I move, as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to.

When the House adjourned yesterday I was dealing with the impracticability of implementing the Government’s policy of establishing a white South Africa. Fundamental to this is the establishment of seven or eight independent black states which would form almost a horseshoe around what is erroneously called white South Africa. I say it is erroneous, because even if we could remove all the Africans from this white area, the Whites would still be outnumbered by the Coloureds and the Indians, who will still be integrated in our economy, and so separation would have failed. I do not propose to deal with the Coloureds and the Indians. The hon. the Prime Minister has admitted that he has no solution for this problem.

Absolute nonsense.

He said he would leave it to our children to solve that problem. The hon. the Prime Minister will have a chance of replying to me. I take it he is going to take part in the debate. [Interjections.] I want to deal with this problem for which they believe they have a solution. For this policy to succeed it must be able to give Africans homelands where they can all enjoy normal home life and political rights. But it is admitted this ideal cannot be achieved, and in assessing the success or otherwise of the Government’s policy we are now told that numbers are not decisive. This is a far cry from the attitude of the previous Ministers, Dr. de Wet Nel and Dr. Verwoerd, who told us that we could expect the turn in the tide in 1978 when the Africans would flock back to the reserves. Sir, on Tuesday the Minister attempted to show that progress was being made in giving employment to the Bantu in the reserves. He showed that more Bantu were being employed in border industries and he had hopes that white entrepreneurs would take advantage of the agency system to establish industries inside the reserves.

May I say a word or two about border industries? I notice that Dr. Rautenbach, the planning adviser to the Prime Minister, does not talk of border industries; he talks of decentralization of industry as part of our traditional way of life. Later on in his speech he said that in 1960 the application of decentralization became practical politics for the first time. What sort of tradition is this which started in 1960? He also says that party politicians have opposed decentralization although the rest of the community wanted it. Sir, I do not know who those party politicians are who have opposed decentralization. The United Party has always stood for the decentralization of industry for strategic and economic reasons, but what we have opposed is decentralization of industry solely for ideological purposes. Sir, the Minister has given us instances of the implementation of his policy of establishing industries inside the reserves on an agency basis but he has picked one or two reserves. I ask him, Sir, what is happening in the largest reserve in South Africa? You cannot ignore the almost 2 million Africans who live in that reserve. Where are they to be employed? I submit and I say without equivocation that there is no border industry for the largest of the reserves, the Transkei, and no border industry is being planned for the simple reason that there is no suitable spot for a border industry.

Border industries have failed to supply sufficient work to absorb the Bantu workers, and now we are told that industries are to be started inside the reserves on an agency basis. Now, this is not the present Minister’s idea; the previous Minister spoke about this too but nothing was done. Years were allowed to go by without doing anything. I want to know, in regard to the agency basis, if that is the new hope of this Government, what is being done in the Transkei? There is no industry being started on the agency basis there. We know that a private concern has taken over the meat factory, which was built by the Government at considerable expense and, we understand, at a considerable loss. Then there is a small weaving factory which I assume is also run on the agency basis, but that only gives employment to a couple of hundred women. No worthwhile industry has been started on the agency basis in the Transkei. While talking about the agency basis, the late Dr. Verwoerd opposed …

What about the bag factory at Butterworth?

That is not being run on the agency basis; I am talking about the agency basis.

You do not know what you are talking about.

When last were you in the Transkei?

Let me ask the hon. the Deputy Minister how much employment has been given in the bag factory at Butter-worth? Sir, the late Dr. Verwoerd objected to white capital going into the reserves because he said that if white capital went in, then white management would have to go. If white management went in white families would go and if white families went in there would be children and there would have to be schools and churches and places of entertainment. In this way a white colony would be started there. Sir, what is the difference between taking in white capital on the agency basis or allowing private white capital to go in on a profit making basis? But, Sir, I see from a suggestion made by the Minister the other day that he may be thinking of allowing white capital and Whites into the reserves on a migratory basis only. He was quoted as suggesting—and this was obviously done to appease the critics of black migratory labour—that it may be possible to fly African workers home from the white areas to their families in the reserves for a week-end. His fancy then took flight and he also suggested subsequently that it might be possible to fly white migratory workers home from the reserves to the white areas for their week-ends — a shuttle-cock service. He did not say whether the same planes may be used to bring the Blacks in and to take the Whites out, and I would suggest that the verkramptes keep their eye on this. All I am waiting to hear now is that some Nationalists have got together to form a company to exploit this shuttle service on an agency basis where there can be no loss.

The Government fiddled while the black population grew. When they do at last accept the principle of allowing white capital into the reserves as we have advocated for so long, they do so on the wrong basis. My leader has already pointed out that, on the agency basis, it cannot succeed. The Tomlinson Commission was a commission of experts, appointed by the Government, to go into this question of economic development, and to give its advice. It reported in 1954, 16 years ago. That Commission estimated, on projections placed before it then, that in 25 or 30 years’ time, the Bantu population would number 21 million. Later projections have of course far exceeded this number. It is now estimated that the Bantu population would be approximately double that number by the year 2000. But no matter whether there is an increase of 30, 50 or 100 per cent—and the 100 per cent seems to be more likely—the Tomlinson Commission development programme envisaged the attainment of a total de jure population of 10 million in the Bantu area. They use the phrase de jure, namely those people living in the Bantu areas. They said that of this number only 8 million would be dependent for their existence in the Bantu areas. The other 2 million would still have to rely for their existence on areas outside the Bantu areas. The balance of the Africans, of course, would be existing and living outside those areas.

Sir, they also said that if the Bantu areas were not developed on the scale they recommended, 17 million Bantu would have to be accommodated in the European areas. This figure will now have to be doubled because their projections were found to be hopelessly wrong. But the Tomlinson Commission’s recommendations were not carried out. A major recommendation was that white entrepreneurs should be encouraged to take part in the development of the reserves. This recommendation was rejected by the late Dr. Verwoerd.

I do not say that the Government has done nothing. It certainly has spent money, but this has been money wasted. Not all of it, but a large Dart of it has been wasted by the B.I.C. and the Xhosa Development Corporation. I have referred to the meat factory. I should like that Deputy Minister to tell us what the loss has been on that meat factory. [Interjections.] A hotel was necessary for Africans in Umtata, but what have they done? They have built a luxury hotel, which is not needed there. Sir. The cost of the building was over R300,000, and, with the cost of the furnishings, which have all been done in the best taste, with wall to wall carpeting and that sort of thing, the total cost must be something like R400,000. We still hope to get the full details of what has been spent on that hotel. It was quite unnecessary to undertake a project on that scale. The United Party wants the reserves to develop economically, but we want it done effectively. We gave them an example. Before the Nationalists took over in 1948 we had given them an industry in the reserve. We had built and got under way the Good Hope Textile industry, where thousands of Africans are employed. It is the showpiece of the Government to-day. In all the years that they have been in power, they have done nothing to compare with that industry. We want to utilize private white capital and initiative to avoid undue waste of the taxpayer’s money. We opposed the Xhosa Development Corporation Bill when it was introduced in this House, not because we were opposed to the Xhosa Development Corporation taking part in the development of the Transkei and the Ciskei, but because there was no provision for the Auditor-General to audit their account. We felt that the Members of Parliament, the watchdogs of the taxpayer’s purse, should see what is happening to the money which is being put into this Government organization. When we talk about development, we want to know how many jobs have been created to provide employment for the natural increase of Africans in the reserves. We are not even worrying at the moment about all the Africans living outside the reserves because under this Government’s policy they will never get work in the reserves. We want to know how many jobs have been created there.

The Government is attempting to keep the Africans at home. When one considers that an estimated 60 per cent of the male population of the Transkei between the ages of 18 and 45 are working outside the Transkei at any given time, the question arises: where is the Minister going to give these people work in the Transkei? How is he going to find work for them in the Transkei? He tries to keep them there, and every day we see them standing in queues before the Labout Bureau, trying to get permits to go out to work. They do not want permits to buy luxury articles. They want permits to go out and work in order to get money to buy food for their families. The necessity to work has become more and more urgent because of the series of droughts we have experienced. These people are filled with resentment. They know that the jobs are there for them and that their labour is wanted and what they resent is all the red tape associated with getting through influx control. It is not only the Africans in the reserves who are resentul but also the Africans living in the urban areas. They are resentful because they feel that their security is being threatened. In 1952 the late Dr. Verwoerd altered section 10 of the Urban Areas Act to give them certain rights. Those who were born in an area or who lived there for a certain period had the right to remain in that area but they fear, listening to Government spokesmen and also considering the Bill which the hon. the Minister introduced last year to control their labour, that this may be an indirect way of getting them out of the cities. This resentment is there. It may not always come to the force because a lot of them are afraid to criticize. They see what happens to others who criticize and they know that the security police are active. A lot of them are afraid to criticize although the resentment is burning within. What we have got to do is be careful that we do not unwittingly drive these people into the arms of terrorists because they will become ripe for indoctrination.

I want to give an example of one man who was banned because he criticized Government policy. At one stage he was banned and he lost his job but then we believe through the influence of the Chief Minister of the Transkei the ban was lifted and now he is a Cabinet Minister in the Transkeian Government. Now he can talk more freely. He made a speech the other day in which he set out the frustrations of the Africans and what their hopes and ideals were.

The voters must now decide for which policy they are going to vote, the Government’s policy or ours. What they must bear in mind is that once the Government puts its policy into effect it can never be withdrawn. Once we give independent status to these Bantustans we cannot take it back. We must learn the lesson of what has happened up North where independence has been given to moderate people who were thought would form the new government whereas in time, usually after the first election, it was found that the Government had been taken over by extremists. Now we have an example on our borders. If it should happen that we give independence to one of these Bantustans and hand the government over to people whom we think are moderates and able to govern, and then find that they lose control, and that the government has been taken out of their hands, we cannot then order a general election as is being done now in Lesotho. Then we can do nothing. We will be completely helpless. We must also remember that these Bantustans are going to be on our borders. It is amazing how many people are under the impression that the coast of the Transkei belongs to the Republic and is not included in the area which was handed over to the Transkeian government. Of course they are quite wrong because the coastline was in fact also handed over. The proof of my argument is that boarding houses which were previously owned by white persons are now being handed over to Africans for them to run. The whole coastline will therefore eventually be taken over by the Africans. As I have said it does not matter if we have a sympathetic government which is friendly disposed to us, but we never know when the government may change. We never know what may happen there on those boundaries. That does not only apply to the Transkei but to all the other territories, part of the boundary of the Transkei and Lesotho as well. It will apply to all the other territories. I ask the electorate to bear that in mind. The electorate must remember that once the Government’s policy has been carried out there is no turning back. In terms of our policy the control will be left in our hands. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat spoke in the general vein of the charge sheet submitted to this House by the United Party. I also want to speak about that charge sheet; consequently I believe that the hon. member will excuse me if I do not specifically follow him up in his argument. The Opposition submitted a six point charge sheet to this House. If one looks at those six points it appears as if this Government has failed on all fronts. It has failed on the economic front as well as on the political and social fronts. That is according to the United Party charge sheet. To have, on the one hand, a government that has failed so completely, and on the other hand, a nation enjoying so much prosperity, peace, quiet and order as we have in this country, are two ideas that are irreconcilable. This brought to mind the question: Is the Opposition serious in coming to the House with this charge sheet of theirs? In the course of the debate I tried to measure the degree of their seriousness. At this stage I just want to mention one test to prove that, in my opinion, the Opposition is not serious.

Sir, if things in South Africa are as this Opposition has claimed them to be, it is vitally necessary that there should be a general election, not on 22nd April, but sooner. This would be vitally necessary, because in that case South Africa is in a perilous position. If things are as the Opposition claims them to be, and if they themselves believe this to be so, one would expect them to grasp at the opportunity of going to the voters in order to try to save South Africa from this situation. But. on the contrary, what do we find? Objections to the election on 22nd April. They do not want an election now. How is this reconcilable with this state of emergency which they have, in point of fact, presented to this House? They do not want a general election now.

Yes we do.

We have now heard all the criticisms. One objection is, for example, that we must think of the millions of rands which are going to be spent on this election. If, on the face of it, this is the position, those few million rands which are possibly going to be spent on an election are a mere bagatelle to save South Africa and to give these people on my right the chance to do so. Apart from the fact that that million rand story does not hold good at all, a general election must in any case take place, a year later, in fact, if not now. The millions of rands would in any case have had to be spent. This gives us an indication of how little seriousness there is on the part of the Opposition. They object on the basis of not wanting an election now. Why do they not want an election?

No, we are looking forward to it.

This is the first time that that is being said in this debate, and the first time that I have heard that they are looking forward to it. Why do they object to the earlier election? There can only be two reasons.

We do not object.

There was an abundance of objections here. The hon. member for Orange Grove’s objections stirred him to eloquence. The first reason is that the Opposition has no faith in the case which it submitted here The only other possible reason is that if die Opposition does, in fact, have faith in its case, it does not have faith in the sound judgment of the voters. There is no justification for the existence of an Opposition party, any party, in fact, which does not have faith in the sound judgment of the voters. Its existence is futile. Why would it exist if it does not have the confidence to go to the voters when an election must take place? The Opposition may now argue about this as much as they like. One of these two considerations apply. They may decide which of the two it is.

I have also looked at this yellow booklet which is lying around here. “You may ask and we shall give” and “You want it, we have it”. Both these slogans mean more or less the same thing. As a person from South West Africa I specifically looked in that booklet for two answers which are very important to me. I did not find those two answers. I want to deal with these two unanswered questions. At this stage I want to tell the Opposition that general statements such as those made in that booklet are mass-appeal statements so obviously aimed at the man who is harbouring one or other grievance or fancied grievance. The booklet is specifically aimed at canvassing the votes of such people. I also want to tell the Opposition that to build a future party upon aggrieved persons or upon the grievances of persons holds nothing but disaster for such a party.

What about white bread and lamb.

We are now in 1970 where we have sufficient white bread to eat and not in 1940 when we did not have it. In that yellow booklet the question about what is going to happen to South West Africa, the original mandate territory, is not answered. It is a very important question, and what will eventually happen to South West Africa will have to be decided in this House and not in South West Africa. The governing party in this House will have to make that decision. The Opposition claims that it is going to be the governing party. Such a decision could bring it into conflict with international forces. However, the people in South West Africa know what the answer of the National Party and the government to-day is. The people in South West Africa do not know what the answer of this Opposition is. [Interjections.] The United Party wrote three lines in that booklet and they did not even have the courage to write what the hon. member for Yeoville has now been telling me so loudly, i.e. that they fought for South West Africa. They did not even have the courage to write it down there. The three lines they wrote in the booklet about South West Africa are meaningless. If, then, the hon. member for Yeoville has the answer which he has just called out to me, why did he not write it down in the yellow booklet, so that the people in South West Africa could read it.

They know it.

I know what people in South West Africa know and I also know what they do not know. The second question, which is of the very greatest importance to us in South West Africa, is what the Bantu policy of the alternative government in South Africa is. For us. who are in a much less favourable position, in respect of the numbers of Bantu, than the Whites in South Africa are. this question is very important. For the first time in my life—it is perhaps my own fault—I have seen the United Party’s Bantu policy in writing. Before I come to the relevant question, I first want to sketch the background as I see it. If this party wants to see its Bantu policy only succeeding temporarily, only at the moment when it is instituted, it will have to turn back the clock for the Bantu in South West Africa by 50 years, it will have to turn back the clock 50 years for the world. Can they in all honesty stand before the people of South Africa and say that the Bantu will accept that policy which will, in the future, contain nothing for them but frustration, frustrated leaders, leaders which are created and then put under restraint? Can they say for one moment that the Bantu of today. at his present stage of development, who has to develop further, will accept this? Or do they immediately want a continual clash as a result of their frustrated leaders and their people, literally and figuratively, marching. They will get as far as that wall they are building and no further. With that wall they are building there will always be White domination for them. It is clear, and it does not help to hide it, that human material will beat against that wall day after day, hour after hour. It is also clear that at some stage that wall will break. The United Party is making provision for the moment when that wall breaks. They are making provision for something which must happen in the future. However, they do not tell us what they expect will happen. But all that can be expected is for that wall, which they have built, to break. They do not tell us what will break that wall. They are making provision for it by saying that the day on which that wall breaks the voters of South Africa will, one way or another, decide what must be done. There is nothing strange in a party saying that it will go to the voters and ask for a decision. The National Party has already done so here and in South West Africa. But that party has a responsibility, i.e. when the voters are approached the party must have a standpoint upon which to do so. When in the past the National Party said it was going to the voters, it did so with a standpoint. It said, this is my standpoint and in this connection I am testing the opinion of the voters. What is the United Party’s standpoint in respect of the day when that wall will break? The voters must know. Look how unreasonable they are. It is such a simple matter simply to shrug off your responsibility by saying that if matters take a different turn in the future to what I expected I will ask the voters to give a decision. But I am not going to adopt a standpoint now about that decision that must be made. I am just going to leave that to the voters. A man who says in his will that the children must decide is a fool. Is it right to shrug off, in that way, those responsibilities which I must meet to-day in order to plan properly for the future? Look what they are doing to those children who must decide. By this policy of theirs they want to place those children, who must decide, irrevocably in a crush-pen. They are already doing so now with this policy. Then it is said that they will have to decide later. Every cattle farmer in this House knows what a crush-pen is. One cannot move to the right or to the left. One cannot go backwards, one just has to go forward. That is exactly what they are doing here. And when this decision is one day made, a decision which the children will have to make, as the hon. member to my right so wisely said … [Interjections.] If any of those hon. members can say to-day precisely what the future development pattern of the Coloured will be I could give him my reply. The Coloured does not know it, he does not know it and neither do I. To-day, for the first time in his history, the Coloured is being placed on a path of development where he can work out a pattern for himself. It would be foolish to try to anticipate that pattern. I think hon. members ought to know that. Mr. Speaker, they are placing these children irrevocably in a crush-pen and when this choice must be made, which they envisage will have to be made in the future, only one of two things can happen. Either one must give less, i.e. one must take away, or one must give more. One cannot move to the left or to the right. Neither can one take away what one has given. This Opposition policy is in the first place calculated to satisfy the voter who believes in “one man one vote”. In this policy that voter can see the realization of his standpoint. In the second place it is calculated to canvas the vote of, and to satisfy, that individual who thinks no further than the present day and the comforts of the present day and who is not prepared to make sacrifices where they must be made under National Party policy.

After seeing this policy in writing, and after having given it my consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the policy of the Progressive Party in South Africa holds out better prospects for the Whites in this country. I have come to the conclusion that the policy of the Progressive Party in South Africa at least contains more vision and more honesty than the policy of the Opposition. We know where the Progressive Party is heading. They also accept the course they have adopted. Their course is not acceptable to us, leading as it does to a point where the Whites will one day lose all control over themselves. At least they want to take a path of peace. From the onset this Opposition chooses a path of clashes and conflicts.

Another aspect which struck me was the way in which, during this Session, the Opposition has revelled in the supposed adversity which had overtaken the National Party. I say “supposed” adversity because the ballot boxes will still indicate the true victims of adversity. I think the hon. member for Durban (Point) realized this when he tried to make us believe that the Nationalists to my side were exactly the same kind of people as the hon. members of the Herstigte Nasionale Party. He realized that the effort involved in burning all the midnight oil, with all the ink that flowed, in order to make the English-speaking people in South Africa believe that the National Afrikaner is a racialistic bully, could now be nullified by the actions of this hon. gentleman sitting here in front of me. It must be stopped. That is why the hon. member spoke as he did and why an hon. member to my right spoke as he did yesterday. This must be stopped. I want to express my regret to the hon. members of the Herstigte Nationale Party that they came to South West Africa. I hoped they would not come. And if these words of mine afford them any pleasure I do not begrudge them this pleasure because I think they will need it, in South West Africa as well. We have three white language groups in South West Africa, and through dedication and the principles laid down here in the House we have created harmony among these three groups. We have created trust between these language groups. We told the other language groups, i.e. the English-speaking people and the German-speaking people, that the Afrikaner knows his own language struggle; he knows his cultural struggle and he knows humiliation for the sake of those spiritual pos sessions. That is why I said that they could trust the Afrikaner with their spiritual possessions. Now these hon. members of the H.N.P. have come to South West Africa, and I want to give them credit for having made a good effort at undermining that confidence in the Afrikaner’s judgment. I think my time is nearly up, but I just want to say in conclusion that the Afrikaner has had a taste of humiliation on the way up. He has a knowledge of humiliation, and I myself can mention many examples. These hon. members of the H.N.P. can themselves mention many examples, but if they should succeed and the Afrikaner were to go back on his word, given in the course of the years, i.e. no discrimination in respect of language, culture and spiritual assets, and respect of religious convictions, it will be the greatest humiliation the Afrikaner has yet known in his history. That is why I say that I regret the fact that this party came to South West Africa at a time when we have an agreeable harmony between the white language groups. We in South West Africa have experienced what racial clashes entail. Twenty years ago there was a United Party Government in power and there was discrimination between Afrikaans-speaking people, German-speaking people and English-speaking people. That racial discrimination was applied in the administration of the area and in legislation there, and we plucked the bitter fruits. However, this racial feeling was neutralized. These hon. members of the Herstigte Nasionale Party may investigate what I am saying now, i.e. that between the Afrikaans-speaking, German-speaking and English-speaking people in South West Africa there exists a mutual trust, even though we differ politically, as it is, of course, each person’s right to do. There is a pleasant relationship between the language groups. If I may, in addition, make this last appeal to the hon. member for Ermelo, I want to tell him that South West Africa’s position is a difficult one. The position there is even more difficult than that of the Republic. Please do not come and disrupt that now. However, if the hon. member for Ermelo thinks that I am addressing these words to him because I am afraid of what his party is going to do in South West Africa or wants to come and do there, let me tell him that in that case he had better come right along.

This is the fourth day of this no-confidence debate. On the very first day of the debate my Leader made detailed criticisms of the Government party’s policies, and among them was a detailed criticism of the overriding question in South African politics, namely that of the race relations policy. He not only again destroyed that policy by his arguments, but in his opening speech, and in great detail, he set out the policy of this party. In the course of four days to date there has been an opportunity for the governing party to criticize the policy outlined by my Leader, but apart from one or two minor points of criticism no hon. member opposite has found it possible to make chinks in the armour of that policy. On the contrary, we have had the position that to the criticisms of my Leader and others on this side of the Government policy of race relations we have had singularly few answers from hon. members opposite. Indeed, I think it is fair to say that it is only the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration who attempted any serious defence of the Governments policy, and what did he attempt to achieve? He attempted to show that in the border industries over a period of 10 years a total of 81,000 Bantu hid found employment. As he spoke he virtually conceded that this was an absolute drop in the bucket, but he offered it to the House as what had in fact taken place. Neither he nor anyone else opposite was able to come to this House to show how this policy was working out in practice. They were not able to show how we can already see to-day that this policy is succeeding. Indeed, the contrary is true. There was no answer to the figures and facts which show that we can see to-day that this policy has failed. Therefore, where we know that this is the great question for the future, I, from my admittedly perhaps biased point of view, must join issue with the hon. member for Windhoek also. The hon. member for Windhoek, we know, is a very polished speaker, but I suggest that he has not been long enough close to the centre of the Republic to know the weight of the Native policies of the two parties. [Interjections.] When South Africa on 22nd April decides to whom it shall entrust the future, it should certainly know that we look forward to this election with very great enthusiasm. If he in any way divines the fact that we criticized the excuses given by the Government for this election as meaning that we in any way shirk the fight, then he has misinformed himself considerably.

Me-thinks the lady protesteth too much.

Where one goes into an election the people outside should also realize that behind this race relations policy of the United Party we have an entirely united party, whereas behind the Government party there is the gravest division both on the policy itself and in respect of many other policies. We know that there are countless leading verkramptes—I am not going to mention their names to-day—who differ fundamentally and on fundamental principles with the governing party, and yet they stay in that party because they say “Ons moenie jukskei breek nie”. That is the approach. They stay there, although many organs of the Nationalist Party have said that these are fundamental points of difference, because they are seeking to maintain the unity of their party rather than the interests of South Africa. I have no doubt that the people outside realize this situation. If they only knew how divided the governing party was on its own native policy! To deal with this would require a speech on its own, so I will content myself with merely stating the facts here.

Sir, my Leader has pointed out that in the light of the latest figures the whole Native policy of the Nationalist Party is doomed to failure; it is a failure. We do not base this upon our hypotheses; we take the very criteria for success laid down by Nationalist Party leaders. The Nationalist Party leaders—firs! of all the late Dr. Verwoerd—said that by the end of the century there should be approximate parity between the Whites and the non-Whites if there was to be security for the Whites and, by implication, if their policy was to have any validity. This was said not only by the late Dr. Verwoerd, the great architect of the Nationalist Party policy, but we had people like Mr. Willie van Heerden saying as long ago as 1960 that there must be “an ensured white majority” in the so-called white areas. Sir, we know from the latest figures that the Nationalists’ calculations were hopelessly out and that they are hopelessly wrong with regard to this basic need for the success of their policy. We know from the latest figures that instead of there being a possibility of parity, we will be roughly one White to three or four Blacks by the year 2000. The figures indicate that there will be 35 million to 40 million Blacks in this country by the year 2000, and the Tomlinson Commission expressed the opinion that a maximum often million may then be considered to be in the reserves. It is quite plain therefore what the ratio is likely to be by the year 2000. Sir, in the face of these figures one would expect some sound arguments to be advanced from the other side to show why there should still be the slightest faith in this policy, but we get none. We simply get the statement from the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development that 81,000 have been given employment in border industries.

Sir, another vital question on this point concerns the attachment or otherwise of the Native peoples outside the reserves to those areas. A well-known Nationalist intellectual, Dr. Rhoodie, has admitted quite frankly that there is not this attachment and that it is not growing. You see. Sir, therefore, that this policy literally stands in ruins. Let us pause and reflect on one or two points here. First of all, the United Party was right from the beginning in regard to the question of numbers and the Government was wrong. The United Party would have been very happy had all the Whites of South Africa lived in a homogeneous homeland somewhere and all the Blacks in some other homogeneous homeland. But we realized that this was not so and that it would never be so, and in the interests of South Africa we said so. The Government gave the people to understand that this degree of separation with a view to ultimate parity in the white areas could be achieved, but it has not been achieved, and I ask the people of South Africa to take account again of the error of the Government in that regard. I may say that this is still where we are heading notwithstanding the simple device of changing boundaries from time to time to which this Government resorts.

Sir, some of our friends opposite and their supporters outside seem to think that we rejoice in the present situation. I have stressed already that we would be more than delighted if we had homogeneous separate homelands for white and black in this country. We do not rejoice in the fact that we do not have them, but we are entitled to say that we have been right. You do not rejoice because you happen to be right but you are entitled to have it acknowledged that you have been right. Sir, another argument is that we are attempting to frighten people with these numbers. It is the governing party that is trying to frighten the people into supporting their policy by mentioning these numbers. We of the United Party are in no way frightened of numbers. Indeed our whole policy is based on the fact that this theory of one-man-one-vote is so much nonsense. We do not accept it in the slightest in a multi-racial community such as we have in South Africa. It is quite incorrect to say that we are attempting to frighten the people by quoting these figures. It is the Government supporters and Government members who are attempting to frighten the people into doing something about it by citing these overwhelming numbers. The fact is, Sir, that the people of South Africa have more common sense than the Government. They will not be frightened by these figures. [Interjections.] The people of South Africa will not be frightened by them. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said as much. He said this very thing in his speech. He said that he cannot get the people to feel strongly about this. And why do the people not feel strongly about this? It is because they know that it does not accord with common sense to be frightened by this. Many of the hon. gentlemen opposite are farmers. Many of them are outnumbered on their farms by perhaps a 100 or even more non-Whites to one White, but they are not frightened. Indeed, it is on those farms where stable labour conditions have existed for generation after generation that there is the greatest security and stability for all concerned. It is, therefore, a complete fallacy that we in any way are frightened by these numbers. The whole basis of my Leader’s speech was that the governing party do not have enough faith in the white man to believe that he can lead this country notwithstanding the disparity of numbers.

The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration in his speech did a second thing. He asked us to give guarantees that the United Party will reduce the number of Bantu in the so-called white areas. Now I want to say at once to him—and I believe I do so on the basis of both past experience and future policies—that I think there will be relatively little difference in the numbers of Blacks in the so-called white area whether that Government is in power or whether the United Party is in power.

Never!

The hon. the Deputy Minister is fidgeting in his seat. Let me first of all remind him that we have been able to put this matter to the test. From 1936 to 1948 the United Party with its policies was in power, and thereafter we have had this Government in power. I believe I am correct in saying that the rate of increase of the Native people in the so-called white area has been faster under this Government than under the United Party Government. That is the fact of the matter. I know this does not accord with what hon. members say from platform to platform to try to frighten the people of South Africa about their non-European fellow countrymen. I know that this is a great weapon the Nationalists use to try to frighten the voters. The fact is, however, that under United Party policy of old the rate of increase of Blacks was lower than under the policy of this Government. If we take future policy, the same argument holds good. I believe that the difference will be absolutely minimal. When one bears in mind that, according to the experts, there will be between 35 and 40 million Blacks by the end of the century, of whom clearly 25 to 30 million will be in the “white” area, I say it will make no difference to the future safety of South Africa at all if there is perhaps a half million more under the United Party at the end of all that time. Let me tell hon. members why. It is true that we have wiser policies in regard to labour matters, but there are many policies of ours which will cause a reduction in the number of Blacks coming to the white areas. One of them is that we shall develop the reserves far faster than they will. It is well-known that they are going at an absolute snail’s pace now. It is well-known that we shall encourage private white enterprise to establish factories in those reserves, very much with the purpose of giving employment to the Native people there. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration can say as much as he likes about his 81,000 Bantu in the border industries over 10 years, but he has not told us what harm he has done to the establishment of industries inside those reserves by this policy of border industries. He has not told us.

The whole policy of the Government of course is one of migratory labour as far as possible, and everybody knows that this is about the most inefficient policy possible. I may pause here to say that we are, I notice, having a struggle to make our exports balance with our imports. The whole future of South Africa depends on our being able to stay afloat and being competitive in a risky and competitive world. If we are going to rely on inefficient labour and think that we are going to be able to compete with some of the highly industrialized countries of this world, we have another thought coming. Under our policy we may have somewhat less migratory labour than under this Government but that labour will be much more efficient and it will require far fewer people to come out of the reserves in order to do the necessary work.

I suggest that it is absolutely apparent to every member in this House that Government policy has hopelessly failed and will not get off the ground. I want to say, as my hon. Leader said last year to the hon. the Prime Minister, that to go on stubbornly with this policy is not the course of statesmanship. Hon. members opposite should really search their consciences as to whether they should not immediately call a halt to this dangerous policy because as I say, there are countless harmful and dangerous consequences of this policy. In the first place let it be absolutely clear that everyone of us in this country is poorer economically as a result of this policy. The pensioner, the farmer and even the parliamentarian is poorer as a result of it. The railwayman, the industrialist and the housewife along with every one else is poorer. [Interjections.] Hon. members ask me why this is so. I will tell them why. I will give just one example. The hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development with great pride in his voice told us that in terms of the Physical Planning Act they had during the course of the past year prevented industry being established on 6,500 morgen of land. He said that this would have given employment to about 260,000 Bantu. In the course of 10 years in the case of his border industries he has given employment to 81,0 Bantu. You can see therefore what a massive amount of wealth-producing industry we have lost in the course of the past year. If the hon. the Minister feels that he is well enough off not to be troubled by that, I can tell him that 99 per cent of South Africans do not share that view. And so this is going to go on. We are going to have more and more wealth-producing factories denied to South Africa because of this policy, which is already on the rocks. This is, as I have said, going to make every one of us poorer and heaven knows it is hard enough for the people to earn a decent living as it is. We just cannot afford this type of waste under a policy that has failed. That is one simple example based on the speech of the hon. the Minister. There are hundreds which could be mentioned which will show that we are a poorer country and therefore much less able to defend ourselves in a dangerous world. This is a point to which hon. members opposite do not seem to attach any weight. We are having to arm ourselves considerably in order to be able to defend ourselves in this world and yet we are making it increasingly difficult for ourselves to be adequately equipped to do so because of our lack of economic progress. I have mentioned various of the harmful effects and dangers of this policy. I touched just briefly on the fact that these border industries, if they are going to mean anything, are going to have to be situated close to international boundaries. That is what border industry means. In other words, we are placing a lot of our productive capacity within the grasp of a country over which we will have no say. If we have not by now learnt that there are various communist and other sharks moving around South Africa to exploit and make trouble for us, it is high time that the Government did.

We have tremendous labour shortages and at the same time tremendous unemployment. Every industrialist, housewife and farmer, with few exceptions, is experiencing difficulty with labour. Yet there are people queueing in their thousands in the Eastern Cape and these other reserve areas looking for jobs. The fact is that they are not able to get these jobs legitimately. They are streaming down here without the proper authority to look for work. It is very well known. When one goes to the Bantu Commissioner’s court here, one can speak to any of the old policemen in that court and they will tell you that all these unfortunate people from these areas do, is that, although they cannot get permission to come, they come down here. They lie low until they have saved up enough money to pay the fine for being here without permission. When they have enough money to pay that fine they start going about in a normal way. They are picked up. Of course in this way we have this tremendous number of pass offences. They pay the fine imposed and then remain here illegally. This is what is happening. Therefore, even the numbers that we receive from the hon. Ministers and Deputy Ministers make very little impression on me, because everybody knows that there is a tremendous number of people down here in all these parts quite irregularly.

I am moving to another harmful effect. One of these aspects of Government policy is not to give sufficient houses for the non-European and particularly the Bantu population, because they are presumably hoping that they will not come down here. But what effect does this have? These people have to come here in order to work. So they come here, and what do they do? They do two things. Firstly, they double up in the existing houses in the locations. Secondly, they go and sleep with friends in the white townships of South Africa. If only they would receive the proper housing, these people, instead of being in Sea Point and these other places, would go to their own townships and spend the night there. But that does not happen. They cannot be here on a proper legal basis; they are here on an illegal basis. No wonder we experience a massive amount of crime. This policy, of course, causes massive harm to the whole social fabric of our people and particularly of our Native people, because their family life is undermined so much. The hon. the Minister said that the increase in the population of the Natives in the white areas is largely due to births. That may be true. It was always true in U.P. times as well. But the fact is, of course, that a very high proportion of those births are illegitimate births. Another aspect, in regard particularly to the Western Cape, is that a very high number of illegitimate births among the Coloured people is due to the migratory system. So, Sir, it is not as if the country can tolerate these harmful effects for a certain time with any possibility that, because of a later success of the policy, they are going to be removed. The fact is that the statistical basis of the policy is absolutely destroyed. The basis which the Government themselves laid down has been destroyed. Yet we have them muddling along year after year in the country with this policy. We have heard no defence of that policy in this debate which held water and in any way restored credibility of this policy. Apparently we are going to muddle through. However, I believe that the Government supporters are realizing that they have no answer. I sense a certain satisfaction, almost, that their own time in government is running out. They are quite unable to cope with the policies of the future. Their whole defence in this debate, the whole basis on which they resort to argue this debate, has been matters that occurred long ago in this country of ours. The whole argument in this debate has been what they did for the people long ago in regard to the flag, this or that or the next thing. But where they have to have policies to face the 1970’s, I say they are completely without it. What South Africa needs, is the policy which my hon. Leader outlined at the start of this debate. It not only needs that; it needs above all that my Leader should have his hand on the wheel of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I think anyone who has listened to the hon. member for Transkei and to the hon. member for Pinelands, who has just resumed his seat, would agree that my summary of the speeches of both of them was a fair and just one if I said the charge they made against this side of the House was that apartheid was as dead as a dodo. Their view is “segregation is as dead as a dodo”. Now I want to point out to the United Party that in 1939 in this very House the then Leader of the United Party, General J. C. Smuts, made a speech which had exactly the same theme, i.e. “segregation is as dead as a dodo”. Therefore, we have been hearing the same refrain from that side of this House for 30 years or more. The only thing that has happened during all that time is that the United Party itself has become as dead as a dodo and that the policy of apartheid has become as lively as a springbuck in South Africa and that it is being applied systematically, as I shall indicate to you, Sir. I should have liked to confine myself to the positive aspects of the application of our policy of apartheid, but with the statement that not one speaker on this side of the House had as yet attacked United Party policy, the hon. member has now forced me to do so. That is the simplest thing in the world. The United Party has a past as regards the white nation in South Africa and it is a dark and black one indeed. I want to take hon. members back to 1929 when the United Party was fighting an election in this country. They are the people who are now asking the Whites to trust them with leadership over a mixed undivided Republic of South Africa. In 1929 General Smuts and others came forward with the grotesque idea that there should be only one dominion in Africa, from the Cape to the northern borders of the Sudan. The 1929 manifesto of the National Party contained the following (translation)—

Not South Africa, but the dominion of Africa was their policy. The past of the Party goes back to that.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? How is it possible for file hon. the Deputy Minister to read a quotation referring to the United Party from a 1929 document seeing that the Party did not even exist at that time?

Very well, the South African Party. The hon. member is simply wasting my time now. After that, when their alliance with the British Empire still existed, they came forward with the partnership idea. At that time it was the policy of the British in Kenya. Subsequent to that, as we will all remember, they came forward with their ordered advance policy. Thereupon they came forward with their middle course policy. Hon. members should please note now, and the electorate will note this, too, that these policies have always had one underlying idea, and that is one mixed, undivided South Africa. That Party has never given up this idea. Following upon these policies they came with the diabolic Senate plan, as hon. members will remember. All these policies were ones designed to sell out the white man in South Africa to the black man. In the same way they came forward in 1929 with the grotesque idea of a dominion of Africa. One can imagine what would have happened had that idea been accepted. At that time the ratio of White to non-White here was one to three. But if that idea had been accepted, the ratio of Bantu to White would have been ten to one in 1929. Hon. members can think for themselves what the position would have been to-day if that idea had been accepted. It will probably hurt United Party members when I say this, but as recently as 1962 the hon. the Leader of the United Party made the following remark in his well-known De Aar speech—

In his speech of 9th May, 1962, he was speaking of this Parliament. At that time his honourable adjutant also said in London that in the beginning the Bantu would, of course, be represented by Whites in Parliament, “but of course in future we all accept, and our Leader accepts, that they will be replaced by Bantu people”. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself said this in 1962 as I have just proved with my quotation. At that time he also spoke of a “racially mixed Parliament”. In those days their story was that the black man was being suppressed by this Government. I have here a full list of quotations from their speeches, but unfortunately I do not have the time to read them to hon. members. At that time they were the inveterate champions of integration in this country. They preached it openly, and still did so seven years ago. But then they took fright.

That is not true.

I have just read to that hon. member that his hon. Leader spoke of a “racially mixed Parliament”. What does that mean if it does not mean integration? Can that hon. member rise now and tell me that?

That is untrue. We do not stand for integration.

Now I should like to indicate to the United Party how they have always had the underlying principle of “one leadership over one undivided mixed South Africa”. From the year dot we have been fighting with them about that. But then they took fright because they could not win any election. In 1962 we had that speech by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition at De Aar, from which I have just quoted a passage; to say nothing of the hon. member for Karoo who made the following proposal in April, 1967, i.e. three years ago. I quote him—

He proposed that in 1967. We then gave the hon. the Leader of the Opposition such a sound thrashing in this House that he did not know what was happening to him. If I have to withdraw that, I do so at once. But I can remember the time when I, as a young back-bencher. issued the challenge to the Leader of the Opposition that we would like to see him repudiate that member publicly or that we would watch to see what was going to happen to the hon. member for Karoo. I can also recall how he sweated that afternoon when the hon. the Prime Minister took him to task on that matter. I spoke next and I told him that we would watch with interest to see what action they were going to take against that hon. member for Karoo. These are the people who are denying that they stand for integration. Up to the present time no action has been taken against that hon. member; he is still in the United Party. Now I just want to ask, how will they gull the voters into believing that the voters should entrust their future for the maintenance of the white race to them? When they saw that they could not win votes by those means, they came forward with the federation idea. That, however, is still based on the same old principle, i.e. one undivided mixed South Africa. Now we find this bit of ridiculousness, i.e. that in the year 1970, after this National Party has been in power for 20 years during which time it has not been idle but has been achieving many fine results, as I hope to illustrate to you, Sir, they come forward with this booklet, “You want it, we have it”. The first sentence in this booklet reads as follows—

This is their policy; I am proud of the fact that it is not mine.

Why does the hon. the Deputy Minister not read the Afrikaans?

I am afraid that some of those hon. members do not understand Afrikaans. That is why I am reading the English. I know some people on that side of the House cannot understand Afrikaans. But hon. members opposite are wasting my time. The first sentence in this booklet reads—

No.

Now they say no again. But do you know, Sir, what has happened? The history of the Republic of South Africa has left the United Party far behind. An “undivided South Africa” no longer exists. Neither the United Party nor anybody in the Republic of South Africa can undo the Transkeian territory, the Transkeian people with their Assembly, Prime Minister, all the Departments, Bantu Ministers, several thousands of public servants in those various Departments, a people that has been led on the road of independent development by this Government. But they still talk of an “undivided South Africa”, which no longer exists, as they did in the year 1929. An undivided South Africa is gone for ever, and for that reason I say that this so-called “cornerstone” mentioned in the first sentence, on which their policy is based, and on which they are going to fight an election, no longer exists at all. In this regard I can also mention the Shangana people and its territory, Assembly, Prime Minister and other Ministers and Departments, to say nothing of the Bavenda, the Tswana and the seven or eight others. The United Party has become absolutely antiquated. They have allowed history to leave them behind altogether as though they were living 40 years in the past. Now they tell the people quite magnanimously that they can maintain leadership over an undivided South Africa. That is impossible, because it no longer exists. Consequently they have no cornerstone on which their policy is based.

A great deal has been said here to the effect that our policy allegedly was such a failure. Let me say at once that we have been proceeding very systematically with the implementation of our policy of apartheid. It has been implemented in a planned fashion. During the past 10 years we have placed the emphasis on the political development of the Bantu. At the end of that period of 10 years the political set-up of the Bantu and the Bantu homelands has been given its final form, so much so that only one people remains, i.e. the Zulu people, that has not obtained its own Assembly as yet. If the Zulu king had not died, this matter would have been completed according to plan by the National Government at the end of the ninth year, i.e. the laying of the foundations of this political and independent development. Nobody is going to undo this. In the second phase of the implementation of this policy we have been moving gradually in the direction of the economic development of the Bantu homelands. Allow me to say with the utmost emphasis that this Government regards the economic development of the Bantu homelands as one of the biggest tasks with which our people—and this includes all of us—has been faced in the 300 years of its history. It is an ambitious and difficult task to give economic content to the political development that has been created. It is a new political set-up that has been created here in Southern Africa by the National Government over the past 10 years. We have progressed a long way on that road of economic development.

In this regard we have plans we can present to our voters, plans of our intention to make an epoch-making decade of the seventies by leading these homelands to further economic development during the next ten years. When we speak of economic development, our aim is very simple and very clear, i.e. the establishment of employment opportunities for the Bantu in each homeland so as to enable the largest number of Bantu to obtain work in the homelands and to settle there. That is our plan and we have progressed a long way in this regard.

Now I want to give hon. members a few examples. This year the Rand Afrikaans University established a Department of Development of Under-Developed Nations. Here people with the necessary grounding and with the necessary background are going to be trained to assist with this difficult task, i.e. the creation of employment opportunities in the homelands. They will also help to give economic content to the political development of the homelands. I am no prophet when I say that the institute for development which has been established there is still going to receive wide international recognition. I say this on account of the fact that South Africa has already distinguished itself in this field. Even at this stage there are many leading figures overseas, and I am able to speak from the personal testimony of a few of them, who say that there probably is no country in the world which has progressed as far as we have in the field of the development of its underdeveloped population groups. Hon. members opposite will not say this, but I will say it, because it is true thanks to this National Government. Surely this is a proud achievement. Our great task here in South Africa was, inter alia, to make our people conscious of the need for doing this.

I want to emphasize once again that if there is one matter which we should regard as being above politics, it is this. We must involve all our people in the task of setting this economic development into motion. Since my appointment to this position, I have been paying special attention to doing so. Do hon. members know what the result has been? The result has been that a city council such as the Johannesburg City Council has decided in principle to make a large amount available for homeland development and homeland settlement. On 12th February …

But that is for the old people, not so?

The hon. member should not try to run down the importance of an important matter in this way. The hon. member is admitting that Johannesburg has done so.

I simply want the facts.

Order! Does the hon. member for Yeoville want another turn to speak?

Mr. Speaker, I shall be grateful if I can have another turn to speak.

Then the hon. member should maintain some order now.

I know this hurts, but it does show how antiquated the United Party has become. This party has fallen behind a very long way indeed. I want to interrupt myself for a moment in order to bring them up to date. Two speakers rose here this afternoon and made the statement, “segregation is as dead as a dodo”. I asked them whether my interpretation of what they had said was correct and they actually said it was. If this is what they believe, they are overlooking the oracles against apartheid in the U.N. Do they really think “segregation is as dead as a dodo” if such things are happening against South Africa at the U.N. Surely, that is being childishly naive. Why, in the opinion of the hon. members, were demonstrations recently staged in England against the Springboks? Surely they were aimed at our policy of apartheid. While this is happening in the outside world, we actually have in this House an antiquated party, these speakers of which maintain that “segregation is as dead as a dodo”. They should ask the Blask Sash whether “segregation is as dead as a dodo”. They should ask the Progressive Party whether “segregation is as dead as a dodo”. They do not know what they are talking about. They think they can govern this country with General Smuts of 1929 and that they can go to the electorate in that way. Do they think the electorate will take any notice of them? I think in this election they will be rejected by the electorate as they have never been rejected before. They deserve that. Politically they are as dense as can be, and one is astonished at the lack of political susceptibility on the part of the people of this party. I have mentioned the fact here that the Johannesburg City Council has voted a certain amount for homeland development. I may tell the hon. members that we have expectations of the Port Elizabeth City Council doing the same thing at an early date, and we are grateful for that. We are not trying to make political capital out of this in any way, and I shall be very pleased if those hon. members will not try to make political capital out of it either. The following town councils have all voted money for this purpose, and I shall give the relative amounts: Benoni—R152,000, Boksburg—R300,000, Alberton— R50,000, Alexandra Peri-Urban Board— R290,000, a small town like Empangeni— R8,000, a small town like Escourt—one can virtually say the widow’s crock—R10,000, the Resettlement Board—R70,000, Klerksdorp —R100,000, Krugersdorp—R80,000, Ladysmith —R50,000 and a very small town like Modderfontein, R5,000. In addition there was a very small village like Maburgh, which voted an amount of R500 for development.

What kind of development?

Different kinds of development. These amounts are for homeland development, and you cannot deny it. I know this hurts. I give further figures: Potchefstroom, R150,000, Pretoria, R20,000, Roodepoort, R105,000, Springs, R264,000, the Peri-Urban Health Board, R15,000, Vanderbijlpark, R50,000, Vereeniging R4,000, Welkom R340,000. This is the way in which the people are beginning to realize the seriousness of this matter.

Is that not from the beer profits?

Yes, I shall come to that. These amounts were made available by local authorities to the S.A. Bantu Trust in order to assist with the development of the Bantu homelands, and the amounts from the profits on beer I have just read to you, Sir, total R2,052,000. This was done unconditionally. I now come to the question put to me by the hon. member for Transkei. I shall now give the round figures from fees levied by those local authorities for the development of towns in the Bantu homelands; this is specifically for Bantu homeland towns: Durban, R14,368,000; Nelspruit, R143,000, East London, R8,368,000, Pietersburg, R831,000, Pretoria, R2,402,000, Rustenburg, R415,000, a total of R26,729,508. And then, from the local authorities jointly, further funds were made available from the surpluses of the Bantu Revenue Account for the development of townships and homelands, and in respect of the East Rand this amount came to R2.1 million [Interjections.] In respect of the West Rand the figure was R1.4 million. The position simply is that we have succeeded along these lines, in spite of the United Party, to activate local authorities, other institutions and our people to carry out this important and noble task, a task we are accomplishing so successfully.

But this is not all. We have also succeeded in obtaining the assistance of the Bantu. I want to mention one example only. The example concerns a Bantu party which recently fought an Urban Bantu Council election, and I quote from its manifesto—

And this party won the election with as great a margin as that with which the National Party defeated the Van der Merwe United Party men in a previous election. In this way we have awakened the Bantu as far as these matters are concerned. The hon. member for Transkei said we had failed to implement the recommendations of the Tomlinson Report, but I want to point out that the Tomlinson Report recommended that an amount of R208 million be spent on Bantu homeland development during the first 10 years. But during the period 1959 to 1969 this National Government spent R332.202,000 on development in the Bantu homelands. [Interjections.] In this way we have achieved results which virtually exceed all belief. But, Sir, I just want to point out what success we have achieved in establishing Bantu in the homelands and in creating employment opportunities for the Bantu in the homelands, and what success we have had with the progressive withdrawal of Whites from the homelands in which we have established self-government for the Bantu. In 1968 there were 2,822 positions in the government services of the homelands. In 1969 this number was increased to 4,235 high positions for Bantu officials. The number of positions was virtually doubled. The number of Bantu labourers in the service of these governments increased as well. In 1968 there were 10,234, and this was increased to 28,195 in 1969, i.e. nearly three times as many. Does this resemble a policy which is not succeeding? As regards the settlement of Bantu in the Bantu homelands, we succeeded in the case of the Zulu people to settle 11,034 Zulu in Zululand from the Bantu urban prescribed areas within a single year, i.e. 1968-’69. Do they think it is an easy matter to resettle 11,000 people from the urban areas, and do they think that most of these people are sitting there without employment? That is not true. As regards the Tswana people, within a single year, 1968-’69, we resettled 5,280 Tswana in the Tswana homeland from the urban prescribed areas. Surely this is a tremendous achievement. As regards the Xhosa people, of whom that hon. member is supposed to have some knowledge, we succeeded in a single year 1968-’69, to resettle 21,631 Xhosa in the Transkei and the Ciskei from the white prescribed areas, a total of 40,095 for all the homelands in 1968-’69.

How many Bantu do you expect there will be in South Africa by the year 2000?

I can only say that I personally said two years ago in a speech I made at Pinetown that there was every indication for us to expect that there could be at least 40 million Bantu in South Africa by the year 2000. You may consult the cuttings from the Natal Mercury. But whether one has 30 million or 40 million Bantu here does not dishearten us in the least. What we are concerned with here is this policy under which we are creating the means of livelihood for these people in their own homelands with their own governments and are creating all kinds of employment opportunities for them. The people outside are realizing this to an increasing extent, for example, the town and city councils I have mentioned, but the United Party will never come from its antiquated lairs and no one will get it from there; it will simply die there.

But in addition I should like to point out to you. Sir, seeing that we are dealing with the question of employment opportunities, that the B.I.C. has spent R13 million on the development of the homelands since the establishment of the corporation by this Minister. Through the agency of the B.I.C. only, we have succeeded in providing 2,600 Bantu dealers and 350 householders with an amount of R6.25 million in the form of direct loans and trade credits. We have erected 260 business premises to the value of R1.5 million in the Bantu towns. We have established 10 large business undertakings, 15 factories and 35 beer distribution points. We have established 26 retail businesses and 28 savings banks, all of which employ Bantu. And now I want to say that the B.I.C., where it has achieved all these things within a few years, plans to establish approximately 250 industries and other undertakings, which will provide employment for well over 24,0 Bantu, in the homelands in the next five years. And if we succeed in doing so, we should not overlook the fact that these 24,000 Bantu who are to be provided with employment in this way, will give rise to other jobs. I have the figures here which illustrate what progress we have made with the Xhosa Development Corporation, but I have to conclude this part of my speech by saying that the successes we have achieved in this regard are simply unbelievable, because we have succeeded in bringing about separation in the Republic of South Africa to an increasing extent. We have made an accomplished fact of political separation in this House and we are bringing about to an increasing extent economic separation, social separation and all those things.

Where?

As regards this important question of the development of the Bantu homelands we are looking forward eagerly to the next ten years, and our aim will be to create as many employment opportunities as possible for the Bantu in the homelands.

But row, in conclusion, I want to deal with the Herstigte Nasionale Party, a group that saddens one’s heart when one sees the way in which it is acting in this country. To the leader of that splinter gossip party I want to read from a letter dated 31st January, 1939. The letter reads (translation)—

This letter was written in 1939.

It is a letter from his father.

The letter continues—

In 1939 these words were written by his father to the hon. the Leader of that party—

Fraternal strife. Sir. That is what that hon. member is causing. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, initially I want to address myself very modestly to the four members of the Herstigte Nasionale Party. Those four hon. members and their party are thriving upon the finest and holiest of cultural institutions and assets of the Afrikaner nation, of which they are members. In the process they are causing some harm to that nation, of which they are members, but what is more, since South Africa became a Republic a fine spirit of co-operation and friendship has developed and flourished in this country between the Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking South Africans. Those four hon. members are obstructing this spirit which has grown and blossomed, and I want to tell them very modestly that for the continued existence of the white man in South Africa the two white groups need each other’s help in this country. But I also want to put the question to them: Why are they trying to discredit their erstwhile colleagues day by day, in season and out of season, erstwhile colleagues who remain loyal to the National Party which, under its celebrated leader, never hesitates to accept the challenges of the modern world. You, Mr. Leader of that young party, are discrediting them, but you are also treading the path of the past enemies of the National Party and of South Africa. You know that they never succeeded. They never succeeded in discrediting immortal leaders such as Dr. Malan. Advocate Strydom and Dr. Verwoerd, and I want to assure you that this National Party and this South African nation will never allow you to discredit our celebrated leader. Mr. Speaker, a certain report which they called “The True Story” came to my attention a short while ago. Here is “The Whole Story”, by Mr. J. A. Marais, which appeared in The Star of 9th January. I do not want to refer to all the blunders; I just want to refer to one important blunder. On that day I was privileged to visit the Prime Minister in the company of Mr. Marais. We held discussions about certain principles, and among other things the Prime Minister asked us: “If I were allowed the time, the place and the opportunity. could an Olympiad be arranged in South Africa?” Sir, plainly and without any doubts the hon. member for Innesdal said that he had no objections in principle to an Olympiad in South Africa.

Is that so!

Sir, what is strange is this: It is the hon. member who, for the sake of a possible All Blacks tour, thought fit to establish a new party in South Africa.

In one of the newspapers which they publish, which is sometimes called an Afrikaans translation of the Sunday Times, and which is also called The Afrikaner, it is, for example, claimed that (translation)—

This was as a result of the discussion which took place in the hon. the Prime Minister’s Office. Sir, on that occasion I was privileged to be present, and at the end of our discussion I had the privilege of saying to the hon. the Prime Minister: “Mr. Prime Minister, I endorse this sports policy without further ado (klakkeloos).

“Without further ado! ”

I could also say it because I have said it in this open House of Assembly. Referring to the hon. the Prime Minister I said (translation)—

Sir, then there still remains this question: Why must the hon. members of that young party, together with the official Opposition, now try, in season and out of season, to criticize National Party Members of Parliament and National Party candidates? The answer is very clear. The joint Opposition is labouring under the false impression that certain constituencies in South Africa, Where there was not a large majority in the 1966 election, are now borderline constituencies. Let me just give them the assurance: According to their standards, my constituency is also a borderline constituency, but on 22nd April a very great disillusionment awaits the joint Opposition. [Laughter.] That hon. member is laughing. There are two very important reasons for that: Those hon. members opposite dare not go to the people of South Africa and match their policy point for point against ours. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Newton Park, who has just made that interjection, dare not come to Port Elizabeth and say that he wants to do away with job reservation or that he wants to oppose the Physical Planning Act.

What remains to a party wanting to contest an election? First try to run down the leader of this party, as they tried to do at the beginning of this no-confidence debate. But surely they know that it did not succeed in the past. Let me once more give them this assurance: The National Party in South Africa will never allow them to succeed this time.

Sir, I actually stood up because I want to pay tribute to the National Party which has meant so much to my voters and also to the hundreds of voters in other constituencies in terms of our policy of separate development in order to bring peace and quiet to our residential areas. This National Government has ensured that, in terms of our policy of separate development, a once-mixed residential area such as Port Elizabeth (Central) is to-day a purely white residential area where the voters may live in their houses in peace and in honour. I want to add this, since the hon. member for Newton Park will perhaps not like it if I do not say so immediately, because then he may be harangued by the other liberalists in his party: Every non-White from Port Elizabeth (Central) who was resettled was properly and happily settled in other residential areas. The second reason, as I said just now, is that those hon. members do not dare to put the policy of their party to the voters of my constituency or of any other constituency.

When are you going to hold a public meeting in your constituency for a change?

I have done so very frequently in the past, but that hon. member has never held one, and if he does hold one he does so in a small Office. Sir, yesterday the hon. member for Green Point spoke here about our housing question as if it were a question restricted to South Africa alone. That is why I find it so strange that he, as a shadow minister in the United Party, does not also know that it is an international tendency which we find in all the civilized countries of the world. I am not speaking now about all the less-privileged countries. In this connection I should like to mention a few examples. In the Netherlands a young couple’s marriage date is sometimes postponed for up to four years because there simply is no suitable accommodation for them. In England, apart from the prevailing housing scarcity, there are a large percentage of dwellings without the basic facilities for hygiene. In the U.S.A. 20 per cent of the inhabitants live in slums. I am not mentioning these matters out of a sense of malice. I am just mentioning these things to indicate that this hon. Minister and his Department were, as far as South Africa is concerned, checking an international tendency.

Sir, there are also other circumstances in South Africa which have made this problem more difficult for us. We inherited an Opposition which not only retarded all the good things we wanted to do in this respect, but which also left us a legacy. They left us a legacy which, according to the Economic Planning Council of those years, it was calculated, would amount to a shortage of 70,000 houses for Whites by the year 1948. We inherited an Opposition which counteracted statute after statute and measure after measure intended to deal with housing in this multiracial country with all its problems. Where were those hon. members opposite, who are now so talkative, when the Group Act was passed in the House of Assembly? What was their contribution to that? What was their contribution when the Community Development Act was passed in this House? What was their contribution when those important amendments to the Slums Act had to be brought about? They were here but they made no contributions.

But there are also other factors which make the task of this hon. Minister of Community Development so much more difficult, and our tributes to this Government so much greater. We have also had other exceptional circumstances here in South Africa. We have had an excellent influx of immigrants. Our natural population growth has increased beautifully. As a result of the drought which ravaged the interior, a large number of our people moved to the cities. They had to be properly accommodated there. If we add to this the tremendous industrial prosperity, and the attendant rapid development of the infra-structure, the task has only become greater. Therefore I say that, on behalf of my voters and the thousands of other voters in South Africa, we pay tribute to this Government for the way in which it has provided accommodation for our people and for the way in which it has brought about apartheid in our cities so that there can be peace and quiet.

But, Sir, I also want to pay tribute to this Government because, in the first place, it also restored the honour of the South African people when declaring this country a Republic. Also in that respect I do not want to rake un old stories, but through the establishment of the Republic of South Africa and the constitutional development of the many peoples in this country in terms of our policy of separate development, constitutional and political peace prevails here. What does that hon. member, who was so talkative a moment ago, suggest for his voters? That hon. member and his party suggest a mini-U.N. in this white Parliament for the voters of South Africa. That is why they cannot put their policy of race federation to their voters. They dare not risk it because the voters of South Africa have rejected it and will do so again. I also want to pay tribute to this Government because, in terms of our labour policy, there is peace in our labour sphere. There could only be this peace because we apply the policy of job reservation. Yesterday we heard a tirade here by the hon. member for Hillbrow. It appeared to me as if he was convinced in his own heart that he had proved that there is a tremendous manpower shortage in South Africa. He was convinced in his own heart that that tremendous labour shortage is the result of job reservation. Then the reasonable question was put to him: If your party were to come into power, would you be prepared to abolish job reservation? He did not want to reply to that. I now ask this question: If a man is convinced in his own heart that he has decided a question, that he has put his finger on the problem, and a question is put to him and he does not have the courage to reply to it, what right have those hon. members to go to the voters of South Africa with this propaganda booklet and to expect them to believe that the promises contained in it will be implemented?

Now we have got you worried.

No. It is a privilege for me to pay tribute to this Government because it has also ensured that the young people of South Africa are no longer, as in the past, denied the great privilege of receiving higher education merely as a result of a lack of money. That is a period which is past. In terms of the policy of this Government no young person with the intellectual competence will be denied the privilege of receiving higher education. My constituency and the city from which I come are privileged in that this Government has given us our own university. [Interjection] That hon. member who is so talkative may tell the House in a moment what part he played in having that university established for that city of ours. This Government gave us our own university. In our part of the world, as in the rest of South Africa, a young generation is growing up which, if it has the intellectual competence, can also enjoy that wonderful privilege of higher education at a university. Mr. Speaker, to this National Party which has grown in the relentless footsteps of our immortal leaders, to this party which is being led by our dynamic and celebrated leader, to this National Party, which is the only true political home for the white man in South Africa, and to this Government do I bring my humble tribute.

Mr. Speaker, allow me, just in passing, to refer to what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) said today to the effect that he endorsed the sport policy of this Government without further ado. He should really read the Hansard of 9th February, 1967, column 953, where he will see what he himself said when the sport policy still was as Dr. Verwoerd had laid it down. Then he will understand why he still has the problem of keeping matters in order. Then he will probably not juggle matters to and fro to such an extent, because he had to chop and change so much regarding this policy that I want to tell him in all sympathy that I think he does not quite know what happened.

Mr. Speaker, I move as an amendment—

1. (a) its persistent watering down and abandonment of the sound and proved principles of Nationalism in which the people expressed its confidence under the leadership of the late Dr. H. F. Verwoerd;
2. (b) its weakening of the conditions for a successful policy of segregation between Whites and non-Whites;
3. (c) its abuse of the powers of the State; and
4. (d)its adoption and pursuit of United Party policy, for which the Government has no mandate, and which, inter alia, finds expression in—
   1. (i) its outward and economic policies which form the basis of the Government’s rejection of the point of view of the late Dr. Verwoerd in connection with non-Whites in visiting sporting teams;
   2. (ii) the increasing admittance of non-Whites to hotels for Whites and other forms of social mixing of the races;
   3. (iii) the ousting of Whites from their employment by non-Whites; and
   4. (iv) large-scale immigration for the benefit of powerful financial interests.”.

Mr. Speaker, before returning to the speech made by the hon. the Minister of Transport last Tuesday, I am grateful that the hon. the Minister of Community Development is in his bench, because there is something which I would like to address to him. There were reports in the Press about the permission which he gave to the Girl Guides for a mixed parade and a mixed tea party on the Caledonian ground in Pretoria. According to newspaper reports, the hon. the Minister indicated that he had not said, “The Government is happy about the mixed parade”. For the record, I just want to have this very clear. Here is a photostatic copy of a letter from the Office of the hon. the Minister, reference number M/C/l, of 16th June, 1969, signed by his private secretary. It is addressed to the “Chief Commissioner, Girl Guides”, and it reads—

Now, Sir, he states explicitly that he agrees with this “exposition”. How does the “exposition” read? Paragraph (2) of the “exposition” begins likes this—

Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister: If he says, “The Government is happy about the mixed parades”, or the Girl Guides say, “The Government is happy about the mixed parades” and the Minister says, “I agree: The Government is happy about the mixed parades”, what is the difference? [Interjections.] This hon. Minister tried frantically to get out of it by splitting hairs, but I just want to tell hon. members that, if they still cannot believe what stands here, there is the “Government” which is “happy about the mixed parades”. He does not look too “happy” to me, I must say.

Read the whole paragraph, Jaap! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vryburg asked me, when I recently held a meeting there, whether I would be prepared to appear on the same platform with the hon. the Minister of Community Development and debate this matter. I said there that it would be a very great pleasure to me. Now I just want to say something to the hon. the Minister and to the hon. member for Vryburg to-day. If that offer is made, I shall accept it.

I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that this policy which he is busy applying is not the apartheid policy. It is the policy of racial integration. It is the application of the policy which he followed in the United Party. He is not busy promoting apartheid. He is busy breaking down the resistance of the white man to the idea of racial integration. He is busy creating the conditions for the destruction of the policy of separate development.

I should also like to refer to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. I am grateful that he is here. I would greatly appreciate it if he would listen to a paragraph from a document which I want to read to him now. The paragraph reads as follows (translation)—

In case the hon. the Minister clearly heard what I read, I want to state quite clearly that it appears on page 6, paragraph 10, of the document. The front page of this document is a letter-head from the Prime Minister’s Office. The address on the letterhead is as follows: The Office of the Prime Minister, Marks Building, Parliament Street, Cape Town, and the letter is dated May, 1969. On the front, in the handwriting of the hon. the Prime Minister, the following appears: “as agreed with Minister P. W. Botha”, and it is signed by the Prime Minister. I do not wish to read any further, because the document runs into eight pages, but the document is signed by the Prime Minister of South Africa. I want to say at once that this photostatic copy of the document was sent to me through the post, without any identification. I invite any hon. member in this House to come and see whether this document is genuine, but I myself have no reason whatsoever to doubt the genuineness of it. However, the hon. the Prime Minister is sitting over there, and he can tell us whether the document is not genuine. What does monitoring mean?

You have the wrong end of the stick. It has nothing to do with telephones.

That hon. Minister will now tell us what monitoring means.

You must first get the facts.

We will get the facts. We want to hear what the facts are. What apparatus is being used for listening in and whose conversations are being tapped?

If the hon. member wants to be an intercessor for terrorists in this House, he may be one.

The hon. the Minister is a man who always speaks up very quickly, but he will now tell the country, seeing that he is the man who knows everything. I should now like to ask the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs whether he is of the opinion that this paragraph has something to do with telephones.

But the hon. the Minister of Defence has said that it has nothing to do with telephones.

Let me now tell the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, and he may tell the Minister of Defence as well, that he knows very well that it concerns telephone tapping. The hon. the Minister declared loudly the other day that telephones are not being tapped. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that either he is not trusted by the Prime Minister, so that he is not informed, or he does not know what is going on in this country. If he did not know what is going on or if he is not trusted by the Prime Minister so that he is informed about this monitoring, this hon. Minister should be dismissed. If, however, the hon. Minister did know, and said what he had said the other day, he has misled the country and there is all the more reason why he should be dismissed.

Speak to the Prime Minister.

The hon. the Prime Minister will tell us. The hon. the Minister of Defence has just said that this is not telephone tapping, but there is a method by which listening in takes place. We are interested not so much in that method now, but in whom is being listened to in this way. I personally have been told from this cryptically mentioned intelligence community that my telephone and other telephones are in fact being tapped.

The hon. the Prime Minister will tell us if this is how he wants to govern this country and who are being listened to in this way. [Interjections.] Die Beeld told certain hon. members some time back to “shut up”, and now they think that they must give full vent to themselves here. The Prime Minister will tell us if this is how he wants to govern the country. I want to tell him that the Afrikaner people is not prepared to put up with such methods and such abuse of the power of the State. We will not be intimidated by this sort of political bullying, nor by all the untruths and misrepresentations which are sent into the world from the Government side and the use of these methods.

I want to return to the hon. the Minister of Transport, who came forward here last Tuesday with a string of untruths which testify to nothing but his complete political impotence. I do not wish to be as personal as he was. I just want to tell him that his colleague the hon. the Minister of Defence told him on occasion—and he will remember it well—that he is a cynical old man. [Interjections.]

Are you sure I did not say that to Dr. Hertzog?

The hon. the Minister of Transport tried the other day to attack the political integrity and the personal integrity and morality of the hon. member for Ermelo and of Dr. Willie Lubbe. Let me just tell him at once that those men have more integrity and morality in their little fingers than he has in his whole body. He proclaimed a series of untruths here. For example, he denied that Adv. Strydom had asked Dr. Hertzog to stand for election in the Ermelo constituency. Does he now expect me to accept his word before that of Mr. Wennie du Plessis? Before he gives me a reply to this, I want to tell him straight away that I shall not do it, because I trust Mr. Wennie du Plessis much more than I would trust him. The hon. the Minister of Transport spoke here of a salary of R15,000 for Dr. Willie Lubbe, a figure which he obtained from Dagbreek, the newspaper of which he is the chairman. I now declare here that that report which appeared in Dagbreek, is a naked lie. As far as the conditions of service too are concerned, I say the same.

That sworn statement to which the hon. the Minister of Transport referred and which states that I gave a list of questions to a certain Mr. Wheeler, is a naked untruth. Such a list does not exist—nothing like that ever happened. He also said that Mr. Willie Marais and I had given him the assurance that we endorsed the entire policy of the Government. I say that this is an untruth. He also alleged that I had never objected to any of these matters. He knows that I objected to them in the caucus, at chief executive meetings, at a conference and at a congress. If he does not know this, then I do not know how impenetrable his mind is.

I should like to give the hon. the Minister of Transport an opportunity to show the world how much value he attaches to his own information. Will he support a motion of mine that a select committee be appointed to investigate the truth of his assertions? They were key statements, on the grounds of which he made deductions and the grossest insults and accusations against various people. The assertions to which I have referred are naked untruths. Now I challenge him to say whether he would support me if I moved that a select committee be appointed to investigate the truth of his assertions. [Interjections.]

This hon. Minister talks about political morality. He was a member of Dr. Verwoerd’s Cabinet. Here is a statement which was issued by ex-Minister Ian de Klerk on 8th September, 1965. He issued the statement on behalf of the Cabinet as the Minister responsible for sport matters. In this he says (translation)—

and he underlines the word “unanimously”—

Did that hon. Minister of Transport endorse this statement?

Yes.

He says he endorsed it. Did he endorse it because he believed it was correct or because he was too cowardly to oppose Dr. Verwoerd?

[Inaudible.]

To-day that hon. Minister is adopting precisely the opposite standpoint. And now he does not have the courage to say that he turned his back on Dr. Verwoerd. Now he says that he is following Dr. Verwoerd. He is a political deserter. He has accepted the policy of the United Party. What difference is there between the policy of the United Party and the policy which he is advocating in regard to this matter to-day? At the congress of the National Party the question was put to him bluntly: If five full-blooded Maoris were selected, would they be allowed here? The Minister evaded that question. He refused to reply to it, but then already the hon. the Minister of Sport said that the official policy was to receive the Maoris. When that Minister was asked that question at the congress of a party of which he is a leader, he ran away from the question. Two weeks later, however, he went on a platform in Johannesburg and according to an article on the front page of Die Transvaler of 26th September, 1969, it was reported (translation)—

And now, in quotation marks, his own words—

Where is that hon. Minister’s political courage? When that question was put to him at the congress, he remained as silent as the grave and misled those congress delegates. Two weeks later, however, he got onto the platform and then he was a big boy. Is that political morality? Is that political courage? Is that the kind of man who presumes to attack other people’s morality and integrity here under the protection of Parliamentary privilege? On 25th September, 1969, he declared that it had been the policy of the governing party for two years already. What congress took that resolution two years ago?

You supported that resolution.

No, I have never voted for that policy, and in the caucus … [Interjections.] The Prime Minister gave me and 12 men the assurance, in spite of what they are saying to-day, or what any newspaper is saying, that Maoris would not be allowed. He confirmed it at the information conference on 20th August, 1968. Here I have Hoofstad, where nine persons submitted sworn statements. [Interjections.] If what these persons state is not true, why are they not reprimanded?

Oh, they are not so important.

Oh! It seems to me that the hon. members’ party is not as important as one thinks. The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs was one of the men who raised the loudest protest against this thing before he capitulated.

You have twisted my words.

Now, would the hon. the Minister of Transport, who is so bold, get up and openly declare that that Government in which he sits, has rejected Dr. Verwoerd’s sports policy? Will he have the courage? Will he have the courage to declare openly in the election manifesto which they are now going to draw up, what he said on 25th September, 1969, namely that it has been the policy of that Government for two years already to receive full-blooded Maoris, and then ask the electorate to vote for his party on the basis of that policy? No, he will not do it. He is too cowardly for that.

The hon. member must withdraw the word “cowardly”.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the House …

Order! I asked the hon. member to withdraw the word.

I shall withdraw the word. The Prime Minister of New Zealand has said that he has the assurance of South Africa that Maoris will be allowed. There sits the hon. the Minister of Sport. He said: “I want to make the official position quite clear: If Maoris are selected, this is acceptable.” There is the hon. the Minister of Transport, who said that full-blooded Maoris could come. Will the hon. the Prime Minister now tell us openly, so that we may know where we stand with his policy? I am sorry that my time has expired, because there are still many things to say.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to the hon. member for Innesdal’s disgraceful action, and specifically in respect of the military security of South Africa, with his suspicious attitude in regard to the concept of “listening-in” (meeluistering). If he would only consult a dictionary or had at least analysed the technical term he would know that “meeluistering” has nothing on earth to do with a telephone, that it has nothing to do with any citizen in South Africa, that it has to do with the security of the country and that it is a military situation with which he is at the moment playing a dirty game directly into the hands of our enemies and the communists. If he had simply taken the real meaning of the word and not drawn his own conclusion as to the meaning thereof, he would have known that “meeluistering” has nothing to do with tapping a telephone. That is exactly where the problem lies with the hon. member and his Party. They are so suspicious that they imagine that we are trying to harm people left, right and centre and are trying to create problems. I want to state this matter frankly by saying that it is one of the most contemptible modes of conduct to expose one’s own country in this way and hand it over in this way to the people outside. For that reason the negotiations take place between the hon. the Minister of Defence and the Prime Minister and not the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. Cannot he deduce this? It has nothing to do with the Post Office. The hon. member must have taken cognizance of this before he stated the case. Then I want to refer to the matter in regard to which the hon. member complained so much and kicked up such a row towards the end of his speech, i.e. the Maoris. I want to refer hon. members to the speech by the hon. the Prime Minister as it appears in Hansard of 11th April, 1967. I quote:

Not persons of Maori blood, but Maoris …

That was an error, it was not Maoris.

Here in Hansard reference is made to Maoris. I complete the quotation:

The people were received here, etc. Let us now speak plainly. When this policy was announced in 1967 the hon. the Prime Minister at that stage already used both terms. It is as clear as daylight, because it stands there in print. When the hon. the Minister of Transport made his statement he suggested that those hon. members had in fact been aware of the fact that Maoris would be included in 1967. The statement by the hon. the Minister of Transport is based on this statement of the hon. the Prime Minister which was subscribed to by that hon. member. Now surely that hon. member cannot come and argue about the matter. Let us now return to the hon. member. I still have quite a lot of material (stof) here which I have to deal with.

Yes, it is all dust (stof).

In the first instance I want to put it that in every organization, undertaking, people or political philosophy there are two forces at work. These two forces are impelling or driving forces, and restrictive forces. It is a good thing that there are both, because the relationship between the two determines the success or failure of the undertaking as a whole. If the impelling forces in any organization are too strong then they charge precipitately into new undertakings and things, which can eventually lead to ruin. If the restrictive forces are too powerful there is immobility and stagnation and retrogression, and eventually death. For that reason file ideal situation is that there should be restrictive forces as well as impelling forces, but the impelling forces should always be a little stronger than the restraining forces so that planning can be undertaken, and peaceful and responsible progress can be made, and so that there is no immobility and retrogression. In politics we have precisely the same position. This is the first leg of my argument to which I shall return in a moment.

The second leg of my argument is that no leader is bound, or can be permanently bound, to the statements and the standpoints of a predecessor, for the simple reason that circumstances change from time to time. I want to furnish an example. If we had adopted the attitude that one leader could not amend the standpoints of a previous leader then we would in fact not have had a Republic now, because there were leaders of the National Party who were not Republicans and who did not want a Republic, and there were leaders of the National Party who said that there should be a two-thirds majority for that. But Dr. Verwoerd was able to amend that standpoint of his predecessor and say that a majority of one was sufficient, and with that we got a Republic. Do you want to tell me now that a leader may never depart from the attitudes himself from his predecessor? I want to mention another example. If a leader was unable to change a predecessor’s policy, or amend his standpoint, then we would have had the Coloured representatives sitting here permanently, for Dr. Verwoerd stated that he was not going to abolish them, and the present Prime Minister said that he was going to abolish them. In other words, the fact that a leader has the right to change his predecessor’s standpoint results in continual progress being made as circumstances change. With that premise, in spite of that argument—and I am raising this argument deliberately for this was the case in our history—I nevertheless want to follow this argument. The leader of the H.N.P. insisted very emphatically that Dr. Verwoerd had a specific plan and system and that he had planted certain beacons along a course the party could follow without danger. I am in complete agreement with him that this is the standpoint and the policy, and in the rest of my speech I am going to indicate these beacons planted by Dr. Verwoerd, and I shall also indicate who is following that path and who is not following that path. I just want to add that it is strange to find, sitting in the hon. member for Ermelo’s party at the moment, completely swallowed up, the Van der Merwe group of the 1966 election. The leader has gone, but there are at least three or four candidates for his party who in 1966 were candidates of the Van der Merwe group. Now the hon. member for Ermelo is adhering staunchly to Dr. Verwoerd, but as allies in his bosom he has people who in 1966 stood against the National Party and Dr. Verwoerd. Now they are his allies. The leader of that little group states that the National Party is rejecting the policy of Dr. Verwoerd, and the same thing is stated in their motion, and the hon. member for Innesdal says the same thing. They find themselves in company in which they feel quite at home, I want to quote something here, and I shall then indicate by whom this was said. I am quoting from the publication, New Nation—

Who said this? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, Mr. Japie Basson, in this article. [Interjections.] Now I want to take the first point, the Afrikaans-English relations and the question of bilingualism in South Africa. The policy of the United Party is stated here in a booklet. They stand for a bilingual nation. It is stated thus in the latest of their publications. They stand for a bilingual nation, from which one can deduce that it is still precisely the same as the policy of Mr. Wolfie Swart, namely that his children must be brought up in such a way that they are neither Afrikaans-speaking nor English-speaking, a hybrid kind of something so that nobody can know what they are. I leave it at that. The Hertzog group adheres to the standpoint that it stands for Afrikaans as the official language. Now I first of all want to quote from an interview the New Nation conducted with Mr. Jaap Marais, the hon. member for Innesdal in regard to this entire matter. In the interview, states the New Nation, Mr. Marais was asked: “People say your party wishes to degrade the English-speaker to the status of a second-class citizen. His language is, for example, no longer to be given official status.” Then Mr. Marais said—

Then New Nation goes on to say—

To this Mr. Marais replied—

Mr. Douglas Mitchell of South Coast is an Afrikaner “in the making”; Mr. Hourquebie of Natal is an Afrikaner “in the making”. But then he goes further—

But then the interviewer drives him into a corner and asks him—

To this the hon. member for Innesdal replied—

New Nation: Are they still Afrikaners?

Marais: Yes. One must accept that in every nation there is that diversity—one would not want to deny it. The crux of the matter is really what is at the centre of that nation.

What is your point?

The matter is very clear. The question is: What is the definition of an Afrikaner? An Afrikaner can only be an Afrikaans-speaking Christian Nationalist, according to that definition. Sir, now I want to go further and mention to you the beacons planted by Dr. Verwoerd in regard to this matter. On 27th April 1962 Dr. Verwoerd made a speech, which is included in “Dr. Verwoerd aan die Woord”, page 645, and there he states (translation)—

And then he goes further, and on 4th September in his Loskop Dam speech, to which I shall return in a moment in regard to sport, states (translation)—

Do you agree?

That is the beacon planted by Dr. Verwoerd; that is the course we must follow. I need not quote our present Prime Minister in this regard. Hon. members know precisely what his standpoint is. I do not want to quote it, but it stands as clearly as daylight in Col. 4504 of Hansard that there should be equal treatment for both languages. He stated this very clearly in that debate on 22nd April 1969, and then the hon. member for Ermelo who was sitting on this side replied and at that stage said—

And now? Where does he stand at present on that specific standpoint which he still subscribed to wholeheartedly last year? Who has now departed from Dr. Verwoerd’s policy. Who has wandered off from the beacon planted by Dr. Verwoerd? I am putting this question very clearly to the people outside, and just before these people further abuse the situation, because that is precisely what they usually do, I also want to quote the standpoint of our present Prime Minister (Senate Hansard (Afrikaans edition), Col. 4622, 1969)-—

So do not go and gossip again and state that he is now so much in favour of co-operation that he is no longer upholding this principle.

Yes, but Albert Hertzog is merely a scandal-monger.

Mr. Speaker, I now want to come specifically to the sport situation. Once again I want to deal with the matter in the same manner. The policy of the United Party in regard to sport is as objectionable as the sports policy of those hon. members. The policy of the United Party in regard to sport is that they will exercise no control of any nature whatsoever. The sports administrators can go ahead and do just as they please. It does not matter whether they embarrass their country or not. they can go ahead. That is the policy of the United Party in regard to sport. Everything is left in the hands of the sports administrators. That is their standpoint. That is what they say. It is cut and dried. I shall leave it at that. That other group of people on the opposite side state that they are totally opposed to any form of mixed sport in South Africa. Now I want to say at once that they therefore want to go back further than 1919. They want to adopt an attitude which is more extreme and more opposed to mixed sport than the one which existed in 1919. As long ago as 1919 there were people with Maori blood in South Africa in a rugby team. In 1949 there were All Blacks with Maori blood. In 1960 there were All Blacks with Maori blood. In 1966 the Australian team with Thomas as a member came to South Africa. They wanted to go back further than the policy of Dr. Malan in 1949 and the policy of Dr. Verwoerd in 1960 and 1966. They wanted to go back further than the Papwa Sewgolum case. The hon. member for Ermelo, who was then a member of the Cabinet, allowed Papwa Sewgolum to play. Why did he not then establish a new party? Mr. Speaker. I want to quote the Los-kop Dam speech of the then Prime Minister. I want to quote specifically what he had to say about sport. This part of his speech deals specifically with sport (translation)—

Then comes the important sentence—

“We have not altered our standpoint” he said. In other words, the composition of the 1960 team is still acceptable in South Africa. The composition of the 1949 team is still acceptable in South Africa. That is the clear standpoint of Dr. Verwoerd in this entire regard. Now I want to add to that that the present Prime Minister has stated his standpoint very clearly in his sport statement. He subscribes to the standpoint of Dr. Verwoerd. We have not changed our standpoint. Never before, from the beginning up to the present, has there been any interference in the choice of teams.

Why do you not read his statement? [Interjections.] You want to create an incorrect impression by not reading the statement. [Interjections.]

I am saying that he never interfered. And what does Adv. Vorster say now? What is the sports policy which this party now advocates?

First read Dr. Verwoerd’s statement.

Oh, please, Doctor … [Interjections.]

Order!

Read Dr. Verwoerd’s statement. You are misleading this House. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. member for Ermelo permitted to say to the hon. the Minister that he is misleading the House?

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I shall make my speech in my own way. I shall not allow the hon. member to dictate to me how I should do so.

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member for Ermelo entitled to say that the Minister is misleading the House? I am asking for your ruling.

My ruling is that the hon. Minister may proceed.

The present policy is very clear. It furnishes all the critics who maintain that I have contradicted my Prime Minister with a reply. It also furnishes a reply to the false story by Stanley Uys, in regard to this whole matter, which was spread some time ago. The standpoint of this party is: We will not play the role of selectors committee for any overseas team. They can choose whom they wish. This is also very clearly the policy of the Prime Minister. We do not play the role of a selectors committee. However, we impose three conditions on every team coming to South Africa. It makes no difference whether it is the M.C.C. or the All Blacks or anybody else for that matter. These three conditions are applicable to all. The conditions are [Hansard, Vol. 20, Col. 3994) “that politicians must not intervene in the matter to impair relations between countries; that sport must not be dragged into politics in order to achieve some purpose or other; and that it must not create difficulties for me at home”. Surely that policy is as clear as daylight. There is no doubt about it. That policy stands as plain as a pikestaff, precisely as it is. It is unshakable. The people select whom they wish to, and these criteria are applied. If one of these criteria are contravened the team is not allowed in. That is clear. That is our sport policy. Now I say this: When one hears this policy stated so clearly as it was stated by the Prime Minister here and if you have faith in your leader you do not append question marks to it. You accept it. The problem with those four members is that they have no faith. That is why they are coming forward with all kinds of strange things. This shows a lack of faith. That is the whole crux of the matter. [Interjections.]

Order!

That is precisely what I am saying here. Mr. Speaker, I come now to the next question, i.e. the links with African states, the beacons planted by Dr. Verwoerd in this connection and what we must do in that connection. The hon. member for Ermelo says that we must follow Dr. Verwoerd’s beacons. I do so gladly. The standpoint of the United Party in this connection is that they want friendship and political relations, unlimited. with African states. It makes no difference where when or with whom this is done. They want to enter unrestrictedly into political relations. That is what is stated in their latest booklet. The Hertzog group states the case in regard to this specific matter in their “call to congress” thus:

That is the standpoint of that party. What is the beacon planted by Dr. Verwoerd in this connection? This is what he said (Hansard, Vol. 10, Col. 4900):

That was the beacon planted by Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd in this connection. There is another beacon which was planted by a previous leader, Adv. Strydom. (Hansard, Vol. 94, Col. 5220):

That is what Hans Strydom said on 2nd May, 1957. Those are the beacons which had been planted by the National Party leaders.

A diplomat and diplomatic relations are two different things. [Interjections.]

Adv. Strydom knew his people. He knew that there were people such as those two members sitting there in the front benches. That is why even at that early stage, he warned them. (Hansard, Vol. 94, Col. 5220):

Those hon. members have been learning to realize this for I do not know how long. They cannot learn to realize it. [Interjections.] Sir, this is the standpoint of Dr. Verwoerd. Now we have this story of gifts which will allegedly be given. This Government, under the present Prime Minister, has not yet given any Africa State any gift. The only gift which, as far as I am aware, had been given to an African State is the 100,000 bags of wheat which Dr. Verwoerd gave to Lesotho. This has been the only gift, and then that hon. member was a member of the Cabinet. Even to-day I still say that it was the correct thing and a good thing that this was done. It had a great deal to do with the attitude of that country to us. I am not condemning it but those hon. members must not bandy about Dr. Verwoerd’s name and then eliminate everything for which he stood in this way. I want to go further. Were his discussions with Chief Jonathan four days prior to his death not a direct liaison with Africa States and the beginning of the course we are adopting? Of course it was, but those hon. members do not want any formal ties with them. In this regard I just want to make one further quotation. I want to quote again from the speech made by Dr. Verwoerd at Loskop Dam. It deals with the liaison with leaders on a high level. Dr. Verwoerd did not only discuss sport in his Loskop Dam speech. This section of his speech reads as follows (translation):

That is the beacon that was planted.

The leaders of Pakistan, the leaders of Ghana if it comes to that, the leaders of Red China and of Nationalist China, are all leaders of their countries. When it becomes necessary we will associate with them on an equal footing and that fact, whether it happens within our country or in other countries, may not bring people into confusion and may not cause them to think that in our country we can give way in the social sphere and think that everyone must now associate on an equal footing with the other groups in our own country.

Dr. Verwoerd foresaw the standpoint which that hon. member is now adopting. He foresaw that negotiations will be held on that level in our country or in other countries with leaders of Black States. This does not only apply to political leaders, but also to economic and other leaders. The proof is very clear. He himself invited people from Katanga to South Africa and in his time these two Ministers were entertained in South Africa. The hon. member for Ermelo was a member of the Cabinet at the time and he had no objection to that. [Interjections.] The hon. member is so twisted that he cannot even see when we are walking a straight course. I am sorry to say so, but that is his difficulty.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately my time is almost up. I still have before me an entire argument in regard to immigration and I undertake to deal with it fully during the Small Budget. I have an entire argument in regard to that matter, but I will not touch upon it now, because my time is almost up.

In the few minutes I have left to me I want to return to the little newspaper of those hon. members which had just been established. I think it is necessary for me to say a few words about that. The grin on the face of the hon. member for Innesdal indicates to me precisely how much he is enjoying himself and why he is enjoying himself. I want to begin by saying that it contains a story in connection with an aircraft factory in which I allegedly had an interest. I want to state categorically in the House to-day that every word in regard to that matter is a blatant lie. In my capacity as Member of Parliament for Randfontein I had one discussion, at the request of my city council with the entrepreneurs responsible for that factory in order to determine what possibility existed of having the factory established in my town. Apart from that I had nothing further to do with the entire matter. The unsavoury insinuations by that side wish to imply that the position was different. This was a report in a newspaper which is founded on the principles of truth and Calvinism. I think it is a disgrace. [Interjections.] I do not care what was contained in the photostatic copy, because I am furnishing the facts, and I do not know by whom it was made.

I come now to my second point in regard to that newspaper, they must completely underestimate the intelligence of our public. With great acclaim they published a little report under the title: “Who is right: Dr. Mulder or Dr. De Wet?” published in regard to a social welfare matter. Dr. De Wet said by way of a reply to a question at a meeting that in some cases under some circumstances a man could receive an additional pension of R10. This happened in some cases. A letter was then addressed to me in this connection and the person concerned received a letter from my Department in which it was stated that this was not applicable in his case. Now it is being asked with great acclaim who is correct: I or Dr. De Wet. The fact of the matter is that we are both correct, because this man does not comply with the requirements. He can only receive the additional R10 two years after he has reached the prescribed age and if he is sick and ailing and in need of care. Therefore we are both right, but they underestimate the intelligence of our people. The difference is that we thought that this newspaper would be a newspaper which could achieve something, but now it is simply an enlarged edition of Veg, and just as unsavoury. They all repudiated Veg and therefore they now repudiate their own little newspaper as well.

In conclusion I should like to ask the hon. member for Innesdal a question. If he was as faithful to the party as he said he was when he was kicked out 6th October, where did he get the 5,000 addresses with which he boasted when they invited people to their congress? One does not accumulate 5,000 addresses in ten days. I am asking him where he got them. Secondly, I want to ask him why he keeps the shorthand notes of a caucus meeting to boast with in public if one is a loyal member of the party. I am asking that in all earnest.

I now return to the standpoint with which I began. I said that in every party there must be restrictive forces and driving forces. I want to state that these hon. members are making a farce of conservatism and are turning it into something ridiculous. This party is conservative and will always be.

Mr. Speaker, this year we have in Parliament the spectacle of two National Parties.

Once upon a time you, too, were one.

Yes, I was a member of the National Party and I am not dissatisfied about it. Where would we end if i had to begin counting the number of parties to which hon. members opposite have belonged? There we have the Leader of the House, the Minister of Community Development and I shall have to go round the corner here and then come back, ending with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Community Development and the Leader of the House and I and others have certain things in common.

[Inaudible.]

I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the House something. We have changed parties, but the difference between them and me is that it can never be proved that I have ever changed principles. This is not like the hon. the Prime Minister who rejected democracy and then accepted it again. On so many occasions I have challenged members on that side of the House by saying that if they could prove to me where I had abandoned one fundamental principle in politics in all the years I have been in politics, I would withdraw my candidature and they could have my seat. The difference between us is that I choose my party in accordance with my principles and those members allow their principles to be determined for them by the party to which they belong. This is the difference between us. This year we have the spectacle of two National Parties in this Parliament. Over there we have a small group calling themselves the Herstigte Party and here we have the people who have been offended (ontstig) by what has happened to them. At the moment we may call them the “Offended Party”. A game has now developed between the offended Party and the Herstigte Party. The game is that each of them want to couple the other to the United Party. However, what is the truth of the matter? The fact of the matter is that the Herstigte National Party is nothing but a child and a product of the party opposite. The Herstigte Party, as it is sitting over there, is a mirror-image of the politics of the National Party since 1948. Its accent on the Afrikaans sentiment and religion, its aggressiveness to people with a different colour of skin and the way in which it applies the label of liberalism to everybody who disagrees with it, bears testimony to this fact. Anybody who has been engaged in politics for the past 25 years, will concede that in that corner we are dealing with nothing but the living symbolization of the destructive and negative political attitudes which the National Party has cultivated over the past 25 years. It goes without saying that we on this side do not want to see any progress being made by the H.N.P., but in so far as it is a manifestation of what the governing party was and of what it still is to a large extent, it does have its value, i.e. that the Government has to face, even if it is only for a short while, the irresponsible products of its own politics. One can only hope that this will encourage the governing party to turn over a new leaf for good. But I want to add that this business of reproaches being flung to and fro between the two, is really a case of the pot calling the kettle black. The fact of the matter is that over the past few years the governing party has in fact moved closer to the political view of the United Party in quite a number of significant fields. There is no doubt about it whatsoever that in future this will be the position to an increasing extent. But in a certain sense the Herstigte Party is in the same boat. For many years the U.P. has been making a stand against legislation such as that in respect of B.O.S.S., against the curtailment of fundamental freedom, against the elimination of the right a citizen ought to have to appeal to a court, against political tapping of telephones and the use of the secret police for illicit party-political purposes. We have been fighting that battle for years. What do we find now? Now that section of the National Party comes along, i.e. the H.N.P., led by an ex-Minister, a person who has sat in the inner circles of the governing party for years, and on this point at least they endorse the whole gist of the criticism the United Party has expressed for years.

Then you are allies, surely?

No. The two National Parties together have granted that the United Party has been right on more political points than has ever been the case with any other Opposition in this country.

If it were not for the fact that our voting system in South Africa is so utterly ridiculous that we have a situation where one man’s vote has three times the value of another man’s vote, if this had not been such a distorted voting system, the Government would have had little cause to expect that it will still be in Office after 22nd April this year.

Who carried out the delimitation of 1948?

I am not interested in that in the least. Is the hon. the Minister prepared for us to have in South Africa a voting system whereby every voter’s vote will have the same value, yes or no? [Interjections.] Oh, they are not in favour of that. But I want to tell him that I am in favour of it. The U.P. should have had at the last elections double the number of members it has now; and the only reason why that party can still throw out its chest and say that it will come into power, is that it can do so because of the distribution of seats. But it knows that if we were to have in South Africa a fair voting system whereby every man’s vote had the same value, it would have had little hope of still being in Office after 22nd April.

All of us who have been in this Parliament for longer than 12 years, will on 22nd April experience the fourth general election in 12 years’ time. From the 1958 elections up to now, 1970, this will be our fourth general election. In other words, we no longer have a general election every five years. This so-called strong Government, so sure of itself, so stable, finds it necessary to call an election every three years. Since 1958 there has been, on an average, a general election every three years.

Surely, you can win every three years.

That is not the point, the point is, is this a sign of stability? Is this a sign of self-confidence in their policy. No! The Vaderland furnished the correct answer when it defended the fact that this election had to take place now. The reason it furnished was that the moment there was the slightest sign “of a lack of confidence in itself”, it was the duty of a government to call a general election. I think this was indeed the right reason.

Hon. members opposite will agree with me that the three most important problems we have to contend with in South Africa, are the question of human relationships, the question of our relations with the people in the outside world, or, where we stand in the world, and the welfare of the population of our country. One cannot deal with all of these, but I want to refer briefly to the first two, and test the Government against the success it has had. Let us, in the first place, take the relationship between the Whites and the Bantu in South Africa. Six years ago the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs solemnly announced at U.N.—

For 22 years they have been engaged in pursuing this objective and trying to carry it into effect. I am asking members opposite: Where is the commonwealth they want to establish? Where do we find as much as the framework, the outlines, of this commonwealth? Where does one ever hear anybody referring to the commonwealth? No, there is not even a reference to it in their speeches, this promise which was solemnly made to the world, this objective. Year after year we hear, and to-day we heard it once again, about the terrible “sacrifices” we shall have to make. They have already been in power for 22 years; 15, 16 years after the Tomlinson Report. What sacrifices have been made over these years? Perhaps a small measure of inconvenience here and there, but can they tell us what sacrifices we are to make? We hear about these sacrifices. Would the speakers on Bantu matters, who have not spoken as yet, rise and tell us what the sacrifices are which we are to make? When must we start making these sacrifices? What are they? These are all words hanging in mid air. We hear them time and again.

But you are complaining all the time that we should not ask for sacrifices in the economic sphere.

No. I am telling hon. members that this is one big piece of play-acting. That side is entitled to criticizing our policy, but if a party which has the strength of the National Party lays claim to great solutions, then we are entitled to asking it where the results of those great intentions are. [Interjections.] Fine. An election is in the offing. Could those hon. members furnish us with an accurate list of the sacrifices South Africa has to make?

You want to abuse them.

Why abuse? No, that Minister should after all have faith in his policy. He believes that the public will be prepared to make these sacrifices, or does he not?

Of course!

But why should he now be afraid of the Opposition?

But the sacrifices are there.

Look, if one has a policy, one must after all prepare the people by telling them, especially before an election, what is in store for them. The people are waiting, but they are getting nothing but words. I want to predict here to-day that during this Session we shall have nothing drastic from the Government as regards this whole business of grand territorial segregation in South Africa-of grand apartheid. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education said that he would then tell us about something dynamic. Nothing came of it. No drastic steps will be taken by the Government. Up to now it has done nothing drastic whatsoever. So far it has had nothing drastic to submit to us during this Session. In the meantime the position in South Africa is deteriorating day by day as regards the chances of getting anywhere at all.

I do not wish to say that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is not a busy man. He is a very busy man. But he is also a person who builds a house but begins with the roof, whilst the foundations are lacking. He rushes from pillar to post. They are dishing out flags, anthems, staves of Office, symbols of authority and showy trifles.

Objects of authority.

These things are dished out on a very grand scale. They are on the roof. There is a very great deal of hammering on the roof, because the people must be fooled into thinking that something is happening. But all of this is a little pathetic, for if one looks down below one finds that beneath all these showy trifles the foundation is lacking, the foundation for making a success of their own policy. The cardinal requirement which is absent, is the economic development of the Bantu areas inside those areas themselves. Until such time as economic and industrial development on a large and dynamic scale takes place in those Bantu areas—not the way it is being done at present, i.e. where we are in fact hampering it through the policy of border industries—nothing will come of this policy. I want to tell the Government that its whole policy of territorial segregation is like a brimless hat of which the crown is missing. Last week-end the hon. member for Middelland said a sensible thing, and let me congratulate him on it.

What!

Yes. The hon. member had an interview with Dagbreek pursuant to what happened in Lesotho, and this is what he said (translation)—

For a change that hon. member said something sensible there. This is the crux of the whole trouble. With those words the hon. member criticized the policy of his own party. The excuse we hear is that the human element renders it impossible to develop the Bantu areas rapidly enough in all spheres, including the political sphere. But Britain already emancipated her three Bantu territories years ago.

Did the hon. member raise any objections at the time?

But am I raising objections now? The hon. the Minister should listen, for I am not raising objections to it. I am all for it. Does the hon. the Minister perhaps think that I am imperialist?

What is your argument?

I am in favour of Britain emancipating her territories. If this Government has an honest policy, let it carry out its work and let us then judge whether it is a success. However, the Government is not getting anywhere. The Opposition is therefore entitled to saying that nothing is being done. The point is that Britain has emancipated her territories. Does the hon. the Minister want to tell me that the Xhosas, for instance, are weaker than the Swazis, the Malawis or the people of Madagascar? No, Sir, one merely has to drive through Swaziland to see the gaping differences between a territory such as Swaziland and our Bantu areas. The Government’s approach is hopelessly wrong.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, unfortunately I do not have the time. Until such time as the Government adopts the policy of the Tomlinson Report, i.e. that large-scale dynamic development in the Bantu areas should take place through free capital, but with the protection of the land rights of the Bantu, as is the case in Lesotho and Swaziland, nothing will come of this policy of the Government. My point is that when one looks at the Bantu policy of the Government, one has to do with, as I have said, a brimless hat of which the crown is missing.

Let us now look at our relations with the Coloureds. I have just dealt with the Bantu, and I shall deal briefly with each population group.

Is the hon. member in favour of self-rule for the Transkei?

The hon. member ought to know that I am in favour of the Transkei being included in a federation of South Africa.

Why not the same as regards Lesotho?

Because the one territory is beyond the control of South Africa and because the Transkei finds itself in an entirely different historical position. However, I am now dealing with the policy of that side of the House. What progress has the Government made in regard to the relations between Whites and Coloureds? For generations the Coloureds had representation in this House. The form of that representation was not perfect, and new adaptations were necessary. However, the principle was there and was important. That principle was undone and in the place of it the Government gave the Coloureds a council which, as a whole, they could not elect themselves. Recently there was an election for part of that council. After the election the Government pulled a “Jonathan” on the Coloureds. The losers then became the winners, and the winners were declared to be the losers. And now we have to hear all of a sudden that all the losers had jointly obtained the majority. Since when is that principle being accepted in our politics? I want to ask hon. members opposite whether they are prepared to accept the same principle in respect of this Parliament, i.e. that the party obtaining the majority of the votes, should govern. I am prepared to accept it. It is a new principle. The Government has become converted. The basis of our parliamentary system is that the party obtaining the majority, forms the Government. However, a new principle is now being introduced. I sincerely hope that the Government will not profess a double standard, but that they will reach the stage where that new principle which they have now introduced into our politics will also be applicable to this Parliament.

I should now like to touch upon another matter. It is continually being said in this House that the Coloureds support the policy of the Government. On the other hand, I want to state that there is not a single Coloured party in South Africa which supports the policy of the Government in principle, nor is there a single Coloured leader who supports the policy of the Government in principle. The Federal Party of Mr. Tom Swartz has repeatedly emphasized that it is its inexorable policy that, except in the Coloured Council, the Coloureds should be represented by their own people here in this House. I want to ask the Minister whether this is supposed to be parallel development. And then the Government still says that the Coloureds support them. The hon. the Minister is deceiving himself when he says that there is an appreciable number of Coloureds supporting the policy of that side in principle. Basically the only thing the Federal Party is saying, is that a specific government is in power; they cannot change it, and as long as that Government is in power with the policy it has, that party will work within that framework in order to derive the maximum benefits from it for themselves. Eventually it will be possible for them to overthrow that policy in favour of full citizenship for the Coloureds. That is why I am also saying that as far as that matter is concerned, the Government cannot say that it has the support of the Coloured community. On the contrary, after 22 years we have to hear that the Coloureds “have been placed on a road”, but not one single speaker on that side of the House can tell us where that road leads to. I am glad the hon. member for Windhoek spoke to-day in the vein he did. What does one do with a party which claims that it has the answers, but which, when one asks it for those answers, cannot give them? The Prime Minister said, and we have also heard it in this House time and again, that it is the children lying in their shawls who will have to decide what is to be done with the Coloureds. In respect of the relationship with the Bantu and the Coloured there is, on the part of the Government, a lack of policy, an attitude of “I do not know”, confusion and uncertainty such as this country has never had from any Government before. As far as the Indians are concerned, the position is even more confusing, because as regards that matter the Government has no idea whatsoever as to what it wants to do with that section of the population.

Furthermore, let us consider our relations with the outside world which are just as important as our domestic relations between our people. Roughly four years ago we started hearing of the so-called outward policy of the Government, of the Prime Minister. The Press reacted enthusiastically. The impression was created that something great was going to happen. What has become of the outward policy after all these years? Where is this outward policy? During the past year we even had the strange case of the hon. the Leader of the House saying that the Prime Minister had in fact never used the word “outward”. Die Burger subsequently reminded him that the Prime Minister had in fact used the word. The Prime Minister then intimated that actually it was merely by chance that he had referred to an outward policy. There is another strange aspect to the matter. Have hon. members ever heard the hon. the Prime Minister speaking on his outward policy? In four years’ time I have never heard the Prime Minister refer to his great outward policy. No, year after year we have to hear from the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs that we are making a breakthrough to the outside world. Things will be better for us to-morrow, if not sooner. This reminds me so much of the Stock Exchange. For months we have been hearing of a breakthrough which is in the offing. However, all we hear is the dull thud of tumbling share prices. What has been achieved through this “outward policy” for South Africa over the past four years, particularly in respect of our relations with Africa? After four years we have one junior black diplomat in Pretoria. It was not so much as a result of the Government’s outward policy that he came here; he came here as a result of the adroit outward policy of President Banda of Malawi. A Government member praised President Banda as the “King Solomon of Africa”. He is undoubtedly one of the most capable men amongst the leaders of Africa. He has become the forerunner of a new strategy in respect of South Africa, i.e. the strategy of association with us rather than isolation. This is a strategy which has been described by an observer as “killing apartheid with kindness”. It cannot be argued away that this man has indeed accomplished more than all the other African leaders have done with their aggressiveness. With his one junior black diplomat he has created in the governing party the greatest revolution we have experienced in the past 22 years. Perhaps I should add to that the possibility of one Maori. If one junior black diplomat and the possibility of one Maori can bring about such a revolution in the governing party, one asks oneself what is going to happen once the other African states take the policy of the Government seriously, once they begin to follow the strategy of Banda and send people to pursue the policy of association with South Africa rather than a policy of isolation? To me this simply proves very clearly how hopelessly inadequate the Government’s policy is for the times in which we are living. We cannot even accommodate one black diplomat in South Africa without having such a crisis in the governing party that the Prime Minister has to hold an election. That is why I say that this policy cannot imply success for the future. The Government cannot be on normal friendly terms with non-White nations without there being internal crises such as we are experiencing now. I repeat that this proves the unsuitability of the policy the Government is pursuing. This is also the reason why they have never proceeded to extending official representation to our three immediate neighbouring states. These three neighbouring states know the true reason. What is the result? Lesotho is experiencing a serious crisis at present. And at the time of this serious crisis not a single South African representative was present in the capital. Numerous South Africans are working there and sent there by the Government. But when the moment of crisis arrived, they had to cross the border and take refuge in hotels. There is no South African representative in Lesotho. The representatives of all the other countries are staying there in order to advise the people. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke very generally. I am of the opinion that the hon. member has on numerous occasions been furnished with a full reply in this House by the various Ministers. The hon. member must consequently forgive me for not replying immediately to his speech and returning to the debate which was being conducted a moment ago in regard to the Herstigte National Party. [Interjections.] Yes, I expected a groan to go up for after all the United Party has to a certain extent now lost its position as principle Opposition; they are now a little jealous. But jealousy will get them nowhere. They will simply have to be satisfied with the fact that there is another party in the House and that it is essential for the National Party to try to discover what this little party wants to do and where it wants to go.

I should like to refer back very briefly to the sports policy which was raised by the hon. member for Innesdal. We have been hearing so much about Maoris in an All Black team. However, the hon. member for Innesdal must be fully aware of the fact that during the past three or four months, over the Christmas season, a famous Maori singer appeared in the Civic Centre in Johannesburg in the musical comedy “South Pacific”. No objection has ever been raised, not at any single meeting I know of, against that person who appeared every evening there. We heard no objection whatsoever from any member of the Herstigte National Party at any meeting. The question is, why was no objection raised in this case, but when it comes to sport vehement objections are raised? I want to suggest that the one and only purpose of this entire sports policy story of the Herstigte National Party is to try to catch a few votes. There is not a single principle involved. It is quite simply politicking of the first water. I want to tell hon. members why I think so. Let us now be very honest. I do not want to cast back to all the discussions on Maoris and the sport policy. I want to refer back to what the hon. member for Innesdal said in his speech. I do not want to cast back to all the discussions on Maoris and sport policy. I do not want to do what the other hon. members of the H.N.P. did by saying who said this, and when that and the other was said. I do not want to argue about who said what first, whether it was said in Dr. Verwoerd’s time or whether it was said in Adv. Strydom’s time, whether it was said here in caucus or whether it was said at a meeting, or whether an assurance was given here or whether an assurance was given there. I want to refer to the Transvaal congress where the Transvaal Leader rose and informed everyone that they would be afforded an opportunity of discussing the problems which worried them. Four points were presented for discussion. One of them was the sports policy. Do hon. members know what happened at that congress? It became necessary for the Transvaal Leader to rise and ask whether there was not going to be any discussion. He had to ask why the delegates were not speaking their minds while they were being afforded an opportunity of doing so. He then stated that we could not dispose of the matter without discussing it and said that the people should air their objections. Then the discussion began. Now I have to hear for the first time in this House this afternoon that the Leader of the Transvaal spoke about Maoris in an All Black team only at a subsequent meeting. It is being said that in that discussion there nothing was said about Maoris. I have the minutes of that meeting here. I should just like to read out from the minutes what took place there, when Mr. Schoeman spoke. Mr. Schoeman replied and inter alia said the following (translation)—

These words were spoken during the debate which took place at that congress. In other words, the hon. members for Innesdal, Wonderboom and Ermelo were at the time aware of precisely what the position was. In fact, arising out of this discussion a certain Mr. Jurgens Smit put questions to the congress as well as to the hon. member for Innesdal. He associated himself with the questions. To me there was something very strange about that congress. One would have thought that now that the entire matter had been thoroughly thrashed out at a congress people would know precisely where they stood and that every person would be able to cast his vote for the opinion he adhered to. But do you know what happened? The hon. member for Wonderboom voted for the sports policy as elucidated by the Prime Minister on 11th April in this House. He voted “yes”. That was in the congress. After the hon. the Leader of the Transvaal had furnished the explanation, and after the points at issue had been ironed out so that everyone knew what the position was, the hon. member for Wonder-boom voted “yes”. In other words, he agreed with it.

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

I am busy. I understand that the hon. member can get a chance to speak to-morrow, and he may as well reply to it then.

The hon. member for Ermelo voted against it. He rose and said that he was voting against it. But what did the hon. member for Innesdal do? At that stage the hon. member for Innesdal sat on the fence.

Because the Prime Minister told me that Maoris would not be allowed in.

I say that at that stage the hon. member for Innesdal sat on the fence. He did not vote “yes” or “no”. That was after the Leader of the Transvaal had elucidated the entire position for us there. The question was subsequently put to him as to why he abstained from voting. That was at a meeting. His reply at that meeting was: I restrained from voting because I relied on the assurance the Prime Minister had given me! During that congress it was stated very clearly there that those who were attending the congress should speak up so that we could have clarity in the party. It was said that we could not go on like this. The hon. member for Innesdal did not say a single word. He heard what the hon. the Leader of Transvaal had said. He accepted it and he knew what the position was. He turned round, sat on the fence 7-A.H.

and abstained from voting. If he had relied on the assurance of the Prime Minister I would have expected him to have voted “yes”.

I made a statement about the assurance there.

You could then have said: I am voting “yes” because I have an assurance from the Prime Minister to the effect that the Maoris cannot come. But he did not vote. He sat on the fence.

Why are you so afraid of the Maoris? What is so strange about the Maoris? Do they have horns?

As far as the Maori story is concerned there is no principle involved for this party. It is simply a question of catching votes. They made no objection to the Maori who performed in the Johannesburg Civic Centre for the simple reason that Afrikaners did not attend the musical comedy. They want to prey on a number of Afrikaner votes and since they know the Afrikaners are very fond of rugby they would find the biggest audience there. Now they are beginning to make political capital out of it. However, it now appears that they themselves are confused about the question of whether a Maori can be included in the team or not. When the hon. member for Wonderboom was questioned on this matter he stated that a Maori could come provided his colouring was such that he could pass for White. Then he could be included in the New Zealand team.

That is not true.

The hon. member is beginning to make interjections. He can reply to-morrow. He told me he was going to reply to-morrow. Let him therefore reply to-morrow. Now the hon. member for Innesdal is saying: No Maoris in the team. Now I put it to them: What is their policy? Now I want to put to them the essence of this entire question. We must not come forward here with a lot of deceits and mud-slinging and mete out insults to one another. I shall tell you what the facts in regard to the sports policy are. These hon. members must now furnish me with a reply. Are they in favour of our relations with the New Zealand rugby team remaining on the same basis as they have existed for the past 72 years, or do they want to destroy them completely?

As they were under Dr. Verwoerd.

That is the question. Let me inform the hon. member for Innesdal that it was not for nothing that one of the young people in my constituency told me that they are a hypothetical party. As soon as you put a direct question to them they tell you: “Yes, but if that happens, what are you going to do then; and if this is the case how should we then act? If I were married to my aunt I would have been my own uncle. However, this will avail them nothing. The actual question which rugby enthusiasts in South Africa are asking is whether they are going to prevent the New Zealand team from coming if they should ever come into power—which will never happen—or would they allow them to come out on the same basis as they have been doing for the past 72 years? Are they going to maintain the existing relations or are they going to tell them to stay away? They must furnish us with a reply before 22nd April because we have a great many people who are able to vote and who are very fond of rugby. We want to know whether these people are going to allow the New Zealanders to come out here or not.

I now want to say something that they know as well as I know it. We are continually being told that it is a fact that this is a delicate matter. It concerns sports relations, human relations and those between one country and another. Our people must not kick up a fuss about this because we are making it clear to those people that if they mix politics with sport they will not be able to come out to South Africa. Let us be very honest on this point. I want to level an accusation against them today. It is they who split this matter wide open. They abused their discretion. They split this matter wide open and kicked up a fuss about it. They made a platform of it and established a party because of it. And I now say to them that if the New Zealand team does not come to South Africa the people of South Africa will put the blame for it on the Herstigte National Party. The hon. member for Innesdal is laughing. Let him tell me—he has never denied or disputed this—whether he is in favour of the possibility of non-Whites and Whites going to an Olympaid? Is he in favour or opposed to this? He has always been in favour of it. He has never denied it and he must now tell this terribly conservative party of his whether he is in favour of the possibility of White and non-White South Africans participating in the Olympaid overseas under a South African flag. Let him tell us this. I am aware that both the hon. member for Innesdal and the hon. member for Wonderboom are in favour of this and would be satisfied, if a Davis Cup team were to come to South Africa with a non-White member in the team and the traditional relations we have were maintained, that they should be able to come and play here. We want to know whether this is still the case.

Recently the question was put to me, why is there difficulty among Afrikaans speaking people who have always belonged to one party? Are your differences not of such a nature that they can be eliminated? I want to state categorically to-day that there is a fundamental difference between the National Party and the Herstigte National Party which cannot be eradicated. As one party opposed to another, these disputes cannot be removed because there is a fundamental difference between the two. I am now going to try to indicate what this is.

Yes, that is true.

Yes, that is fine, they agree with me. The first point of difference is that since the establishment of the National Party in 1912 equal treatment has been one of the cornerstones of the party. That is the only decent policy one can have in regard to English-speaking people. Let us now be very honest, there are many jingoes on the opposite side. I can mention the names of many jingoes to hon. members. There are jingoes among the English-speaking and there are jingoes among the Afrikaans-speaking people.

Name them.

The hon. member for Worcester is one. I want to say that this mentality was to be found within the National Party, among people who were prepared to go back on their promises, their corner-stone policy that for 30, 40, 50, yes even 60 years, had been that of the National Party. They were prepared to go back on it. That is why there is a fundamental difference between us and them and this difference cannot be bridged before they have undergone a change of heart as far as these matters are concerned. I want to mention another fundamental difference. There is a fundamental difference in the approach in regard to South Africa’s problems. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what the approach of the Herstigte National Party is? It is a party which is afraid. That party is afraid of everything. Not only are they afraid of Maoris, they are afraid of everything. They are afraid of the English-speaking people because our Afrikaans people will allegedly become anglicized. They are afraid of liberalism. They are so afraid that the Afrikaner will become liberalized. That party is afraid of black people. They are terribly afraid that the White nation will intermix with the black races. They are afraid the Afrikaner will lose his identity. This party insults its own members with that approach of theirs. It is an insult for every Afrikaner in that party, because what is being implied is that the Afrikaner is unable to preserve his own identity. This party says the Afrikaner should be afraid, he should weave a cocoon about himself and never emerge. He must isolate himself completely, enclose himself completely in a jar, as it were, so that posterity can see what an H.N.P. member looks like. What is he going to look like? He is going to be a spineless crysallis. Surely we cannot live like that in the seventies? The H.N.P. wants to take us back not 100 years, but 300 and perhaps even further. This mentality is an absolute anachronism in South Africa, that is why young people came and said to me in my Office: “Sir, I listened to the Herstigtes at their meetings; one of their members spoke for an hour and a half and we young people listened, but we want to tell you that the H. N.P. has no message for the young people of South Africa.” The young people of South Africa find no message in that party because it is a scared party, a party which is too afraid to live. What is the National Party? The National Party has faith. The National Party has faith in itself. The National Party has faith in its members. It has faith in the future of South Africa, it has faith in the Afrikaans people being able to maintain their own identity and the English-speaking people theirs. It has faith in the Afrikaans-speaking people being able to develop their language further, and keep their culture pure and beautiful. It has faith in the English-speaking people in due course becoming so attached to this country that they will, with us, become Africa-orientated in South Africa, and being able to complete our God-given task in South Africa. This calling of ours is to leave the impress of Southern Africa on the whole of Africa so that other people who are less privileged than we can be uplifted towards a Western attitude, or if the hon. member prefers, a Christian National attitude.

And the National Party has no policy.

Oh, the National Party has no policy. I am glad someone has laughed, for surely that is the biggest joke of the afternoon. The National Party is the only party that has a policy which South Africa is able to maintain to the full. I have said that the H.N.P. is a negative party. I came to this House for this month’s sitting, a short little session, in the hope that everyone would avail themselves of the opportunity of informing South Africa what they would do with this country if they should come to power. What have we heard from the H.N.P.? We have been entertained with gossip, a lot of mud-slinging, a squabble, denials and admissions, and things like that. I had hoped that the various parties would come forward and state their policy here. I expected the parties to come forward and tell their voters that they should make their cross for what the party stood for. I waited in vain. I am compelled to refer to this programme of principles which was published by the H.N.P.

What does it cost?

20 cents. I quote the following from it (translation)—

A great deal has been said about these words in this Chamber, and I think there is still a great deal more that can be said. However, I do not want to drag Calvinism into this now; suffice it to say that I find this one of the most disgraceful statements I have ever seen in black ink on white paper. I shall tell hon. members why it is one of the most disgraceful statements. It is a direct insult to the late General Hertzog; it is a direct insult to Dr. Malan, to the late Advocate Strydom, to the late Dr. Verwoerd, and it is a direct insult to our present P.M. That is not all, however, for it is a direct insult to every Afrikaner within the H.N.P. Why do I say this? Those same people were formerly National Party members and in their heart of hearts they believed, and still believe, that that party is a Christian National Party. Now the leaders are telling them that this party is the first Christian National party. That is why I am saying it is a disgrace. I now want to come to a serious statement of policy. On page 3 of the policy booklet of the Herstigtes I read the following (translation)—

If a constitution is obsolete and contrary to one’s national character, and in addition is quite unsuitable for efficient administration, it means that there is only one thing that could happen to it, that it be abolished. Now I want to say something to the hon. members in a very serious vein. I went through the war years when there is an upheaval amongst our people. I had believed that the struggle had burnt itself out. We accepted unequivocally that to vote was the democratic right of our people. We accepted it. We settled that matter among ourselves.

What is your point?

I shall now make my point, only do not get a fright when I make the point! The point is this, that we decided to have a national debating chamber such as this, in which one elected your representatives according to the democratic right one had; once you have elected them you send them to Parliament, and there they have the right to state their policy and you have the right to attack their policy. The essence of this policy is that every four or five years the people have the right to decide whether you can return to Parliament. But in this booklet I read that this is obsolete, it is not in accordance with our national character and unsuitable for efficient administration. And now my point is this. The charge is that they want to establish a dictatorship in South Africa. [Interjections.] That is the serious side of the matter. I say that I have come to this conclusion that they want to abolish the democratic system, and establish a dictatorship, but do you know what the fielder side of this matter is? The dictator will be the hon. member for Ermelo, and the philosopher of the dictatorship will be the hon. member for Innesdal. Luckily, every serious matter also has its lighter side, its humorous side, and that is the lighter aspect of the matter. [Interjections.] The hon. member can get an opportunity to speak to-morrow. I say the third fundamental principle which is being violated, in my humble opinion, is to be found in this booklet, where it is stated that the English-speaking people will in actual fact become second-class citizens and that their language will in addition become a second-class language, and Afrikaans will come first, and this after the hon. member for Ermelo himself stated in this House, that the right of the English-speaking people was safe with the Herstigtes. Now he goes against that, and I want to say this. I have here an extract from a very interesting view on South Africanism which I should like to quote—

And do you know, Sir, who wrote that? A person by the name of S. E. D. Brown in the S.A. Observer of January, 1970. And now I should like to put this question to Mr. Brown’s friends: Are you going to continue opposing this idea of Mr. Brown’s? Is your friendship with him a thing of the past? Have you abandoned him, because you do not need him any more? Is that what is happening now?

Our friendship is not so cheap!

So cheap is this friendship that these principles of Mr. Brown are now being thrown overboard and Brown can now return to the H.N.P. as a second-class citizen. Let me put this to the hon. member as well. He stated at a meeting in Bronkhorstspruit that he had a serious charge to level against the Minister of Health, because the Minister had allowed a Coloured’s heart to be transplanted into a white body.

That is a lie.

Now I am asking the hon. member for Innesdal the following. He knows by this time, because the newspapers have drawn his attention to the fact, that the then Minister of Health was the hon. member for Ermelo. Now I want to know from him whether he asked the hon. member for Ermelo what his standpoint in regard to such transplants was? And if that is supposedly not correct, I am asking him now what his standpoint in regard to such transplants is?

That is completely incorrect. Your information is incorrect.

But what is the hon. member’s standpoint? [Time expired.]

It is difficult to believe that we are listening to the debate which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition introduced into this House on Monday. I do not think that, in the years I have been here, we have known a debate to degenerate so quickly from something fine and something constructive in the interests of the people of South Africa into a sordid squabble. What is most upsetting is that we are having a violent competition between Nationalist and Nationalist in calling each other names. I have had to sit here for hours listening to how the new, reconstituted Nationalist Party are walking around with deceit in their hearts, that their words cannot be trusted, and that they are political traitors to their cause. I have had to listen to the reconstituted Nationalist Party telling the disintegrating Nationalist Party that they have betrayed their leaders and their history and their traditions. But not in one speech made in the course of this unhappy dispute was there anything constructive for the people of South Africa. I have never in my life heard so many pots calling so many kettles black, so continuously. The result is that we on this side of the House are, frankly, getting bored, and I think the nation outside is getting bored, and tired of this nonsense. Why should the Nationalist Party make so much noise and be so undecorous in its departure from the seat of government in South Africa? Why cannot they leave quietly and know that they are functus officio? What do they make all this noise for and bring all this dissension and unpleasantness into the public life of South Africa? I have listened carefully and I must admit sometimes with a little of what we call in Afrikaans “leedvermaak”. I chuckled at times. I wonder why this fury? I can understand the sound, because they are trying to shout each other down in the political life of South Africa, but why this fury and hatred and this tremendous dislike of each other, especially on the part of the Nationalist Party? They have been telling the people outside that they see in the H.N.P. a still-born baby and they have told us that they would forfeit all their deposits in the election. But see the fight they are putting up against these babies, these still-born babies! What is the reason for the fury? I think I know, and I think any student of politics will understand why there is this fury. It is because they are looking at the legitimate offspring of the conditioned reflexes they created among many of their own supporters and followers. The reconstituted Nationalist Party wants to be and remain Nationalist as the Nationalist Party was before the hon. the present Prime Minister took over the leadership of the Nationalist Party. But now that the Nationalists are beginning timidly, with no real conviction, to move towards United Party policy, and they are reminded how they were a few years ago, they are horrified. They are like Dr. Jekyll who looks at Mr. Hyde and does not like his other personality. This is not in the interests of public life and of the people of South Africa. This is sickening.

Sir, look at the fight. Let us examine the fight to which we have been treated over the last three or four days. It all started at the Nationalist Party Congress in the Transvaal when the hon. the Minister of Transport demanded that all Nationalists had to subscribe to four points of policy. The first one was that they had to support the policy of national unity. I want to say at once that we on this side of the House rejoice in the lip service that comes from the Nationalist Party to the principle of national unity. We rejoice in it; it has been the warp and the woof of United Party policy since 1912. In our case it can be truthfully said that there is more rejoicing in Heaven over the conversion of one sinner than over 99 who are already saved. It is music to our ears to hear the Nationalist Party paying tribute to, and announcing their conversion to United Party policy. But I want to say what I have said before in this House, and I am still awaiting an answer: It is not enough to pay lip service to national unity. The people of South Africa who truly desire national unity are entitled to a deed, to an act. as proof of the conversion of hon. members opposite. I want to suggest that there is no party in South Africa that dare talk of national unity if they deny the children of South Africa the right and the privilege to be educated in schools together and to become South Africans together. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that in this matter he must take the lead. If parents want single-medium schools, let them have them, but give those South African parents, who would like to believe the Prime Minister when he speaks of national unity, the right, if they so choose, to send their children to parellel-medium schools where in their most impressionable years they can develop common loyalties and a common love for the good things of South Africa. Until that happens, Sir, we do not believe that the conversion to the principle of national unity on the part of the present Nationalist Party is genuine. We can understand the bewilderment of the reconstituted Nationalist Party at this conversion of the Nationalist Party, unsupported by the only deed that will convince us that the conversion is genuine.

Then there was the question of immigration. I had the privilege to fight a former leader of the Nationalist Party in Alberton in 1948 when there was an immigration policy for South Africa, a fine immigration policy. A Nationalist said to me the other day: “You know, Mr. Steyn, what is interesting is that nobody can show me an immigrant that General Smuts brought into South Africa up to 1948; they are all South Africans to-day.” That is very interesting. Sir. I remember how we were fought in 1948. People were adjured to stop the Smuts immigration policy “want by wil die Afrikaner onderploeg”. We were told to stop immigration; that was the propaganda of the Nationalist Party, because by immigration Smuts wanted to take away homes from young married Afrikaner couples. They were told to stop the immigration because through immigration Smuts wanted to take the bread out of the mouth of Afrikaner children. And the hon. the Minister of Information was a party to it in his infancy; he said it is true. But after 13 wasted years, when we faced a crisis in South Africa, they had to come and admit that Smuts was right, and to-day they are trying to. carry out his policy. There is no difference in their policy except that they cannot get immigrants from the countries where our languages are spoken and where our parents came from; that is the only difference. I can understand that the hon. member for Ermelo and his reconstituted Nationalist Party must be bewildered at this complete change of face on the part of the Nationalist Party. Now, Sir, it does not-matter if young married Afrikaner couples do not get homes. Why this change? But that is not all.

Take the question of sport. I heard the long apology from the Minister of Information—if ever there was a misnomer, Sir, it is that title—on the sports policy. All I can remember is that on the 4th September, 1965, the late Dr. Verwoerd made a speech at Loskop. a speech which was not very clear, in which he indicated to everybody that Maoris would not be welcome in the All Black team that was to Visit South Africa in 1966. The Minister Of Information tells Us now that Dr. Verwoetd did not mean that Maoris could not be elected. But on the following Monday Die Burger came out with a banner headline, “Einde van Maori-toer in 1966”. Does he remember that? Does he remember that on Tuesday, the 7th September, Die Transvaler had an article which I am not going to read out because my time is limited, but which I will summarize to the House. Die Transvaler said that one of the greatest achievements of Afrikanerdom had been that we had prevented the bastardization of the white people in South Africa, and one of the great things that we had done to avoid miscegenation and bastardization was that we had not had mixed snorts; and that if Dr. Verwoerd weakened in his attitude that non-Whites could not come and play in South Africa, the result would be the end of the white man in South Africa through bastardization. Now sir all this does not matter. Now we are told by the Prime Minister by inference that Die Transvaler was talking nonsense, and I can understand that the reconstituted Nationalist Party is wondering now whether miscegenation no longer matters and whether mixed sport no longer weakens the colour sense (kleurgevoel) of the Afrikaner, as was said at that time. Sir, if what the hon. the Minister of Information told us to-day is the truth, that Dr. Verwoerd did not indicate that Maoris would not be welcome and if every Nationalist were to believe that, why did the All Black team not come to South Africa in 1966 and why did they not then publicly say that it was due to a misunderstanding? It was never said, Sir. I can understand the problems of the reconstituted Nationalist Party.

Then, Sir, there is the outward policy, and I want to say “thank you very much” to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education—the one who wrote the thesis—that he has made it possible for me to check something that I thought was necessary to check. You see, Sir, we have an outward policy. I can remember Dr. Verwoerd speaking with great authority about the problems of having diplomats here; I can remember his suggestion that there should be roving ambassadors through Southern Africa. I remember his statement that much of our diplomatic work could be done by telephone, by trunk calls. Of course, that was before we had 82,0 people waiting for telephones. Then, Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister went to London and what did he say there? He made speeches elsewhere too but in London, in the course of an interview, he explained the outward policy.

Your television interview.

Yes, that is perfectly correct; we can debate that too with the Prime Minister. But, Sir, the Prime Minister indicated that South Africa was not merely an appendix of Europe; we were part of Africa, and in our own enlightened interest we should co-operate with the other states of Africa, that were so disposed, and that we should have closer ties and even help them. I think that is a fair summary. He said that in the interests of South Africa it had become necessary and would be wise. Sir, I and I think the party on this side of the House, emphatically support the Prime Minister in this regard. But then I want to express my amazement that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education had the cheek to come here and read out the Black Manifesto of 1929 to us. He has forgotten his history, Sir. In January, 1929, General Smuts spoke at the Phoenix Hotel at Ermelo, and do you know what he said. Sir? He said: We were not an appendix of Europe; we were part of Africa, and if we wanted to survive as a state in Africa, we would have to co-operate especially with the other states under British rule in Africa, but we had to remember that we were part of Africa and should have to work with African states, even though they were colonies at the time. Then, Sir, the Nationalist Party seized on a wrong report which inferred that General Smuts had spoken of a dominion to stretch from the Cape to the Sudan … [Interjections.] Wait a minute; let us get the truth once and for all. I have here before me a statement issued by General Smuts on 29th January, 1929, and I want you, Sir, to listen to the hon. the Prime Minister’s outward policy as stated by General Smuts in 1929. The paper said—

This refers to the “Swart Manifes”, the most wicked document ever published in the politics of South Africa. The report said—

He never used it, Sir.

He lost the election.

Of course he lost the election, and it was not the firs’ time that the United Party lost an election because the party opposite does not respect the truth. [Interjections.] This is what General Smuts said:

Now listen to what he has to say:

Sir, apart from the reference to the war, that could be the Prime Minister speaking. I can understand that the Reconstituted Nationalist Party cannot understand how, in John Vorster, they see General Smuts redivivus. It does not seem natural, Sir, but let me say this: These are not the only examples of how our policy has been taken over. We can all remember the late Mr. Tom Bowker pleading year after year for the revival of the United Party’s Orange River scheme. We can remember the scorn and the contempt thrown on it. We can remember the hon. member for Oudtshoorn talking about the unsuitability of the soil, the silting of the dams and the preposterousness of the suggestions of the United Party. Now they have the cheek to name one of the dams after him, Sir. I want to ask this question: Do these timid, unconvincing attempts to take over United Party policy in limited spheres mean that it is going to take the Government 40 years, as it did in the case of the outward policy, to appreciate that the United Party thinks ahead of them? Will it take them another 40 years to accept our policy, which is as right as General Smuts was in 1929 when he pleaded for co-operation and a spirit of friendlinesss with the other states of Africa? I want to be specific. I hope that the hon. the Prime Minister will take part in this debate and answer these two questions.

I shall.

Good. Now will the hon. the Prime Minister please answer these two questions: Will it take the hon. the Prime Minister and the Nationalist Party 40 years to realize that the Government does not govern only for its own immediate supporters, but for the nation and for the ordinary people? Will he prove it by answering these two specific questions: Firstly, will it take the Government 40 years before it realizes that the old people of South Africa, as prosperous as the country is to-day, are not to be subjected to the humiliation of charity when it comes to receiving pensions, but that they should, as of right, receive pension from a contributory pension scheme, as happens in civilized countries? Will it take them 40 years to realize that that is as true and as just as the outward police of General Smuts was in 1929—a policy which they are now taking over after 40 years? Secondly, Sir, will it take the hon. the Prime Minister’s Government 40 years before they realize that the ordinary middle-class family in South Africa is entitled to the assistance they deserve, as good citizens, to meet the high cost of medical treatment in times of illness to-day? I am not talking of the very poor. They are helped. I am not talking of the ultra rich. They do not need help, not even Land Bank loans. Medicine has become complex. The practice of medicine has become expensive. Doctors are entitled to a proper remuneration. There are thousands of South Africans who are not covered by medical aid schemes, and who suffer financially for years when they are ill. There are thousands of South Africans who cannot afford the contributions they have to make to private medical aid schemes. When, Sir, will the State accept its responsibility and give us a medical aid scheme for all the people, to which employers, employees and the State will contribute?

Will it take this Government 40 years to see the justice of the United Party’s thinking? Will we have to wait as long for this as we had to wait for this Prime Minister to accept the outward thinking of General Smuts as he stated it in 1929? What sort of Government have we? What sort of Government have we that on the eve of an election can entertain the people of South Africa to this ludicrous exhibition of intolerance of one Nationalist to the other when the people demand attention to their real needs? What have we come to? I have come to the moment of truth for the hon. the Prime Minister. He must get up after me as he has promised and he must tell us what we want to know. He must get away from that reconstituted Nationalist Party. They will die a premature death. I assure him of that.

Not a slow death as in your case.

They wall die a premature death. Let the hon. the Prime Minister forget about them. Let him stand up as the man who temporarily is the Prime Minister of South Africa and let him tell us what this Government is going to do for the common man in South Africa. Let him give specific replies to the two questions I have asked him and let them be reasoned replies. Let him ell the people of South Africa why our old people cannot have a pension as a right. The Social and Economic Planning Council of General Smuts calculated that when our national income had risen to R2,000 million per year it would be possible to have a contributory pension scheme without a means test. Our income now is almost R9,000 million a ear. What excuse has the Prime Minister for denying this to the veteran citizens of South Africa? Let him give us a reasoned answer why in this modern world where even capitalist America has instituted a medical care scheme, the middle class of South Africa, Who are excellent people, should be deprived of a privilege to which every civilized citizen of every civilized country throughout the world is entitled? I think that that is what the Prime Minister owed the people of South Africa.

I am glad and I feel that it is a great privilege that I have the opportunity to invite the Prime Minister in a very friendly spirit in the interests of the people of South Africa to deal with these two questions when he answers, and to leave the reconstituted Nationalist Party. We are not interested in the caucus secrets of the Nationalist Party. We are not interested in who promised whom what in private conclave. We are interested in the future of the people of South Africa and let the Prime Minister speak to us about that. Let the Prime Minister tell us something more about the interesting speeches we had from the hon. Minister of Labour and the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. The hon. Minister of Labour told us that there is no real labour shortage or labour crisis in South Africa.

The hon. Minister of Finance spoke as recently as November of last year of a manpower crisis in South Africa, but the hon. Minister of Labour told us there are enough people to do the essential work of South Africa. I want to deal with the hon. Minister of Labour, who then paid great tribute to the border industry policy of the Nationalist Party but he did not tell us that that policy was a subterfuge to get round the manpower crisis, because on the borders of the reserves Bantu and other non-Whites are employed in jobs normally occupied by white men at wages below those received by white men in factories in the white areas of South Africa. Why did he not give us the relevant figures to show us how the Government are circumventing the problem? This is the nonsense the hon. Minister of Labour spoke in this House about job reservation. What does it help to reserve jobs in Johannesburg or Cape Town, and to give those jobs to Blacks. Although I have no objection to that, I do object to their being paid lower wages than those which the white man can earn. What does that help? I have seen this happen. The hon. Minister of Bantu Administration told us that in a city like Johannesburg there are two black workers for every white worker but he boasted that near or in the reserves the position was different. There the ratio was 18 to one. They do not develop the reserves. There is no economic separation. Who was it that spoke of economic separation? It was one of the hon. members opposite, the hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, who spoke of this. Where is the economic separation on the borders of the reserves when you simply shift the present situation in Johannesburg from there to eight miles from Pretoria? Where is there development genuinely on the borders of the reserves? All this development is in suburbs of white cities. Rosslyn is a suburb of Pretoria. Hammanskraal is a suburb of Pretoria. Let us be honest about it. This is the great solution. Where is the border development on the border of the Transkei? Name me one factory there? The hon. member for Middelland told Dagbreek that one must be very cautious not to let political advancement outstrip economic advancement. We heard today from the hon. the Minister that the political development of the Transkei has gone so far that it cannot be reversed. That is nonsense, but it is what they say. But how far has the economic development of the Transkei gone? How many industries have been established on the borders of the Transkei to stimulate the economic development of the territory? I will tell hon. members. Not one! There are none, because there are not big cities like Pretoria in whose suburbs the pretence of border industry development can be undertaken at the expense of the existing industrial areas of South Africa, which are bound and limited by the unreasonable application of the Physical Planning Act.

Will you withdraw it?

Of course we will withdraw it. We cannot wait to withdraw it.

And job reservation?

Job reservation is unnecessary, because the conventions of South Africa have looked after that for years. Those conventions will remain. It is not the policy of the United Party to convert every convention, every social practice of South Africa into rigid legislation with punitive measures to the disadvantage of the people it is supposed to benefit. I can tell hon. members now that section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act in that respect will be repealed and the workers will be protected through industrial conciliation measures and through the rights to negotiate with their employers.

Will you repeal job reservation?

The hon. member can go and read section 77 of the Industrial Concilation Act and he will have the answer. I am willing to answer questions, Sir, but I think it is unfair when members use this opportunity too put questions only to reveal their utter ignorance. I do not think it is fair to themselves.

You are afraid to say whether you will repeal it.

Even the Prime Minister should be ashamed of his ignorance. I said we will repeal section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act in so far as job reservation is concerned. Does the hon. the Prime Minister not know that job reservation is contained in section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act? Why does the Prime Minister take part in a discussion of a subject of which he knows nothing? And he is the Prime Minister of South Africa! Such colossal ignorance from a gentleman in his position! I will not be surprised if he cannot answer my two questions. I do not think he has the knowledge to do it. I do not think he has the concern for the people of South Africa to do it satisfactorily.

We have been told that the hon. the Prime Minister and his party are trying to hang the incubus of the reconstituted Nationalist Party around our necks. That is an unnatural act from the Prime Minister. He is the father of these people. His thinking, his philosophy, his attitude during and after the war procreated them. They are his legitimate, intellectual and moral offspring. Why does he want the United Party to accept the illegitimate parentship of his children? What sort of father is that? When we want allies, we will say so openly. We will acknowledge them openly. We will not do such things as the hon. Minister of Transport alleged so irresponsibly yesterday. Did he check on the truth of that lying affidavit he read out in this House? Did he check personally, or did he just accept it at face value?

I am prepared to read it outside and you can take any steps you want to.

No, Sir, I need not take any steps, because I have heard that affidavits have already been published in Klerksdorp this morning denying every word the hon. the Minister said. Let us have affidavits, but let us have affidavits from honourable men, not from the Gleisners and the Coetzees of this world. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, on 22nd April we shall have an election. After 22nd April the members coming to this House will be quite different from the members who are here to-day. I am not politicizing now; I am going to do so in a moment. On this occasion, since this may be the last opportunity I shall have, I want to thank those members on both sides of the House who have either decided not to seek re-election or will no longer be members of the House owing to other circumstances, for the years of public service they have rendered to South Africa, each according to his convictions. We are here because we like being here. We are here because we believe that we have a task to fulfil. We are here because we believe and are keen to render public service. It is a hard and difficult life, but naturally it also has its compensations. Seen as a whole it doss, however, require a great deal from a man to come to this House and, in some cases, to spend many years of his life here. The public outside does not always realize what is being required of a member of the House of Assembly. That is why I am uttering these words and that is why I am expressing my thanks to hon. members who have for many years, no matter in what capacity, rendered service here according to their convictions.

As I have said, there will be an election on 22nd April. Until that election takes place, a great deal will be said and written. There will be reports in those newspapers supporting my party, and there will also be reports in those newspapers supporting the three Opposition parties. On a certain occasion years ago, in describing the English Press here, I likened it to a she-goat with one teat and two kids. At that time these were the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and Dr. Jan Steytler. At present that she-goat’s task is appreciably more difficult, since another kid has been added, i.e. the hon. member for Ermelo. In the months ahead I shall find it amusing to see how the Cape Times and the Sunday Times and others make out. I shall find it amusing to see the day the Cape Times refers to-the hop. member for Innesdal as “Oom Jaap”. That day will come, and we as politicians will revel in them. But, as I have said, an election is at hand. My hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition has. as he did in the past, once again gone “White” before the election. He did so in 1966 and on all the previous occasions on which elections were in the offing. I can well imagine that when my grand-children one day ask me, “Grandpa, what kind of election did you have in 1970?” I shall tell them, “My boys, it was really the election of Snow White and four dwarfs. In the course of time at my disposal I shall deal with that and with related matters. I shall also deal with the matters mentioned to me by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat.

Before seven o’clock?

I shall take my time, for I have important matters to touch upon before seven o’clock. The hon. member will after all concede that he is not so important. However, I just want to say this to the hon. member for Yeoville: The hon. member for Yeoville boasted here of their having said years ago that they were of Africa. He claims that we have now taken over their policy because we are saying that we are of Africa. But could the hon. member tell me why they struggled so, why they fought and carried on so much when we wanted to sever the ties with Mother England one by one? Could the hon. member tell me why they did not even want to abolish the appeal to the Privy Council, why they made such a great fuss when we took their British citizenship away from them? Could the hon. member tell me why he and others made such a fuss when we wanted to make South Africa a republic which is from Africa and of Africa alone? Could the hon. member tell me why even threats were heard from their side?

Here we have Jolly John in top form.

No, that hon. member and I have to look each other squarely in the face on these matters. That hon. member has to take stock of his attitude towards South Africa and towards Africa.

You know you can rely on this side of the House.

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville has just had ample time to make his speech.

I want to give the hon. member for Yeoville a reply to that at once. He had a great deal to say here about a contributory pension scheme. Why does that hon. member omit to tell the House that his then Minister of Finance, that man who ruled the roost in the United Party, Mr. Hofmeyr, rejected this consistently? Why does he not tell us that?

He was not opposed to such a scheme for people with an income of less than R2,000.

No, he rejected the principle of the matter as far back as 1942. This story by the United Party that they would have accepted it if our national income had been a certain amount, was spread solely for the purpose of putting it off indefinitely because they did not have the courage to tell the people that they rejected it.

In the few minutes I have at my disposal before seven o’clock, I want to deal with the hon. member for Innesdal. I am dealing with him in this regard solely because for the sake of South Africa and for the sake of the security of South Africa I want to correct at once the wrong impression he created in this House. I am now referring to the hon. member for Innesdal’s reference to monitoring (meeluistering). I now want to tell the hon. member that monitoring has nothing to do with a telephone at all. but does the hon. member realize how. precisely because I now have to furnish him with this explanation, he is helping the enemies of South Africa by his actions? Does he realize that I am now obliged to reveal secrets here which could help the terrorists against the sons of South Africa? Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear to you that I am not breaching the privilege of the House in issuing this warning to the hon. member for Innesdal. I want to tell that hon. member that if he interferes with military secrets, or if his actions are such that he jeopardizes the security of South Africa, steps will be taken against him. Let him have no doubts whatsoever about that. For the sake of a little cheap publicity the hon. member came forwad here and reffered to a document. The hon. member will have to explain to this House how that document came info his possession. I want to tell the hon. member that I do not accept the explanation he furnished in his speech.

When the division into the Bureau for State Security, the Military Intelligence Service and the Police Intelligence Service was effected, a decision was taken as to the division of functions. All those functions were under discussion. One of those functions is monitoring. What does “monitoring” mean? It means the acquisition of intelligence from enemy sources. That is what it means. This is done with the aid of very delicate apparatus which is in the possession of the Navy, the Air Force and the Army. Very often the acquisition of that intelligence in so far as the terrorists are concerned, means the difference between life and death for a Portuguese soldier, a Rhodesian soldier or a South African policeman. I want to tell the hon. member that he knows this is the position, for in his ranks there are people who can tell him what it is. The position is either that he did not take the elementary trouble to find out what that term means or what it refers to, or that they furnished him with the information. These are the only conclusions one can draw. I want to assume that the person who gave him the document, must have informed him about its significance. Therefore I want to level the accusation that if he did not give it to him the hon. member must have asked for it. I think I am entitled to say that I believe the hon. member knew what its significance is. He thought he would embarrass this side of the House, the Government, by presenting it here as though it had something to do with telephones and the tapping of conversations. All he has succeeded in doing, is to oblige me to say in this House that we have at our disposal apparatus revealing to us the movements of terrorists.

One can buy it in shops in Johannesburg.

The hon. member for Yeoville almost assaulted me when I said by way of interjection this afternoon that the hon. member for Ermelo was a scandalmonger. If I do not do this, I know that the hon. member for Ermelo and his coterie will go around gossiping about it.

That is all you can do, namely to insult me.

I shall deal with you presently. Just hold on to your pose of courtesy a little while longer. I was obliged to put this matter right immediately.

A blatant threat.

No, it is not a threat. It is a statement of truth. And, what is more, I am now telling that hon. member that if he tampers with military secrets he ought to know what the consequences of such a step will be. Let there be no misunderstanding on that point. We must understand that very clearly.

You will not intimidate us.

With a great deal of bravado the hon. member for Innesdal asked this question across the floor of the House: why did the Prime Minister of New Zealand say that Maoris would come to South Africa? I want to tell the hon. member that he need not obtain that information the way he obtained military documents. He merely has to ask the leader of his party why the Prime Minister of New Zealand said this. After all, he can ask his leader, because, surely, as deputy leader of the party he may speak to him. That hon. member would then inform him that in March, 1966, our representative in New Zealand, Mr. Oxley, acting upon the instructions of the late Dr. Verwoerd, called on the Prime Minister of New Zealand after he had had talks with the then Prime Minister during his home leave in February, 1966. He was officially instructed to tell the Prime Minister of New Zealand that if the All Blacks came to South Africa, inquiries would not be made about their genealogy. The hon. member for Ermelo knows this, and he would be able to tell this to the hon. member for Innesdal.

Since I do not wish to proceed to the other matters now as I shall discuss them to-morrow, I wish, in the limited time at my disposal, to put a question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. It has been a built-in part of our Election Law all these years that there would be loading and de-loading of constituencies. This has always been the case. But, what is more, traditionally it has been the position here that all changes to our Electoral Law are to be preceded by the discussion thereof by the various parties so that an agreed measure may be brought before this House. I took cognizance of what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said here this afternoon. This is not the first time that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has said it; he has done so on previous occasions as well. However, to my knowledge this is the first time he referred to this matter in the House. When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition replies, I want him to tell me whether it is the policy of the United Party to change the loading and the de-loading of constituencies if they should come into power one day, the day pigs learn to fly. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot merely leave it at that. A front-bencher of his delivered a whole tirade about this matter this afternoon. The rural voters of the Republic are entitled to learn from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether it is his policy, if he should come into power one day, to abolish the deloading of the rural areas. It is no use the hon. member for Yeoville looking at me like that; the hon. member for Bezuidenhout advocated this here to-day. If the hon. member for Yeoville wants to advise his leader on this matter, he can do so to-night, because to-morrow he must reply to it. I am raising this matter because it has formed part of our Electoral Law all these years and because it is of cardinal importance to the rural areas to know whether or not the United Party has something like this up its sleeve. I believe that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition owes this House a reply, and explanation.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order 23 and debate adjourned.