Now, what is the position of this Government which maintains that it has a policy for the urban Bantu. According to the Sabra survey there were 3.47 million Bantu in white urban areas in 1960. In 1969 the figure is 5 million. Is that a movement towards ever-increasing separation? Sabra’s estimate says that by the year 2000 there will be 23 million Bantu in the white urban areas. This now is the ever-increasing movement towards separation. These hon. Deputy Ministers are aware of these irrefutable facts. It is a fact that the percentage of white employees in the manufacturing industries is decreasing by, 1 per cent per annum, while the percentage of non-white employees is increasing by 1 per cent per annum. They are aware …

There was an increased production as well.

Yes, I agree, but that is percentage-wise on the basis of the number of employees.

I quoted it to you this afternoon.

In the Public Service in white South Africa, we have in the service of the Government, provincial and local authorities and the Railways a total employment of 238,268 Whites against 293,650 Bantu. Today we are moving in the direction of ever-increasing separation!

How many are employed in the Bantu areas?

We face interdependence of the White upon the Black and the Black upon the White as real to-day as it was 21 years ago. We face the factual existence of the Bantu who cannot be repatriated from the white urban areas. We also face the factual increase in their numbers. Yet this Session responsible members have repeatedly said that the choice before the electorate of South Africa in so far as our relationship with the urban Bantu is concerned, is one of two things; either we must accept apartheid, segregation or separation or we must accept integration. I believe that this is an irresponsible approach.

I want to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister for what he has said at Barrydale when he said, as the hon. the Prime Minister has said earlier on this year, that the Whites are dependent upon the non-Whites for their economic prosperity. The development of separation has not been achieved by removing a few representatives of the Bantu out of this House or a few representatives of the Coloureds out of this House. Separation, and I mean separation in a meaningful way, is not being achieved by having separate bus queues and post office queues, or by having separate beaches, benches or buses for the different races. What we have is an urban presence which is factual and which is permanent, whether it is migratory or whether it is settled. I believe that the future growth in numbers in urban areas is an irreversible fact. One wonders why the Government does not want to face these facts. One wonders why the Government does not want to face the fact and the reality that these Bantu will be in the urban areas and that they will remain in the urban areas. One also wonders whether they are going to be as reluctant as they were when we on this side of the House told them how they can get a move on with the development of the homelands, and that is by using white capital and white know-how. They accepted it reluctantly and they dressed it up as an “agency”. They dressed it up as an agency and said they will get on with this new scheme of development for the homelands.

The urban Bantu presents two alternatives as we in this country face each other politically. The one is to realize that there is a group of Bantu who cannot be repatriated and the other is what the Government suggests, namely to make a success of the migratory labour system. I believe we must accept the permanency. I want to say that we can accept the permanency and I say it for several reasons. Firstly a settled Bantu community will be established, secondly they should have, as we propose, home ownership which will be a foothold for law and order amongst the Bantu people. The third and important matter is that we shall have a continuing labour force which promotes efficiency in the individuals who are employed in industry and in labour. Fourthly there can be a cut back on the amount of wasted time, energy and manpower in trying to administer an unworkable migratory labour system. What are the disadvantages? The hon. members on the other side of the House will say that they will increase in numbers because the Bantu families will grow and there will be more and more Bantu in the urban areas.

The migratory labour system has been there for the last Century.

The criticism of what we have suggested, namely a settled population, is that they will grow in numbers. Surely, the number of Bantu in the urban areas will increase in any event. The numbers must increase. That is the pattern which has developed over the last 21 years. To think that it will not happen is not to face the reality. I cannot see the possibility of any policy decreasing the numbers. There will be a natural growth, whether it is migratory labour or whether it is the settled population. The growth of a settled population will be a natural growth. It will be a legitimate growth amongst the Bantu people living a family life. It will be a growth within the Bantu race itself. I wonder whether the hon. members opposite realize what problems we are creating for future generations by a migratory labour force. First of all, whether we like it or not, we are producing a new racial group in South Africa born in illegitimacy. That is the mixture of the Bantu and the Coloured people. That group has been developed in this country. It is rootless, they have no homes, and in the most cases they are born illegitimately as the result of the cohabitation of the Bantu and the Coloured person.

Tell us what is your solution to that question.

I have just said that the Bantu and his wife must be allowed to live and settle and become a permanent part of the urban population. [Interjections.] All right, he will have his children. Are we static? Is the demand for black labour never going to increase? Is the number of labourers or workers in industry required never going to be any larger than it is at the present moment? But I want to say this, and if the hon. the Deputy Minister feels that I am perhaps overstating my case he must say so. I want to ask him to inquire from Bantu Commissioners over the years in South Africa. He must inquire as to what happens with the Bantu women who legitimately come to the Cape to work here. Whether she has a husband in the homelands or not, the first thing she does is to acquire herself, as it is termed, a Cape Town husband. She lives with an adopted Cape Town husband, so that she can be protected from the other single Bantu who come into the cities under the Government’s migratory scheme.

Is that something that we can tolerate continuing in this country? It does happen. We have mentioned this over and over again. But the Government sits back and says no, there must be the migratory system. One hesitates to Use the word “basic”, but surely the basic humanity is such that one must see at least that man and wife are together; the man cannot go home from Cape Town for a weekend or a long week-end in the Transkei. Man and wife should be together. I say it to-day and I am certain it must come when this Government rethinks its approach to the urban Bantu. I have said that there is welcome discussion and expression of opinion in the Press and in public and in organizations in South Africa on this problem. It seems that what is needed and needed urgently, are new directions and new thinking with this problem. It seems that we will never receive this direction and this thinking from the Government until this Government gets away from the fear of what will happen if it drops the slogans that brought the Government votes at the polls, at the polling booths, in the last few elections. They are doing no service to South Africa by continuing a policy which is based on slogans. I believe that the public is getting more and more alive to this fact because they see there is no solution being offered at the present stage. We have sat in this House now for five months during this Session and waited to hear one suggestion from the members of the Government as to what is the solution of the urban Bantu problem. It is a problem of our own making. It is a problem of the making of our history, because the Bantu are for all time integrated into the economic life of South Africa. They have been, they are at present, and they always will be in the future. Commerce and industry are now tiring of the restrictions and the administrative rigmarole that has to be dealt with before they can obtain urgently required labour for the continued development of South Africa. I believe that these are problems which this Government has failed to attend to; these are problems which will become more and more acute as the years go by in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of this House for almost nine years. In the course of every session explanations were given and statements were made by hon. Ministers in regard to the policy of the National Party. And yet it was once again our experience to-night to see the hon. member for Green Point rising and asking for explanations in regard to certain aspects of the policy of the National Party. I should like to analyse two of the component parts of his premise. This is his own point of departure. Firstly he said that we were economically dependent and would at all times remain so on Bantu labour, especially in respect of the cities. Secondly, he said that house-ownership and property rights should therefore be granted to that labour force. At the same time the hon. Opposition are levelling the reproach at us that the Government is not implementing its policy; that it is not succeeding in reversing the flow of Blacks into our cities. Let us analyse the two statements the hon. member made in regard to land ownership and the necessity for labour. It has often been repeated in this House that these factors would result in a growing black labour force flowing into our urban areas. This would mean that the black population in our peri-urban areas would steadily increase and also that the ratio between White and Black would become more and more unfavourable. [Interjections.] That hon. member is now levelling the reproach that this is in fact the case. If that is so, may I ask what the position would have been if this Government’s policy had not been implemented up to now and if the brakes had not been applied. But there is one question which the hon. member deliberately avoided very carefully. Once he has settled this growing labour force in our peri-urban areas, once he has provided them with housing and granted them property rights, what would then happen to the political relations of those people in these peri-urban areas? What would they do about their political aspirations and where would they exercise their political rights? That is the cardinal point of the United Party’s policy which he did not touch upon.

The hon. Opposition is now levelling accusations to the effect that this Government is allegedly deviating from certain aspects of its policy. It is definitely not for them to accuse the Government of deviating from its policy. The United Party should not think that we have forgotten where their policy originated. I want to analyse the United Party’s race federation policy to-night and take a look at what it looked like when it saw the light for the first time. I want to quote from the Rand Daily Mail dated 19th August, 1961. It is interesting to learn from that report that the race federation policy of the United Party actually originated in a circle outside this Parliament. In this newspaper report a certain opinion was expressed, and it reads as follows—

In other words, the race federation policy had its origins outside Parliament. Outside assistance was called in in order to formulate that policy. But what view was taken of this policy by the person who helped to formulate it and how did he view the future logical consequences of his policy? Very conveniently the following was said at that stage—

Those changing conditions to which they referred, were to gauge the frame of mind of the electorate and then to try to strike the note which would find an echo in the electorate. That game is still being played. What is more, they admit that that game is being played. Now I want to quote from New Nation dated February, 1969. In that publication the hon. member for Bezuidenhout stated clearly—

The whole idea is to reform this policy and to adapt it from time to time. But let us analyse this policy in its original form and see what it looks like.

This is one of the inherent principles of the United Party policy. The article goes on to say—

When was this matter last analysed by the United Party? Now I come to the crux of the matter, i.e. the difference between us and the United Party—

Here we have the race federation concept as it was when it saw the light for the first time. Now the hon. member for Green Point comes along and adopts as a principle a growing number of non-Whites on the perimeter of our urban complexes. Inside those complexes he sees as a policy the federation plan of the United Party as it saw the light for the first time, with growing political power for those people, a multi-racial parliament, and ultimately a multi-racial cabinet and a multi-racial Public Service. That is why we simply cannot find each other on this basis. That is why we and hon. members opposite simply cannot find common ground. In spite of explanations furnished by this side of the House, they are still advancing arguments of this sort, as the hon. member for Green Point also did. But over the years, since their concept of a race federation saw the light, the United Party has met with adversity. They have shown deterioration and have been casting about to a certain extent. They have been searching for a way out for themselves and on occasion they did, according to a newspaper report, receive a considerable boost. Amongst other things the following is said in this report—

This is the kind of straw the United Party has been clutching at in the meantime. This has also been the cause of disunity and a split of opinion in that party which we have seldom seen in any party. The hon. member for Durban (Point) and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to indicate here this afternoon that there was a difference of opinion in the National Party. The difference of opinion in the United Party is infinitely greater than this can ever become in the National Party. The difference of opinion in the United Party is so great that they have hived off in all directions. The United Party still has members who do not agree with the party leadership. Not all of them have the courage of Hamilton Russell, who left the party. Hamilton Russell said the following—

This afternoon we were treated to an image of the United Party as contrasted with the National Party which was not only calculated to be for domestic consumption. This afternoon we were treated to an image of the National Party which suggested that we were a group or a lot of intolerant racialists. This afternoon the hon. member for Durban (Point) did an injustice to the image of the Afrikaner as contrasted with his English-speaking fellow-citizen in this country. All of this was done in an attempt to achieve two objects, i.e. to disguise and conceal the difference of opinion in their ranks and, on the other hand, to present to the outside world an image in which the National Party was depicted as racialists and intolerant people. There is a difference of opinion in the United Party. I have already quoted Mr. Hamilton Russell, who also said the following—

Why did the other members of that party not have the courage to do the same? I want to come back to the hon. member for Durban (Point), and I find it a pity that he is not present in the House to-night. I want to come back to his image of the Nationalist, the National Party and, in particular, his image of the Afrikaner. The hon. member’s object is, on the one hand, to frighten the English-speaking people away from the National Party, and, on the other hand, to cloud the image of South Africa and of the National Party as far as the outside world is concerned. But let us put to the test the nationhood of hon. members opposite and the statements they made. I regret that in this process I shall also have to deal with my friend the hon. member for Green Point. A statement was made by a certain Mr. Donald Ross, the former United Party member for Benoni in this House. He was reported in the Sunday Times as follows—

The United Party members who were sitting here, and some of them who are still sitting here, said those very same things and took them even further. I should like to quote the hon. member for Green Point. He was quoted by the very same Mr. Ross. Amongst other things the following was said in that report—

This is what he said in that Council—

Sir, it is being suggested that there are elements in the National Party who are opposed to their English-speaking fellow-citizens of this country. Those statements which came from that side were clothed in stronger and more cutting language than that of any statement which has ever been made by anybody in the National Party.

What does the nation look like which the United Party sees in South Africa? They see a nation, as has already been described by some of them, which is neither Afrikaans nor English. In other words, they want to see a nation which is an unrecognizable conglomeration of people who do not speak a pure language, who have no cultural background, and who have no history and pride behind them. They want to see a nation in South Africa which speaks neither English nor Afrikaans. They want to see a nation which has no stability behind them. How does this contrast with the nation which the National Party sees? Allow me, Sir, to use a quotation which has often been read out in this House, i.e. the quotation of what was said by Advocate Strydom, which to my mind is one of the most succinct and finest comments which has ever been made from the Afrikaner point of view in regard to co-operation and nationhood in South Africa. On 22nd January, 1957, he said the following in this House (Hansard, column 43, vol. 93)—

Where would one find words finer than these and a clearer insight into nationhood? At the end of his speech Advocate Strydom said emphatically that if anybody were to detract from this, he would regard it as an act of the greatest disloyalty. What right have the hon. member for Durban (Point) and the hon. Leader of the Opposition to launch attacks on the National Party on the strength of the premise that we are anti-English and that we are dividing a people? We on the National Party side believe that we have an opportunity which is unique in the world. We believe that we have been blessed with all the elements which are necessary for creating a great people and a great nation in a great country. Hon. members opposite have the opportunities of acquiring the same knowledge and adopting the same attitudes in this regard. If this country of ours were granted the opportunity of making progress in an undisturbed manner, nothing could prevent it from becoming a great country, just as other countries have become great. We are on the point of gaining the goodwill of the world, such as has never been the case before. Wherever one travels in the world, one encounters a new concept of South Africa to-day. One finds a new willingness to learn about South Africa’s problems. There is a new approach towards South Africa and its special circumstances. A certain attitude is gaining ground in the world to-day especially in respect of our colour policy, i.e. that this may not be a policy with which everybody agrees, but that it is at least a policy which is well worth watching. It was my privilege recently to converse with political leaders from other countries. One thing that was distinctly said to me, was that no matter what we did in respect of our colour policy, we should not follow the example of the United States of America. “We see what this has led to. We may not agree with certain aspects of South Africa’s policy, but we accept that it is a policy which we may not understand fully. It is with interest that we are watching what is taking place in South Africa. We do at least believe that what is being done in South Africa, is not the same and is not going to lead to the same chaos as is the case in the U.S.A.” That is why it is tragic that on other occasions in this House the United Party has always been trying to disparage the image of South Africa and to cast doubts upon the sincere efforts made by this Government. It is tragic to see that as far as the outside world is concerned, they are making all sorts of attempts at casting as dark a shadow as possible over the future of South Africa. It would be a glad day when we have an Opposition in this House which would differ with us on details, because that is their right, but which would evince loyalty to South Africa in always presenting the best image of South Africa to the outside world. They are so quick to say that they are attacking the National Party, but in that process they are quite often damaging the good name of South Africa. If there is one appeal I want to make to them to-night, then it is that they should cease that practice and help the National Party Government to improve still further the image of South Africa, which is improving day by day, because a great future definitely awaits us.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that it is now becoming the custom in this House for people not to take much real interest in what is being said here unless we are discussing the Coloureds, the Bantu or the Indians. I promised that I would also participate in the debate, although I do not often do so. But before I come to that I thought I would perhaps find an opportunity of just returning first to the Budget itself. I thought that one could perhaps remind the Minister of Finance of the fact that in his Budget speech he announced the introduction of a sales tax. During the course of that debate I told the hon. the Minister that I was certain that he would get in not R100 million, but closer to R200 million. I went on to say that I believe that if it was R200 million, the public would eventually pay R300 million when all was said and done since it was being levied at the initial stage; and not at the final stage of the selling process. The hon. the Minister then laughed at me and said in his reply that one member had even gone so far as to say that it could amount to R300 million. Of course I did not say that the tax would amount to R300 million. I said that the effect on the taxpayer would amount to R300 million. I think the Minister will now agree with me, now that he has had a small measure of experience of this, that my figures will not be too far out. I went on to say that this tax might perhaps put a stop to inflation temporarily, but that the sum total in the long run would be that it would prove a further incentive to further inflation. The hon. the Minister laughed at that and the hon. member for Florida said that he could not agree with me at all in this connection. But what happened? I said that wages would follow on the ripple effect which he was setting in motion here. I see that one of the chain stores, I think it is the O.K. Bazaars, has already made it known that they will have to increase their Coloureds’ wages by R70,000 or R90,000. I think this is as a result of this tax.

Do you not think it is simply an excuse?

The hon. the Minister is saying that it is simply an excuse, and it may simply be an excuse. I fear, however, that as a result of the increase in prices, I shall have to pay my Coloured and Bantu labourers on the farm more.

It is high time you did so.

It is easy for that hon. member to talk. If one does not foot the bill, it is easy to talk. I know there are some of the hon. members who are becoming so verlig these days that they are advocating that a Bantu labourer on a farm should be paid R2 per day. I cannot do that, but if they want to do so, let them. To be serious again, I want to say that I told the hon. the Minister that he would be compelled next year to increase the salaries of public servants and that he would then be angry with us if we told him that he was doing this for political reasons shortly before the elections. He would say that he was compelled to do so as a result of the increase in the cost of living. It was not so long ago that I said this in this House. I think the hon. the Minister would agree with me to-day that I was not too far wrong at the time. I do not think the hon. Minister will again be so eager to tell me that my figures were entirely incorrect, or will he? I do not know. We shall hear later on what the position is. But there is a second aspect I should like to bring to the attention of the Government. It is a pity that the hon. the Minister of Community Development is not here to-night. I know that he is not feeling very well. I am sorry about that. Recently the hon. the Minister said something very interesting in regard to the question of land for housing. He pointed out how land for houses for the middle income group was quite disproportionately high to-day. That is so. What is one of the contributory reasons for the prices of land being so high? It is because certain business men are buying up tremendous tracts of land and laying out township areas, not with the purpose of selling that land immediately, but with a view to making the maximum profit possible. Not only do they want to make profits on the land, they also want to make profits on the shares of those companies which are being established. I notice that a former Cabinet Minister, who always told me that he was having quite a hard time, is now chairman of a R50 million company for the development of land in Natal.

Not in Natal.

If the hon. member says it is not in Natal, then I take it that it is not in Natal, Surely he saw the same report as I saw, which dealt with Mr. Willie Maree.

He is not the chairman either.

He said so Then he is not telling the truth. The fact remains that quite a number of companies, and very often the same groups, are to-day, by means of take-overs, laying out new township units and in various other ways, causing the prices to soar and shares to go up to such an extent that one wonders how they expect to pay out any dividends on them. Now it is interesting to quote the hon. member for Florida again. He said this afternoon that the shares were too high and that the income of the shares was too low. To that he added that all this proved was what confidence investors had in the economy of South Africa. That is of course nonsense. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me. It is as nonsensical as saying that the increase, year after year, in the number of bets on the race course can be used to denote that people now have so much confidence that they know what horses are going to win.

That is nonsensical.

Yes, it is absolutely nonsensical. I agree with the hon. member. I think the hon. member for Florida was talking nonsense. I think that if this Government wants to do something to cause land prices to drop a little so that the ordinary income group man can also acquire his own home, this would be welcomed. I am not talking about public servants only now. I am talking about all the citizens in this country. I have not yet heard one single announcement where this Government came forward and stated that it was going to do something in regard to the speculation in land prices so that land would remain within reach of the ordinary taxpayers. I understand that a survey is now being made in the Cape Province of the number of plots which are already available in coastal areas and which are being offered for sale but on which houses have not yet been built. I understand that from the Natal Coast down and up again to South West, enough plots have been laid out so that every white person could at least have 1½ plots if all of them were to be built on. Can the Government not consider putting a curb on a few of these companies? Cannot a tax be imposed on them instead of the sales tax, in respect of vacant plots? Cannot the tax on built-up plots be made cheaper at the same time? Let us do something to check those speculators a little so that he can reduce his prices, sell sooner and make the plot available sooner for someone to build on, rather than to wait until he can sell the plot at high prices, make his millions out of them and in this way keeps the shares of his particular company on the share market high. Is is not possible for the Government to devise something in this regard? After all the Government has devised so many things. One cannot say here to-day, as they previously said, that too much was being done for the Bantu. After all, the Government has brought out such wonderful plans for housing the Bantu. Cannot they devise something now to try to help the poor white occupant of a house in some way apart from the way of subsidies and alms? Or are they unable to think of something or devise any plans. Or is it that they do not want to do so? Are they afraid that they will hurt certain barons and planners, people who have never worked for any of their capital appreciation, but who have, with all kinds of clever tricks and clever plans, formed companies and in this way made their money? Or are they part of those people?

You are part of them.

What the hon. member is saying there is nonsensical. I found it very interesting to note that that hon. member became restless since that stage at which I began to discuss this question of manipulation and all these things which are taking place to-day. I do not know why. I do not know why the hon. member does not want to support me and help put in a plea for the ordinary taxpayer so that he can live inexpensively in a decent house.

I first advocated this in the House.

There you have it. The hon. member for Brakpan is not concerned whether his voters live in homes which they can afford. It does not bother him. As long as he can make petty political propaganda he will oppose any person.

That is not what he said.

Whatever he said, it makes no difference. Let him support me and plead for houses for these people. The hon. the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs would be well-advised to do so as well. He must sometimes think back to the days when he also was still poor. It applies to that hon. member as well. Some of us are getting rich too quickly. Of course there is nothing wrong with getting rich too quickly. But let us not forget the people from whom we stem. Do not throw them to the wolves. What did they do?

Who is throwing them to the wolves?

You and the Government. You are not doing anything for these people.

You are talking nonsense.

What are they doing. I can tell you what this Government is doing. It remains the question of colour and more colour, day in and day out. I hope the hon. the Minister of Police is here now, because I want to express my disapproval to him in regard to a certain report I read. These people are so obsessed with colour that they even go so far as to hire and pay native women to seduce white men into committing an immoral act. Have you ever heard anything like that? Native women being hired to act as decoys in order to catch white men committing immoral acts? I hope the Minister will, before this debate has run its course, deny and rectify that report. The report did not appear in a United Party newspaper. It appeared in a National Party newspaper. To my way of thinking, and I think to that of most members in this House, using a decoy is a reprehensible way of trying to catch offenders. But when a native woman, and the worst type of Native woman at that, a disgusting Native street woman is hired to act as a decoy to invade what is most sacrosanct in the life of any person, i.e. his family life, and be paid with the white taxpayers’ money to catch white men, then I say it is an absolute disgrace.

But you will not be caught.

No, I will not be caught. But unfortunately there were people who were caught. I can only go on what I read in the newspaper reports. Is there a single member in this House who approves of this method of hiring Native woman, the worst street woman, to catch white men?

Yes.

There one Nationalist is saying “yes”. Who is it? Will he have the courage to say who he is? I do not think so. I do not think that the Afrikaner wife and Afrikaner mother in this country will have any respect for the Government that deliberately allows this type of thing to continue in South Africa.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.