I move as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to.

I move as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to.

I move as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I do so, Sir, conscious that this is the first Session of a new Parliament, a new Parliament elected at a general election in which for the first time, I think since 1943, the Nationalist Party failed to make any progress. The result seems to have come as a surprise to the opinion pollsters. It also apparently came as a surprise to most of the political forecasters. Sir, it came as a surprise to the hon. the Prime Minister himself. In fact, Sir, the hon. gentleman not only forecast further gains for his Party within a few days of the election, but he had the temerity to foreshadow my retirement from public life … [interjections] … in frustration and disappointment. In retrospect it is difficult to understand why the hon. gentleman and his advisers found themselves so out of touch with the mood of the electorate, because to any student of politics who had taken the trouble to study by-election trends from 1966 onwards it must have been evident that there was a steady and growing swing away from the Government. This disenchantment was intensified at the time of the general election.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, there are various ways of evaluating election results. You can do it on the basis of the seats won in Parliament. You can do it on the basis of the percentage of votes cast for each party out of the total possible votes. That method has regard to abstentions as well. You can also do it on the basis of the percentage of votes cast for each party out of the total number of votes cast. Whichever way you do it, when you evaluate the results of the last election you find a substantial movement in the ranks of the electorate away from the present Government and the governing party. I believe that perhaps the most accurate way of evaluating election results is to look at the percentage of votes cast for each party out of the total number of votes cast. On this basis it is interesting to examine the 122 seats in which there were straight fights between the parties both in 1966 and 1970 and on the same delimitation. When this is done it is found that the United Party bettered its position in no less than 90 of those seats. The Government bettered its position in only 20 of those seats. The other battles were between different parties and they do not come into the comparison.

Into which category does Rondebosch fall?

Yes, even in Rondebosch we improved our position. In fact, despite the size of the candidate we finished up never knowing which party he was supporting.

He must have been a Nat.

What is even more interesting is that the United Party tended to improve its position more spectacularly in the urban and peri-urban areas where there are settled to-day many newcomers from the rural areas who are clearly dissatisfied and disenchanted with the manner in which this Government is managing their interests. The result is that we now have nine more seats in this House than we had at the end of the last session. But this is certainly not the sole measure of the improvement in our position in the election. That must be measured by the improved majorities in the seats which we won and the slashed majorities in the seats which we did not win. When the results are viewed in this light one cannot avoid the conclusion that the Government is even more out of touch with the people than even we imagined at the time of the last election.

I believe that the reasons for this change in the loyalties of the electorate are not far to seek. I think the first and one of the most important is the fact that this Government has grown more and more out of touch with the people of South Africa. It does not seem to realize that they are South Africans first whether they are English or Afrikaans-speaking. It does not seem to realize that they seek national unity on a basis of true South Africanism and want more than the sort of national unity on terms which is the best the Prime Minister and his party can offer. I believe that there is also a second reason for the change in the loyalties of the electorate. This is to be found in the growing maturity of the South African people. With that growing maturity many old political issues which divided us in the past have lost their appeal. The people of South Africa to-day are judging political parties on their ability to provide good government for South Africa. This is a sphere in which this Government has failed singularly because of the incompetence of its administration and its lack of interest in the well-being of the ordinary man in the street.

Of course, Sir, the electorate is also very conscious of the complete breakdown of this Government’s non-European policies and, I believe is becoming increasingly intolerant of the sacrifices it is being called upon to make in the interests of a policy which it sees crumbling before its eyes. It appreciates too that in the interests of the ideology underlying the policy it is being faced with growing problems which are problems of the Government’s making. What do we find? We find the manpower shortage is reaching crisis proportions; we find the country’s rate of growth is being artificially restricted; we find the economy is not being well managed. We find the agricultural community, wrestling with one of the most ghastly droughts in our history, is receiving attention only in patchwork fashion and there is a disastrous lack of overall planning. And then, Sir, and perhaps above all there is the all too frequent evidence of incompetence and blundering on the part of individual Ministers.

I cannot hope to deal with all these issues. If this debate were to last twice as long as the five days for which it is scheduled it would not be possible to exhaust the list of Government misdeeds. I can only deal with one or two and draw attention also to the Prime Minister’s fatuous attempts since the election, to rectify the position. In doing so, I want to warn again that pursuit of his policies must inevitably lead to further disasters because they are inconsistent with the exploitation of the true potential of the country’s economy and the maximum advancement of the well-being of the ordinary citizen.

I believe that perhaps the most important reason for the falling off in Government support is the fact that after all these years in power the Nationalist Party has been steadily losing touch with the people. Thus the Prime Minister found himself in a dilemma. He found himself in a dilemma because he did not know, and his people were unable to tell him what support the verkrampte elements which had broken away from him, were likely to get from the electorate. As a consequence, what happened? As the election battle developed he either allowed or encouraged certain of his Ministers to pander to what they thought would be verkrampte support by making statements and indicating policies which certainly did not appear to be in the best interests of South Africa. One example of that was the sinister threat directed at Mr. Oppenheimer by the then Minister of Planning, Dr. De Wet, who now, like Dr. Albert Hertzog at the close of his ministerial career, has been deprived of his major portfolio and is left with Health and Mines. Could anything have been more calculated to play havoc with an outward-looking verligte image both inside and outside South Africa and to play up to verkrampte elements at home than the statements made by that hon. gentleman? It was a childish and absurd manoeuvre which, I believe, cost the Government votes at the polls.

Why are you crying?

That hon. gentleman asks why I am crying. I will tell him why I am upset. I am upset because South Africa has yet to pay for the irrefutable damage that such statements bring in their wake. It is useless to suggest that outsiders and businessmen at home will dismiss such outbursts very readily from their minds. It is now on record that when the Nationalist Party imagines itself to be in a tight corner politically there is little limit to the irresponsible things they will attempt in an effort to retain or obtain public support.

In similar vein we had the pre-election frolic of the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, Dr. Koornhof. Five jobs described by him as “cracks in the wall of apartheid ” were to be closed to the Bantu. The Government had apparently hoped to sit back and watch the verkrampte votes pour in as a result, indifferent to the far-reaching effects this measure could have both in terms of the fate of employers, already hard pressed to find labour, and the feelings of the Bantu concerned. Indeed, the hon. the Deputy Minister landed himself in such a mess that we still do not know how he is going to extricate himself from it.

He will write a new thesis.

I have no hesitation in saying that these excursions by the Government into race politics for party-political gain are one of the most deplorable features of South African politics and have effects which reach far and wide into every sphere of our social and economic life.

Which your people exploited in the election.

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. the Minister is missing is that they create the gravest uncertainty in business, that they are an incitement to racial friction and even to hatred which can affect our very security as a nation. Throughout the election we were never free from the attempts of canvassers and agents on the other side to minimize the expenditure inseparable from the proper development of the Bantu homelands. But I have no doubt that the public to-day are beginning to realize that big money is involved in these developments, big money which is going to have to be found by the white man in South Africa. The public are beginning to realize something else and that is that independence can mean hitherto unsuspected dangers in respect of these homelands. They are aware that there is a communist danger in Lesotho and they do not like what they see developing in the field of diplomatic relations in respect of Botswana in connection with certain states in Africa hostile to us and in connection with possible diplomatic relations with Communist Russia itself. The fact is that the public is becoming more and more suspicious of Government policy in this sphere and feels that it is becoming embarrassingly clear that the Government is not governing with the aid and guidance of practical principles of policy, but according to the whim of party political ends.

These reasons for the Government’s decline in popularity all fall within the category of reasons which are due to the Government’s getting more and more out of touch with the people of the country. But there are other reasons as well. I believe that one of them was that the electorate was struck as never before by the extent of South Africa’s isolation in respect of the outside world. Whatever bitterness we might feel at the irrational acts of spuriously motivated demos, I am afraid we cannot avoid a little soul-searching. We cannot avoid asking ourselves whether it was really necessary that South Africa should come to such a pass. How much are we to blame and how much hostility is justified? All South Africans with loyal sentiments obviously rush to the defence of their own country. But with what confidence can we leap into the battle when we think of the Japanese jockey incident, of Arthur Ashe and other stupid actions by the Ministers of the present Government?

I have mentioned the pre-election posturing of the present Minister of Health and the present Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. They are merely examples of the sort of curbs and restrictions being imposed on non-Whites and Whites in a blustering attempt to justify the Government’s policy of apartheid. The snag is that the policy is now affecting people in many walks of life and all shades of political opinion. Individual inconvenience and hardship and universal disruption of natural economic growth are coming to be regarded as the only real fruits of apartheid. Positive constructive development, taking into account population growth, is being seen to be further away than ever. I would say that the frustrated phone user was also among those who put their cross with gusto against the present Government. This is no deficit budgeting administration. It has enjoyed the cosy warmth of revenue surpluses for years and years, but to judge by services received the public has good reason to wonder what the Government does with its money and now we are being faced with the possibility of transport bottlenecks which may in due course affect the development of the economy of the country itself. Unfortunately, too, there are too many people who had been adversely affected by the grave changes in business optimism which have taken place in recent months under the direction of this Government. In fact, Sir, the operative word in the South African economy to-day seems to be uncertainty.

I could go on because there are many more reasons why the Government has lost ground. However, what to me is important is that the trend against the Government is continuing. Even the coincidence of the announcement by the Minister of Transport, a day before the Langlaagte by-election, of a R60 million pay rise for the Railwaymen at a meeting held in a suburb of Langlaagte, did not stop the rot. Former Nationalist supporters stayed away from the polling booth; many voted for the United Party, and the result confirmed the swing away from this Government which is failing the people of South Africa.

And it seems to me that the Prime Minister is not unaware of what is happening. A day or two after the election he was reported as saying: “Ek en elke lid van die Regering sal moet sorg dra dat administratiewe foute wat in die verlede begaan is, nie herhaal word nie. Sekere opknappingswerk sal gedoen moet word ”. Let us now see what “opknappingswerk ” has been done by the hon. gentleman and what the possible effects thereof can be.

Of course, he immediately began with the job of tidying up his Cabinet. But when one looks at the changes opposite one can only come to the conclusion that he relied more on the flick of a duster and rearranging the same old furniture than on the merits of a fresh and new decor. The changes are curious; the motives, except to give some failures another chance in new portfolios, seem to be obscure. Despite the size of the Prime Minister’s party he certainly does not seem to be suffering from an embarrassment of riches when it comes to Cabinet material. The effect is that the Cabinet is as colourless as ever and can do nothing to imbue the electorate with greater confidence in its abilities to provide efficient government for South Africa.

One piece of “opknapping ” one would have expected after the gaffs of the Japanese jockey and Arthur Ashe, is that the Government would have avoided stupidities in the sphere of race relations. But now, look what has happened in respect of our own South African Chinese community. Since the election we seem to have had the one blunder after the other. Certain representatives of those people have been humiliated; the attendance of little children at a crèche at Port Elizabeth had to be considered by the Cabinet itself apparently; and in some areas Chinese citizens are allowed to play with Whites in one sport but not in another. As we know, these people normally tend to associate with white people and are allowed to do so until some busybody or snooper complains, and the whole weight of the Government’s confused bureaucracy descends upon them. These actions, Sir, are not evidence of “opknapping ”. All they prove is that the confusion and the uncertainty in Government circles are growing and that the Government has no answer even to the lesser problems of race relations in South Africa.

The hon. the Prime Minister has, of course, been on a trip overseas since the election. As far as I am concerned, I want to say without hesitation that I am delighted that the hon. gentleman made that trip. Isolation is synonymous with stagnation and can, as the pointers already indicate, lead to disaster. Any contact is better than no contact at all, and this at least was a new beginning for the Nationalists and contains the germs of improved prospects for South Africa. But more than that I cannot say. To eulogize the trip as some of the Nationalist papers have done, is I think really going a bit far. An initially well concealed and progressively more mysterious trip through four countries at a spanking pace, left little opportunity for more than the exchange of courtesies between the hon. the Prime Minister and some heads of State while contacts with the people of these countries seemed to have been slight.

I believe that if the hon. the Prime Minister is to present himself as the protagonist of an outward looking policy, far more remains to be done than this. For one thing, there is a large backlog of a great deal of harm which has to be compensated for. The effect on America of the Arthur Ashe ban and the effect on the world of banning the Japanese jockey are only two examples. While, as I have said, I greatly appreciate the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister did go on that trip, I do not believe that he has returned fully briefed with the answer to many major international problems, like South Africa’s future relationship with the European Economic Community, our relations with the rest of Africa or our future defence arrangements, to mention but a few.

I want to say at once that neither I nor my party will be particularly impressed with any spine chilling reports on depression abroad and failing economies, because I believe that whatever indications there may be of a fall off in growth in South Africa are up to now due to indigenous factors which we will allow to be sidetracked at our peril.

But I am sure that there is one thing the hon. gentleman did find out overseas, and that is that foreigners are surprisingly well informed about South Africa, so that any support that he seeks in future for his policy of apartheid must be based on its moral justification and deeds rather than on bluff as in the past. He cannot be optimistic about “greater tolerance ” towards South Africa and its policy in any other terms. Nor, and I want to say this at once, would any South African submit to tailoring our way of life to suit the whim of international opinion, with or without demos. But the time has passed for seeking refuge in the cry, “No one understands us ”. Informed opinion overseas understands us pretty well, and there is even sympathy for our problems, but there are some things in our political life that will not pass the test of simple morality and humanity. The hon. the Prime Minister would do well to take some advice from an unusual quarter. Professor H. B. Thom, past chairman of the Federasie van Afrikaanse Kultuurverenigings, said in his last address to members: “…Die wêreld staan nie stil nie … Die wêreld behoort aan hom wat hom van die toekoms meester wil maak … en dit sal nie help om in sak en as te sit en treur oor die feit dat jong Afrikaners vandag nie meer hulle kulturele besieling uit gebeure soos die Tweede Vryheidsoorlog en konsentrasiekampe put nie ”. This means that the Prime Minister will have to actively join the growing number of people who see a great adventure and a greater future for our country in generously opening our hearts as well as our eyes to the advantages of closer contact with people of other countries and in adopting more modern attitudes at home as well. But the problem is whether the hon. the Prime Minister can do it, and is it his intention to try?

We have serious doubts as to that on this side of the House. The advent of the Herstigte Nasionale Party showed South Africa what has been going on in the ranks of the Nationalist Party for many years. It revealed to us a policy of racialists and bigots, and it revealed a policy that clamped down on immigration after the war. It revealed a policy that condemned racial minorities and capitalists as enemies of South Africa. It showed us a policy that seriously considered making English a second language and English-speaking citizens second-class citizens. We saw a policy that inculcated such great hostility towards the Black man that a denial of even the simple courtesies of life to them was regarded as normal behaviour.

And your organizer congratulated them in Bloemfontein.

I think that is a misstatement, and the organizer denies it, but I am not surprised at this Minister coming out with it again here. He usually does not know what he is talking about.

Obviously he would deny it now.

These are the attitudes which have been influencing the Government of this country and which have been steering the thinking of many of our people into narrow channels over the years. I am sure the hon. the Prime Minister is sincere in his attempt to rid his party of an extreme element, those on the far right, but he was not able to defeat them with clean, sharp blows in the election, because there was too much in the policy propounded by Dr. Albert Hertzog and the H.N.P. which the honest Nationalist knows underlies the philosophy of his own party. This philosophy will not only remain a strong psychological influence; it will also remain a problem in the practical politics of the Government. You cannot just throw overboard the consequences of 20 years of deliberate indoctrination and propaganda. Many supporters of the members opposite have been carefully conditioned over the years and they now demand that their leader should deliver the goods in accordance with the prospectus as it was originally drawn up.

The tragedy is that the hon. the Prime Minister, facing this dilemma, has serious problems that require urgent solution. I think the two most important of those are the slowing down in the economic rate of growth of South Africa and, secondly, the failure of separate development, and the insuperable difficulties he will face if he tries to continue implementing that policy.

Let us deal with these in turn. I believe that the volume of evidence in regard to the slowing down of the economy is so great, particularly in the field of direct investment, that while no emphasis is needed from me to establish this as a fact, I will forecast that it will be the subject of careful analytical debate from this side of the House over the next few weeks. Suffice it then to accept an economic slow-down as a fact, a slow-down which, strangely enough, is not attributed by the hon. the Minister of Finance to the success of his credit control measures, because when he spoke at a banquet of the Finance Houses Association in June, 1970, he pointed out that the total gross domestic product had increased by over 7 per cent in 1969 while fixed capital outlays by private manufacturing industry had declined by 10 per cent, but this according to him could not be attributed to credit control because total bank credit to the private sector had increased in 1969 and the first quarter of 1970. So it is not for lack of funds that capital investment slowed down in the view of the Minister of Finance. Next on my list is Dr. Kuschke, and this is what he said—

Uncertainty, Sir, about what? I do not believe there is any doubt in anybody’s mind that if South Africa had the workers and sufficient workers had enough money to spend and to pay taxes for essential services, South Africa with her rich natural resources, which include a large and growing population, could outstrip the rate of growth of any country in the world. So what is causing the uncertainty to which Dr. Kuschke and so many other people refer? Is it not being able to understand or believe the Minister of Finance when he speaks after his strange behaviour in this House and in the Other Place in June, 1969? Is it not knowing what employee in what category of work is going to be axed next? Is it, Sir, not knowing if any industrialist will ever get all the labour he needs and in the place he needs them to produce competitively and efficiently? The body of evidence from economists and businessmen is that the scarcity of labour and the uncertainty in regard to the possible availability of labour are the prime uncertainties. There is not a single sector of the economy, whether worker or employer, or any shade of political opinion, that does not admit either readily or reluctantly, that a shortage of labour is hampering development. The solutions offered differ according to the shade of political opinion, but only those that include an appraisal of the role that the use of non-White labour must inevitably play seem to have any contact with reality.

What has the Government done? The Government so far have settled for a compromise with reality in a series of exemptions from its own laws. Industrialists, on whom much of the success of the Government’s separate development policy depends but whose co-operation in regard to its own laws was never sought, have developed a sort of shake-down modus vivendi on the basis of evasions of Government policy and legislation. Now, exemptions and evasions can never take the place of a constructive policy for growth, a policy that in present circumstances must run counter to practically every law governing the use of non-White labour in this country.

Hon. members opposite are well acquainted with the policy of my party. They know that we fully acknowledge the right of the White man to protection against unfair competition and a lowering in any way of his standard of living. They had it given them during the election. In fact, some of them were so anxious that they came to buy copies of the answer from us. They know it very well and we will deal with it again. But with a new approach the growth of this country could be so vast that the cost of protecting White standards and White values could be relatively small compared with the possible returns. But the question we have to ask is this: Is the vision necessary to create this greater South Africa possible within the confines of narrow Government ideology? It is not 100 years ago but only a few months since we heard that statement from the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. A dramatic change of heart is neither to be expected, nor will it be trusted if it took place. The Prime Minister and the Government, I submit, are not the administration to bring about the essential adjustment to changing circumstances and he, I believe, is too chary of criticism from within his own ranks to try. Sir, he will have to make up his mind one way or another and sooner or later. The relaxation of control by the Minister of Labour over a few jobs for Coloureds is a welcome move in the right direction but the real dialogue, Sir, is between Bantu and White in this country. The great mass of the workers, the great mass of the job-seekers, are Bantu. The fate of South Africa depends on decisions in this forum and not on whether or not a Coloured girl takes cash at the till of a suburban bazaar.

Given the policy of apartheid and, flowing from it, the restrictions on the use of non-white labour both in numbers and in types of work, I suppose a 5½ per cent real growth rate is probably the maximum at which the economy can grow in the future. The restrictions of the Physical Planning Act, however, are now threatening to reduce that rate of growth over the next five years to something possibly under 5½ per cent. I would like hon. members to pause for a moment and to examine with me what has been happening over the past few years. If one had to listen to Government politicians only, Sir, one would believe that only Japan developed faster than South Africa. The truth, however, is that the Common Market as a whole has in the past decade developed just as fast as South Africa and the United States only slightly less fast. Japan has developed twice as fast. Of the great Western industrial powers only the United Kingdom has developed at a substantially lower rate. But there is this crucial difference between the United Kingdom and the Common Market countries and South Africa: Their populations are increasing at a much slower rate than even the White population in South Africa. The United Kingdom population is only increasing at one-third of the rate at which South Africa’s White population is increasing and the Common Market countries at between one-third and one-half of the South African rate of 2.15 per cent per annum. Thus, Sir, if the growth rate of the Common Market keeps up with that of South Africa their standards of living will rise faster than ours in the next decade and the decades that lie ahead. This has already happened in the past decade, and if it were to continue for the next decade, we are going to draw fewer and fewer immigrants from Europe, because to draw immigrants on a substantial scale we must develop faster and have a higher growth rate in respect of standards of living than countries like Holland and Germany.

Tell us what you are going to do.

Do not ask him such difficult questions.

Sir, I am more than delighted; I seem to have awakened the hon. gentleman’s interest. I will tell him what we are going to do; let him just listen to the problem which neither he nor his Cabinet seem to understand yet. I believe it has become imperative for South Africa’s economy to grow much faster than the rate of 5½ per cent envisaged for the 1970s, if we are to face the challenges to our sovereignty which look like developing in the years that lie ahead of us. For in the end, Sir, all sovereignty depends on economic power and military power, which to-day is based on economic power. The greater a country’s economic and military power, the greater its sovereignty in the world. If we only maintain a rate of 5½ per cent we will remain a relatively small power internationally. Do you realize, Sir, that Japan’s rapid rise since 1945 as a world power courted by all the nations of the world, is directly due to its rapid economic development—nearly twice as fast as that of all the other industrial powers? Their rate of growth has made them the third greatest industrial country in the world, next to Russia and the United States of America. If they go on developing at the present rate over the next decade or two they will catch up with those vast colossi. Sir, what differential rates of growth can do, can easily be illustrated if you look at a few of the forecasts made by the economists. If we had the rate of growth of Japan, we would in 1980 reach the wealth which we will now not reach until 1990, and if we had the same rate of growth as Japan for the next decade or two, then by the year 1990 the gross domestic product would be a massive R86,000 million which would place us amongst the ten top industrial countries in the world. I think our national security demands that South Africa should opt for maximum economic development or something close to it. Our national existence cannot be guaranteed by discriminating or discriminatory laws but only by economic and military strength. Refusing the entry of a Japanese jockey or a Coloured cricketer will not protect us from outside influence but economic and military strength will protect us and will protect our sovereignty. Sir, apartheid, by deliberately slowing down our economic development, is becoming a serious threat to the safety of South Africa. But for the Government’s race policy and lack of educational policy, the South African economy could out-perform every other industrial country in the world, with the possible exception of Japan. Compared with Japan, the most successful society to have developed over the past few decades, we have immeasurably greater natural resources; we have a vast reservoir of millions of potential industrial workers amongst our under-employed non-Whites. Japan’s only advantages over us are an immeasurably superior educational system and a competent Government following wise economic policies. Sir, to achieve a far higher rate of growth than that envisaged by the Government, revolutionary changes will have to be made in education and in the training of labour. As a country we only spend at the moment half as much of our national income on research and education as most of the highly industrialized societies in the world. I believe, Sir, that the educational policies of this Government have been a crime against South Africa. In addition to normal education, we must greatly intensify the training of labour in industry. With proper labour training, the bulk of our non-White labour can be turned into productive workers in industry in a short period of time. I know, of course, Sir, that there are going to be the Jeremiahs who will proclaim that a rate of growth approximating that of Japan could not be sustained because our domestic savings and capital formation can only support a growth rate of 5½ per cent. I know they will say that a growth rate of this order will lead to serious balance of payments problems; and lastly there are those who fear that many jobs presently performed by Whites will have to be taken over by non-Whites. I want to say at once that it is my belief that if we speed up our economic development, it will of necessity lead to a vast inflow of capital, comparable to that of Australia in the last decade, where their vast ore mines have been rapidly exploited. No country that develops fast ever lacks capital from outside.

As far as balance of payments are concerned, it is surely significant that the countries which really develop rapidly, countries like Japan and West Germany, have the best balance of payments position, because a rapidly developing country expands its exports rapidly. It is when they do not grow fast that they run into balance of payments problems. If our economic development is accelerated I believe that we will draw far more immigrants. A dynamic economy, with rapidly increasing standards of living, is the best country to which to emigrate. Immigrants want economic opportunities, and the faster an economy grows the greater the flow of immigrants. I believe that we could aim for double the number of immigrants we are drawing at the present time.

Of course, if we speed up our economic growth a number of the lower paid jobs now reserved for Whites will have to be done by non-Whites. It is happening now, Sir. It is happening on the Railways. The Minister of Transport knows all about it. But the great bulk of Whites replaced will move to higher-paid jobs for which they should be prepared by proper industrial labour training schemes. In a wealthy economy a White who is replaced by a non-White and for personal reasons like age or health cannot be employed in a better paid job category, could be protected by adequate measures, and would be if a United Party government was in power. A greatly accelerated growth rate will not only make South Africa a more powerful and more independent country, but it will also make it a happier, fairer and more stable society. I do not believe that the well-off Whites can ever feel safe and secure as long as they realize that there are tens of thousands of Whites, the old and the incapacitated, living poor and miserable lives, and hundreds of thousands of non-whites in the same conditions. Accelerated economic development could wipe out grinding poverty in a decade or two, as it has been doing in Japan over the last decade. As we get wealthier there will be far more job opportunities at good salaries and good wages. These opportunities will be created for all. As we grow richer we can greatly increase our old age and our other pensions for those who cannot do a normal job of work any more.

In other words, a new United Party Utopia.

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the hon. the Minister being envious. I know with what problems he is being faced at the moment. I know of the trouble he is having with transport. I know that for one of his new projects he is looking towards Japan for capital and assistance.

I am not looking to Japan. [Interjections.]

Sir, I believe that South Africa should awake to the danger of the Government’s racial policies. Their motto of “poor but White ” is fallacious, for their policies are isolating White South Africans from all other countries in the world, including all the great European and Anglo-Saxon powers, and at the same time draining us of the economic and military power necessary to protect ourselves against eventual outside interference. That is the first challenge with which the hon. the Prime Minister is faced, but there is a second one.

The other major challenge he faces is the failure of his policy of separate development, and the problems that must arise if the Government persists in attempts to implement it. We must remember that it is in the name of apartheid, or separate development, that many negative and oppressive things are done. It is in the name of that policy that the Physical Planning Act, the amended Bantu Laws Act, and similar restrictive legislation appear on the Statute Book. But when we come to the positive side, in realizing constructively the fact of separate homelands for the black people, we ask what has been done. I am fully cognizant of the need for the co-operation and self-exertion of all underdeveloped peoples in any scheme for their own development, but a statement was made by Chief Buthelezi at a ceremony conferring territorial status on the Zulu territorial authority which seemed to me to have a ring of truth about it. The Government would do well to bear this statement in mind. He said: “When man is reaching for the moon the Zulus cannot be expected to move towards self-determination at ox wagon pace. ” Sir, let us look at the needs of the Bantu people. Let us ask ourselves honestly whether they are being satisfied to such an extent that we can see them developing into separate nations in separate states, as the theory of Government policy would demand. It is interesting to note that almost wherever a territorial tribal authority is established, its first demand is for more land. The demand came stridently from Chief Kaiser Matanzima of the Transkei, and now we have heard it again from the Zulu authority. Three-quarters of the population of South Africa or more— black people—are going to be expected to inhabit one-seventh of the land of South Africa. For a people which is dependent for its living on subsistence agriculture this is clearly a very difficult situation. I think the Prime Minister should tell us: Are his Government and the people of South Africa prepared to give more land? If they are not, what are they going to do to make these Bantu areas viable territories, capable of supporting the people whose bases they must be in South Africa. To make these areas viable they do not need only land; they need industrial growth points inside their territories. What has the Government to show for the 16 years that are past since the Tomlinson Report was published? The main answer we have had from them so far has been that the Government has built 70 Bantu townships in the homelands, comprising 153,000 stands. But these townships are not in themselves viable. They are merely further expressions of the poverty and the inadequacies of the homelands. They are often nothing more nor less than inverted pyramids with a thin and inadequate base for secondary and tertiary employment, too thin and inadequate to give the residents there a reasonable source of income.

Then we have the border industries. As we have so often said, these are merely examples of accelerated economic integration between Blacks and Whites, integration that is encouraged in the new white areas with a measure of social separation because the labour lives in existing Bantu areas. If we want the prosperity in South Africa that will make the policy of separate development possible, or that will make any solution to our race problems feasible, we need the prosperity that will come only from greatly increased educational opportunities for all our people.

But what is the position with Bantu education in South Africa, Sir? Bantu education in South Africa is an “operation boot strap ”, with the Government’s contribution towards it theoretically pegged at R13 million since 1948 —and this in spite of the fall in the value of money and the increase in population. The Government insists on self-help by Africans in the educational field. I wonder whether the Government likes the manner in which the Bantu are responding. The new Association for the Educational and Cultural Advancement of the Africa people in South Africa are thinking of appealing to the United States for support. Will the Government approve of this? Is this what they want? All experts are agreed that for any reasonable race policy to succeed, and indeed to avoid unrest and disorder, there should be rising standards of living for all. There should be jobs for all and people should be able to take these jobs. But what is the position in the reserves? It is one of intolerable poverty and it is getting worse. In May of this year the Johannesburg Star reported that white farmers and recruiters of labour visiting labour depots in Sekhukhuneland are besieged by thousands of hungry young men and women begging for jobs. Only a few get the jobs. Thousands are turned away. They return again and again to the depots hoping against hope that somebody will take them but in vain. The chiefs say that unemployment is crippling Sekhukhuneland.

According to a newspaper report they do not want to work on the farms.

No, this is an old story which is never proved. I have never known anybody to correct wrong reports in the Press quicker than this Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. I want to know what reason there is for saying that this is not true. I believe that there are thousands of men in those reserves who are not allowed to go to work in the cities because of Government policy. They are stranded in impoverished reserves. A policy which has side effects of that kind cannot be succeeding. It cannot offer any hope either to Whites or to Blacks that we are approaching a solution to their problems and ours. I believe that we South Africans have got to sit up and take notice as we do not have indefinite time. This is something I wish to emphasize. I wish more of us could read the comment of Mr. J. D. F. Jones, foreign editor of the British Financial Times, who recently wrote about what he saw in South Africa. He found that South Africa had entered a critical period during which separate development has little time to prove its point and during which the Government cannot continue to evade the dilemmas which face it. The Bantustan policy, he said, could not continue in its present diffidence without clearly emerging as a failure or a fraud. He challenged the hon. the Prime Minister to demand the necessary sacrifices from his white electors to make a success of this policy as, he said, this was a thousand times more important than any travels round European capitals. The Prime Minister should tell us. Will he call upon the people of South Africa to make the sacrifices necessary to remove these well-founded charges of diffidence and failure? Time and again in the past in this House we have had figures concerning what it is likely to cost to make these reserves viable. The hon. the Prime Minister should know that no impartial observer can find evidence that the Government is willing to face the realities of its own policy. I believe that the Government and the Prime Minister prefer to present themselves to gullible sections of the public as capable of indulging in unreasonable race prejudice but at the same time as capable of ensuring our economic and strategic security. Daily the facts of life prove these things to be incompatible. I am afraid that the Government is being faced with an inescapable truth. If the hon. the Prime Minister is sincere when he talks about “opknappingswerk ” I believe he has much to do in respect of this policy.

I want to make a few suggestions to him which, I believe, most intelligent people believe should be followed diligently if his two major problems are to be dealt with. First and foremost I believe the Government should take steps to revitalize the economy. According to all the authorities this can only be done by removing the uncertainties, many of them created by the Government, about the availability of adequate supplies of labour and the availability of funds for investment. It will also require positive planning for growth. This will touch on fields such as future policy on the decentralization of industry; the adequate training of all labour, White and non-White; the provision of an adequate infra-structure, including especially water supplies; and, finally, adequate steps to promote our external trade. Here let me say that because of past stupidities on the part of the Government, it will be as important to restore our good image by avoiding embarrassing incidents of the kind we had from his Cabinet before which are often not the result of accidental slips but which flow naturally from deeply ingrained attitudes among the people who sit in this Government. While the Government remains enmeshed in such ideologies, I fear it will not be long before the outward looking handshakes with Dr. Banda are cancelled out by some embarrassing incidents in other quarters, such as what is happening at the moment with our Chinese community.

Related to the problem I have just stated is the need for an outward-going approach to our race relations at home in order to develop the quality of our peoples and to increase harmony amongst them. It is shortsighted to imagine harmony where there is none. Those of us who have contact with the non-white people know how frustrated they are under the yoke of restrictive laws which exist for themselves and are not balanced by freedom elsewhere or the opportunity to develop in other ways. We all know that South Africa is rich, that we have vast resources. Our potential for economic growth is tremendous and so is our opportunity to give improved quality to the life of peoples who are as yet largely undeveloped. If we really want to look outward, we dare not forget that vast though our material resources may be, our greatest asset is our people. And it is not only numbers that count. More and more we recognize that it is the quality of people that counts, their potential to use initiative, to work hard and to persevere in attaining aims that matter. These are the things that count more. We recognize this because we see the achievements of a small nation such as Israel. We recognize this because we see the achievements of the people of Taiwan compared with those of the people of the Chinese mainland who are dominated by the vast colossus of Communist China.

South Africa is governed to-day by what political scientists call an elite. This has been the result of an historical process with which we are all familiar. Whether that élite will stay in power depends very much on what use it makes of its privileged position. This in turn will depend on the ideologies which motivate the elite and on whether those ideologies are based on justice, on morality and on reality. Those who govern must deserve the consent of the governed. It is interesting to find that in the United States of America to-day one constantly hears the complaint that the citizens, and particularly the younger generation, are losing all respect for authority of every kind, the law courts and the government, and that their loyalty to the state is also diminishing rapidly. This also goes for many countries in Europe. The problem in these countries is how to re-establish respect for authority and loyalty to the institutions of the state.

Yet here we have a Government whose policy it is deliberately to destroy respect for authority and loyalty towards the state amongst at least two important racial groups, the Coloureds and the Indians. They are informed that they are not part of white South Africa. But unlike the Africans who are at least promised ultimate fatherlands or motherlands, they are given no entity towards which they should direct their loyalty. Surely any political system in the modern world that instead of making attempts to inculcate respect for authority and loyalty towards the state, sets out to destroy loyalty in the hearts of its subjects, is doomed. I believe that the loyalty of our non-Whites can only be assured in the long run if they are involved in our political processes in whatever practical manner possible. They must feel that they belong to South Africa and that they can fully share in its fruits, economic and otherwise, of a dynamic and fair society.

I believe that South Africa must become a far more compassionate society. We must be concerned much more about the misery and the poverty of the incapacitated and the old people, not only of the Whites but of all races. Our welfare measures have not kept pace with the increase in our wealth. One can say that almost every welfare measure we have still dates from the actions of the United Party government. As we get richer so we should constantly extend welfare. The faster we develop the quicker we could do it. If we grow to our full capacity we can probably wipe out degrading poverty within one generation.

I believe that the United Party has an infinitely better chance of making more of South Africa than this Government has succeeded in doing. I believe this because our whole philosophy of government is different. We, unlike this Government, believe in maintaining the quality of leadership and improving the quality of those who have not yet had the opportunity to develop as they should. We do not believe in isolation and exclusiveness. We reach out to include all those elements that can make for a better life. Rigidity and isolation are the antithesis of growth and greater happiness for a greater number of people. I believe that we are also informed realists. We strive to understand and give due weight to those innate human factors that both impede social change and make adjustment to change possible. We do not believe that one can legislate to change human nature but we do have a great deal of faith in humanity and the processes, slow as they might be, that will lead to greater harmony among people and their greater happiness.

What does that mean?

It means that our policy reflects our philosophy. As realists, we accept that the race groups are at divergent stages of development and that we must confess to a measure of ingrained prejudice which is not a monopoly of South Africa or the Nationalist Government. On the other side of the coin, it means that we accept that integration in the economic sphere at least, is a fact and that further economic integration must take place if we are to survive and grow as an economic power. We believe that further economic integration can take place since the potential for race friction is less apparent than real in many situations as the hon. the Minister of Transport is showing on the South African Railways at the present time. It also means that we as realists observe the importance of group differentiation and the wisdom of supporting racial separation in regard to residential areas, etc., and avoiding at all costs any suggestion of the psychological effects of forced integration.

It means something else as well. It means that we as realists also accept the desirability of the non-Whites in time sharing the responsibility on a federal basis with the white elite. As we see it, the natural process will be towards building up an elite among the non-Whites. However, with their masses of underdeveloped people homogenity of quality will be impossible for them for generations. But we do foresee a growing contact and a sharing of decision making amongst the élite of all groups on a federal basis with the necessary guarantees for the maintenance of white leadership. We believe it is important too that this non-white élite should be the true representatives of their people. We must therefore make sure—and I believe our democratic federal process does provide adequately for this—that Bantu leaders with whom we work will in fact be the recognized and accepted representatives of their people. Any government that negotiates or consults with stooges is building on sand.

Mr. Speaker, it is in directions such as these that we believe that the hon. the Prime Minister should direct his outward look. But we doubt very much indeed whether he or his Government will ever see through the fog in which Nationalist thinking has enveloped his party for decades. Therefore, Sir, I move the motion standing in my name.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has found it necessary to introduce a motion of censure. He has given his motivations for such a motion here to-day. I leave it to the House, not only this but also that side, the old members and the new, to judge whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has come to light with anything new. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made use as seldom before —and that is saying a great deal—of vague statements and generalities. There was not a spark of originality in what he said. The matters he mentioned have been mulled over repeatedly in this House over the years. Another matter he mentioned was the recent election, in which all manner of topics were exhaustively dealt with. With this the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to set the Thames on fire to-day. Unfortunately the hon. the Leader of the Opposition allowed himself to be dictated to in places—and I shall deal with this in the course of my speech—by certain journalists regarding what he should in fact say here to-day.

Mr. Speaker, let us begin with what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said. At the very outset I want to concede that I personally did feel disappointed at the seats my Party lost. Both he and I know that. It is true that the National Party won fewer seats than it did in 1966. But what is also true is the fact that those seats were not lost because the policy of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had found acceptance among the voters. On the contrary. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition came to light with figures and calculations. I can furnish him with a reply by also making calculations in that regard. In this way I can very easily prove my statement. What do the figures tell us? The figures tell us that in 1966 the National Party polled 58.3 per cent of the votes cast. Over against that the United Party polled 37.5 per cent of the votes cast in that election. The result of the 1970 election, as far as the United Party is concerned, was precisely the same as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s speech: it was also 37.5 per cent. Precisely the same. It is true that the percentage of votes in favour of the National Party decreased from 58.3 to 54.8.

That means nothing.

No, it does mean something. I have taken cognizance of that and I also want to furnish the explanation for it. I want to furnish the hon. member for Yeoville in particular with the explanation. He will understand it, because his majority in his own constituency also decreased. As I said, the percentage of votes in favour of the National Party decreased from 58.3 per cent to 54.8 per cent. However, the explanation for that is very clear. While the United Party’s total number of votes remained static, and that of the National Party decreased, the Hertzog Party polled 3.6 per cent of the total number of votes. That explains the decrease in the total vote in favour of the National Party. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition waxed so eloquent here about his policy, but what progress has he in fact made? Did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition make any progress at all if one bears in mind that his percentage of the votes remained the same?

What percentage of votes?

The percentage of the votes cast. After all, one does not win with votes other than those which have been cast. That is the most important thing. But what is of importance to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not only that the percentage of votes in favour of his party remained the same, but also the progress made by the hon. member for Houghton. The progress made by the hon. member for Houghton and the votes which she drew, votes which one would normally have expected the United Party to draw, are of great importance to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. And one need only refer to what happened in Houghton itself. I must admit that I too made a mistake as far as the United Party was concerned, and not only as far as my own results were concerned. This was the second election in which I expected them to get rid of the hon. member for Houghton. However, I am no longer going to rely on the United Party as far as that is concerned. It would be useless. It is not only a question of the progress made by the hon. member for Houghton. Just ask the hon. member for Sea Point what he thinks. [Interjections.] There is something he could tell this House in that connection.

I do not want to go into that matter any further now. I just want to say that any impression which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition may have created, i.e. that there was a swing away from the National Party to the United Party, has, on the basis of the figures, no substance whatsoever. The National Party—and I am saying this merely for the sake of the record—fought this election under the most unfavourable circumstances. In the first instance, it fought the election knowing full well that it had been in power for all of 23 years. It is obvious that when a party has been in power for so long, grievances and frustrations will arise which will affect it. This is not a phenomenon which is restricted only to South Africa. It occurs throughout the world. I am aware of this and we all know that this is the case. One also realizes that the election was fought whilst climatic conditions were prevailing which were without precedent in the history of South Africa. These were conditions which had to have psychological and other effects as well. I am allowing for that. In addition, all of us know, and this was in fact proved in the election, that we were faced with a rebellion in our own ranks. This also took its toll in the election. These were the objective facts with which we were faced.

But in this election we also had to deal with methods—and these I want to lay at the door of the hon. the Leader and his people—which too were without precedent in our country. These were methods which cannot be defended. These methods employed by the Opposition were such that their own newspapers had to call them to order. I can mention numerous examples of this to you. A few will suffice. It was necessary for, inter alia, The Friend, a newspaper which supported the United Party throughout the election, to issue a very stern warning to the United Party in a leading article on 10th March and to mention a certain Senator, Redi Louw, by name because of the irresponsible things he had had to say during the election. It was necessary for them to mention a certain Mr. G. van Schalkwyk, the United Party candidate in Kimberley (North), by name as a result of the type of propaganda he was making. That was not all. Apart from what appeared in the Cape Times and other newspapers, it was necessary for the Daily News to call a certain Mr. Myburgh to order in a leading article on 12th March. This was the kind of propaganda hon. members of the Opposition were guilty of. These were not ordinary agents or canvassers which one could perhaps excuse. These were leading members of the United Party who were guilty of this kind of thing. Apart from the insinuations in respect of the integrity of individuals, it was character assassination that was in many respects committed.

In this debate the hon. the Leader of the Opposition found it necessary to call in Dr. Hertzog as well. I would like to say a word about that as well in passing. Because it was deemed to be in the interests of South Africa and of future relations in this country, members on this side of the House did not hesitate for one moment to state, unequivocally, their standpoint in opposition to those policies mentioned by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. This was done from one platform to another. But what did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition do? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition took the persons who proclaimed those policies under his protection throughout. He did not have the courage of his convictions to adopt a standpoint. He was afraid that he would by so doing forfeit the support of those people. This is a fact, and there are numerous hon. members sitting on my side of the House who can testify to how the United Party and those people worked hand in hand in the election … [Interjections.]

Order!

… in those constituencies where there were no United Party candidates. For example, there were the constituencies of George, Waterberg and Heilbron-Frankfort. These are only three out of many other examples. There was open cooperation between the United Party and these people. Everybody outside knows this. Numerous examples of this can be mentioned. For me and for us on this side of the House it was no pleasant task to repudiate former colleagues and to take a stand against them as we did. We had the courage to do so, because it was in the interests of South Africa and future race relations.

[Inaudible.]

One need not hide behind that now. We are dealing with serious arguments now. If time allows I shall point out other examples as well. Therefore it does not befit the hon. member to make unmotivated statements here. Let me, before I forget, deal with the one statement he made in respect of my European tour. I found it terribly amusing to hear from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that, although I held talks with leaders, “I did not make contact with the people ”. That is what the hon. member said and that is how it is recorded in Hansard. I wrote it down here. But, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member read it in that little Nussey fellow’s report in the Star. That is where the hon. member read it; it is stated word for word like that in the report of this young man from the Star, who did his best to detract from the significance of this tour. In any case, what utter nonsense is this the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke here? Just imagine, you are in Portugal, in Spain, in France, and in none of these countries can you speak or understand the language of the people; must you jump around on the motor cars in public like Bobby Kennedy so that the people can see you? What nonsense and what rubbish! Or should I have told these people that I would hold a barbecue for them in some square or other and that they should come along? Surely that is utter nonsense. Surely one goes to those countries to have talks with the leaders of the people.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, I shall come to that. I am obliged to report to Parliament in that regard. One goes there to have talks with the leaders of these nations. One goes there to give newspaper interviews and I did that in every country. One goes there and appears on their television if they so desire, and I did that in every country. One goes there to address press conferences and in these ways one makes contact with the people and the nation. How else must you make contact with them? Surely it is the most foolish thing possible to put forward arguments of this kind.

But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is once again presenting the old argument which we have been hearing in this House for years, i.e. the argument of the isolation to which we are subjected. Let us reply to this now for the umpteenth time. Let us consider this argument in the light of contact with other states in the world. When we on this side of the House took over the government, that side of the House had only found it necessary to have contact, in the interests of South Africa, with 19 states in the world. They had diplomatic representation in one form or another—and there are many forms of diplomatic contact and representation—with 19 states.

How many states were there at that time?

There were many more than that mere 19. To mention only one example to the hon. member, there were all the South American states. The hon. member would do better to concern himself with his court case than with these matters. In spite of the so-called unpopularity of this Government, in spite of the hostility towards South Africa which exists in the world, which we are fully aware of, this Government has over the years succeeded in establishing diplomatic representation in one form or another with no fewer than 65 world states. I may as well inform hon. members that it will not remain at that number. Diplomatic representation with other states will be established as surely as night follows day (padda in die water spring), as the hon. member for East London (City) put it at the prorogation of the previous session, when he said that they would win the election, but then they unfortunately put the lid on it. That further diplomatic representation will come. Is this a sign of isolation? In the field of science there is a greater exchange of knowledge and more association and contact between our scientists and scientists throughout the world than ever before. In the economic field there is more contact and more trade relations between our businessmen and other businessmen in the world than ever before. It is true that there is a setback in the field of sport to-day and tomorrow, again a victory on another front. This is true, but must one now, as a result, make the general statement here that South Africa is isolated and that this Government is to blame for it?

I come now to an argument presented without rhyme or reason by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He does not even attempt to substantiate his charges. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition simply goes on record as having said that in respect of education and training we have not done our duty and that there has been complete neglect. He said that we had not created the necessary facilities and had not made the necessary money available. Surely that is utter nonsense, something which one would expect from a back-bencher and not from the Leader of the Opposition. One expects from the leader of an opposition that he would at least take the figures and that he would base his arguments on them. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that in 1947 a subsidy of R1.8 million for all our universities was made available by the United Party Government. In the short period of 23 years that amount increased under this Government to R46.3 million in 1970. Hon. members can work out for themselves with what a large percentage that amount increased. The population of South Africa did not increase in the same proportion. Nor did our national product increase in the same proportion. The amount increased because this Government gave the matter priority and realized that for the South Africa we have to build, we need properly trained people. That is why we made the necessary funds available to this extent. To indicate how strongly the Government felt about this matter, I should like to mention a few figures. This subsidy of R1.8 million in 1947 increased gradually because facilities first had to be created and it takes time to make up a backlog. In 1964 this subsidy amounted to R14 million, in 1968 R21 million, and two years later R47 million. In spite of this the hon. the Leader of the Opposition complained without rhyme or reason, that the Government had done nothing in this connection. If one wants to take the elementary trouble of placing South Africa in its true perspective in relation to the outside world, one has only to examine the number of students attending South African universities. After all, it is from these people that we get the industrial leaders and scientists of the future. That is what one must ensure if one wants to build up a country as we want to build up South Africa. Let the hon. the Leader of the Opposition have no illusions: we are going to build it up as surely as I am standing here. In 1948, when the Government of hon. members opposite was in power, there were 18,500 university students in South Africa. I want to repeat that our population has not been doubled or trebled since that time. In 1970 our universities drew approximately 70,000 students, who had to be accommodated. With what groundless nonsense is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition coming to light now in a motion of censure by asserting that we have not done our duty in this regard? But apart from that he can simply look at the borrowing powers granted to the universities over the years and in his time, which at this stage under this Government are already standing at R25 million. It is therefore obvious that, whether one views it from the point of view of borrowing powers, from the point of view of subsidies or from the point of view of students, South Africa is giving its youth the right education in order to take their place as leaders in the various spheres.

What applies to the universities applies to vocational training as well. The figures are there for anyone who wants an objective picture. Not only does this apply in respect of the Whites, it also applies in respect of the non-Whites, for the simple reason that our standpoint is and remains that we can use every trained and educated non-White in South Africa. We can use them with very beneficial results. But if one were to listen to these hon. members, particularly when they are discussing manpower, one would be convinced that they could fetch the rawest Bantu in the reserves and let him do the most advanced work in our industries. That is the kind of argument they want to turn this into.

The hon. the Leader used another dangerous argument, which I cannot allow to go unanswered. He used the argument of the communists and the liberalists against us in this debate. When I say “us ” I mean South Africa. [Interjections.] Yes, it is true. He used that argument against South Africa, i.e. the fact that the Whites have more land here in South Africa than the Bantu possess. Surely that is a dangerous argument to use. Not only does it fail to take into account the course of history and where each nation settled here in South Africa, but I would also like to put this question to the hon. the Leader: If he raises the question of the Whites having more land than the Bantu in a debate on a motion of censure, is it his intention to take more land away from the Whites and give it to the Bantu? If it is not his intention to do so, why does he use this argument in the House? We know what the standpoint of this side of the House is. Our standpoint over the years has been that the land which belongs to the Whites is the land which belongs to them lawfully and historically, and that the land which belongs to the Blacks belongs to them historically because they took possession of it for themselves and our forefathers maintained and protected them in their tenure of that land over the centuries. We shall continue to do so in future as well, as often as it may be necessary. We have said that we are going further. We shall honour the white man’s word that he gave to the Bantu in 1936, i.e. that he would cede 7¼ million morgen of his land to the Bantu. We know that this is being done over the years. But the hon. member for Houghton will agree with me that it was in fact on the question of this land that the Progressive Party broke away in Bloemfontein.

Yes.

The hon. member is telling me that this is the case. This was only one of the reasons for the dispute which arose.

I did not know you would be guilty of telling a half-truth.

You must thrash that out with the hon. member for Houghton.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

What words?

That the hon. the Prime Minister is guilty of telling a half-truth.

I withdraw.

Mr. Speaker, that is how it was reflected at the time in the newspapers. I have called in the one witness who was present there, i.e. the hon. member for Houghton. She said that that was the case. I have no reason for not accepting her word as an hon. member. Against that background the hon. member had the temerity, if I may put it like that, to use that as an argument in this motion of censure. With what purpose he alone will know. Sir, the hon. member’s difficulty—and he has a major difficulty in this regard—is this: He did, it is true, gain additional seats in the last election. He did not gain them owing to the appeal of his policy. He gained them as a result, on the one hand, of the factors I mentioned here, and on the other as a result of the fact—and I want to give them full credit for this to-day in this debate—that the English-language press fought an election as no newspaper group ever did before. I want to grant them that. But it made the hon. member a captive of those newspapers, because it is axiomatic in politics that the man who makes you can break you as well, and whether hon. members want to laugh it away or not, the fact remains that they know in their hearts that that is the position, and that they will to an increasing extent be subjected to having the line of action which they will have to follow in future, dictated to them. And they will have to pay the price for that.

But to conclude this aspect of the matter, and just in order to complete the record, what grounds does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition have for a motion of censure if the figures at our disposal tell us that here you have a government which after so many years held an election under those unfavourable circumstances and still came back with a majority of 71 seats out of a House of 166? And in the second instance, what reason is there for making the kind of speech the hon. the Leader made if the figures tell you that the Government which was elected in South Africa, knowing South African political circumstances as we do, was elected with a majority of 262,000 votes? And to make it simpler to understand, more than a quarter of a million out of fewer than 1,500,000 votes cast? Then it becomes somewhat nonsensical to move a motion of censure in the terms in which the hon. member did so. Now I want to say this to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and he knows it to be true, that never before was the policy of a government subjected to such a close scrutiny as it was at this election. This happened as a result of the fact that the Government did not have to fight on one front only, but had to fight on various fronts. It happened as a result of the fact that there was no consideration for anything or anybody in newspaper reports or propaganda. In other words, never before—and the circumstances ensured this—was such scrupulous attention given to every trivial thing that happened as in this election. Never before was a minor incident so blown up into an international crisis as during this election. And in spite of that, Sir, this Government gained that majority and, I want to repeat this categorically here to-day. this Government received an absolute mandate to proceed with its policy, and it will do so. [Interjections.]

Order!

In regard to the other points, I do not think it will serve any purpose, except in so far as I shall cover them, to deal now with the old election issues which are something of the past, or to say anything further about the old debating points which we have mulled over ad nauseam over the years in this House. I do not think it will serve any useful purpose to discuss them with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I just want to say a few words in regard to one matter to which he referred, and that is the question of relations. I had a great deal to say about this in the election. All of us discussed this matter, and it is good and right that we should discuss it, because it is of increasing importance to us here in South Africa, to whatever political party we may belong.

If one looks at the world outside, if one reads our newspapers or listens to the radio, one realizes only too well that virtually three-quarters of the problems of the world in one country after another are caused by disturbed relations, whether between religious groups, whether between employees and employers, whether between language groups or between colour groups. This is the case throughout the world, and for South Africa, which has all these problems—some countries have only one of those problems; but we have virtually all one can think of—it is of greater importance than for most other countries, and it is all the more important for South Africa because she finds herself in this threatened situation in which she stands to-day.

We have all those problems plus a Nationalist Government.

Yes, if there was one true word spoken during this election, it was spoken by our candidate in Wynberg when she said that the average U.P. supporter thinks Progressive, votes U.P. and thanks the Lord for the National Party Government. [Laughter.] For us this is of supreme importance, and I do not think it is a joking matter. No matter what party we belong to, it is very important to us. I said in the election, and I want to repeat now, that even if I had known in the past election that not a single English-speaking person would vote for my party and my policy, I would still have advocated the same policy in respect of Afrikaans-English relations. But I think it must be placed on record, and it is something to be grateful for, that this election, in which matters were subjected to such a close scrutiny, proved indisputably—and there I must agree with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—that our people have made progress and that we have in fact become much more mature, because in contrast to what happened in former years—and now I am not talking about the 1966 election; I am referring to the years prior to that— there was more voting across the language boundary in this election; and as far as the National Party is concerned, it is very clear to me from an analysis of the election results that at least 140,000 English-speaking persons must have voted for the National Party. [Interjection.] If the hon. member for Yeoville is interested in this calculation, I can tell him how I arrived at it. I think there are only two facts which one has to establish in order to arrive at that calculation. The first fact which one must establish is what the present language ratio is for those who are entitled to vote. I am speaking in general now. It has been scientifically proved and established that the language ratio is in fact 58 per cent Afrikaans-speaking as against 42 per cent non-Afrikaans speaking people. This is a fact which anyone can establish. The second fact one must establish is how many Afrikaans-speaking people voted for the United Party. I would find it interesting if the hon. member for Yeoville would tell me what he has in mind as regards this percentage.

It is approximately one-third of the Afrikaans-speaking people.

No, I think the hon. member is exaggerating. It is certainly not 33 per cent. I asked real authorities in this field to work it out, and they work it out to be 17 per cent. Now the hon. member must realize that if it is 17 per cent one arrives at this interesting calculation. Where one’s language ratio is 58 per cent to 42 per cent, the votes cast indicated that the National Party plus the Hertzog group received 58 per cent of the votes, or a little more than 58 per cent, and the United Party and the Progressive Party received a little less than 42 per cent. In other words, because one proceeds from the assumption that the number of English-speaking people who voted for the Hertzog Party is minimal … [Interjections.] … If one assumes that, it follows automatically that because the ratio is 58 per cent to 42 per cent, the National Party must have obtained the same percentage of English votes as the United Party obtained Afrikaans-speaking votes; otherwise the ratio would be incorrect and the calculation could not work out. And if it is 17 per cent, 17 per cent of 820,000 gives you approximately 140.000. but if it is one-third, it is far more than that. (Laughter.] I am simply mentioning this because I want to say how glad I am that we have become so mature. I am grateful, when I think of the future, that there is the prospect that this sound relationship between Afrikaans and English speaking people will be and will remain stable.

But having said that, I have to avail myself again to-day of my position in this House to make a very urgent appeal, as I did during the election, to all our people, my own people and the people who do not belong to my party, Afrikaans-speaking people as well as English-speaking people: Let us behave towards one another in such a manner and let us regard one another’s cultural heritage with so much respect that we do not give one another offence. Sir, if we have regard to the problems which are lying in wait for us and on which I want to dwell for a moment, it is of cardinal importance—though we may differ with one another in politics—that we do not provoke one another as far as these matters are concerned, and it is of absolute, cardinal importance that there should be mutual respect for each other’s languages. I do not with to apportion blame now. Far be it from me to apportion blame at this stage; this is a serious question in regard to which each of us can ask ourselves whether any blame attaches to us, and disregard for the language of any person, in commerce or in any other sphere, gives offence; there is not the slightest doubt about that.

Talk to the Minister of Tourism; talk to your own Cabinet.

Talk to Natal …

I did not fling any reproaches at that hon. member. I do not know why he has to answer me like that, for this simple reason: I have often spoken to him and I have shown him the respect of addressing him in his language, but so far he has never addressed me in my language. But there is no need for us to reproach each other in respect of these matters. It is incumbent on all of us—on the politician, on the businessman, on everybody—to respect the other man’s language, and I appeal to everybody to do so, irrespective of the party to which he belongs or the particular views he holds on the matter.

Sir, it also pleases me that it is possible for us to face the future, not only with the expectation that things will go well for us along this course, but also with the expectation that there will be good relations between the Whites and the Coloureds in future. Hon. members will notice that it was foreshadowed in the Opening Address that talks would take place in the future between the Government on the one hand and, on the other hand, the Executive of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council on the channel of communication which ought to exist between Parliament and that institution. The Coloureds are appreciative of the institution they have received; they appreciate the powers and the privileges they have been granted. They are progressively finding their feet, and I believe that in the course of time they will develop that institution. These talks will not be easy—I readily admit that—but they will have to take place, and what flows from them will to a very large extent determine our relations in the future. I do not have the slightest doubt that, with mutual dedication to the task imposed on us, we shall be able to create the necessary machinery in that regard to everybody’s satisfaction.

On the Indian front the impression I have gained is that things are going well and, furthermore, that the machinery and facilities which have been created for that group of people are giving satisfaction.

As regards the Bantu, the hon. member for Transkei said in his speech in the no-confidence debate last session that it was imperative for the United Party to come into power, for if the United Party did not come into power “then the point of no return will be reached ”. The hon. member is quite correct; the United Party did not come into power and the National Party is proceeding with its policy of Bantu homelands. The National Party is proceeding with its systematic preparation for the self-determination which will eventually fall to the share of those Bantu territories. I want to make this very clear to this House to-day, as I have in recent times often come across this problem. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is right to some extent, and others who are of the same opinion are right to some extent: It is not easy to sell South Africa’s case to the outside world. I want to go further: One cannot sell the case of the National Party or the United Party or the Progressive Party to the outside world without making concessions. What the outside world wants from us, those hon. members are not prepared to concede, we are definitely not prepared to concede, and even the hon. member for Houghton is not prepared to concede, in spite of the camouflage she puts up in that regard. It is and remains a fact that it is not easy to sell South Africa’s case. But, Sir, I have come to the firm conviction that the moment one makes the admission which the United Party has made from time to time and which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition once again made to-day by implication—i.e. “that we are a multi-racial country ”—one does not have a leg to stand on and one has no possible chance of selling one’s policy to them, because the moment one concedes— and I have tried it out time and again, here and elsewhere—that one is a multi-racial country and that one wants to remain a multiracial country for ever and, to tell the truth, that one will fight, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, to make South Africa a multi-racial country, that one will not allow people to break away or to follow their own course, that one will keep them together by force, if necessary, one receives this damning reply: “If you want to do all those things; if you are even prepared to use force to achieve your object, and you admit that you are a multi-racial country, why do you not grant equal rights to every race in that country and, more specifically, why do you not grant equal political rights to all of them, irrespective of social differences and what may or may not be there? ”

Do you find this a difficult argument to reply to?

No, Sir, this is not my policy. It is the hon. member’s task to sell that case to the outside world. My case is very easy; my case is that we are not a multiracial country; we are a multi-national country. Sir, I have found in practice that in adopting the attitude that we are a multi-national country, I have a much better chance …

We are both.

Yes, there is an element of both, but when people in the outside world attack South Africa, they do so on the Bantu question, and one has to defend oneself against them on the Bantu question— the hon. member knows this as well as I do— and I can defend myself against them in respect of the Bantu by saying that, as far as the Bantu are concerned, we are not a multiracial country, but a multi-national country, each nation with its own language, its own traditions, its own land, no matter how small or how large it may be in extent, and that this is my ultimate policy, and in the years that lie ahead that policy will be developed further—let there be no doubt about this—until self-determination has been accomplished, and that to an increasing extent those people are being given opportunities for and the right to self-determination. I want to state this very emphatically here, Sir. We owe this to ourselves and to the outside world. Unlike the United Party, which says that it will keep these people with us by force, if necessary, the National Party states its case very clearly by saying that it does not stand in the way of any nation that wishes to become independent, and if and when, for the purposes of granting such independence, it should become necessary for consultation to take place—for this is the course it has to take—between the Government and the Administration of those Bantu homelands, such consultation can take place, and the machinery for that purpose has been created with care and with competence by the present Minister and his predecessor. Not only have we created the machinery as far as the organs of government are concerned, but only last year this Parliament placed its stamp on the citizenship of each of those Bantu homelands. We shall continue building on that basis. But I want to make this very clear here as it has so pointedly been my experience: We can make many mistakes, but there is one mistake we should never make, i.e. we should not see in our Bantu the parallel of the American Negro, because there is no parallel between the two at all. The Negroes are black Americans who have no language, traditions, or homeland or anything peculiar to themselves, whereas our Bantu have their own language, traditions, customs, land and aspirations.

But what about our own Coloureds? Do they have their own language and land?

Sir, I have just referred to that, and I replied to that question last year as well as the year before. The hon. member may issue a statement on that to-morrow if he wants to do so.

Sir, I say that it is necessary for us to look at the relations here in South Africa, and I make bold to say that if one has regard to all the provocation that has been given, if one has regard to all the wilful people who wish to disturb these relations, if one has regard to the newspaper editors and reporters who go out of their way in order to blow up every little incident simply to cause ill-feeling among the various groups, one sees that we have made tremendous progress along this course, thanks to this party. Far from this party and this Government deserving censure, it should be commended for having, under all those circumstances, caused these relations to proceed as smoothly as has been the case in recent times.

Then, Sir, we come to our relations with other countries. In this regard it is necessary for me, especially with reference to what was said by President Kaunda, to state very emphatically that South Africa does not have any evil intentions as regards any other nation in Africa or in the world. It is not our intention to wage war against anybody. Furthermore, especially in recent times this is being mentioned specifically, because the question of arms to South Africa has cropped up. Let me now state very clearly—and I am glad that I can say this not only on behalf of my side of the House, but on behalf of both sides of the House—that we do not need arms from any country in the world for the purpose of attacking anybody. We do not need arms for the purpose of attacking anybody, in the first instance because we do not want to attack anybody and there is no need for us to do so, and, in the second instance, because we ourselves are manufacturing more than enough arms for the purpose of attacking anybody if we should ever have something like that in mind. But South Africa is not intent on seeking war, neither in Southern Africa nor anywhere else; South Africa is intent on seeking peace under all circumstances. Of course, it goes without saying that if we were attacked, we would defend ourselves with might and main. This is common knowledge to friend and foe alike. But violence and trouble will not come from our side. The biggest nonsense a leader in Africa has delivered himself of in recent times is what, according to the Press, Kaunda said to the head of Mauritius, who paid him a visit, when he (Kaunda) reportedly said that if arms were supplied to South Africa, they would be used for the purpose of attacking Mauritius and Zambia. I want to state here categorically that to make such a statement is not only nonsensical, but also malicious.

As I have said, South Africa does not need arms from anybody for the purpose of committing aggression. We seek, in the first instance, peace and the safeguarding of the Cape route. And we do not seek this for ourselves alone. Here, I think, the Leader of the Opposition and I are speaking the same language when I say that if we reduce this matter to its basics, the Cape route is probably more important to Europe than it is to us. To the Americas this route is, of course, not as important since it lies away from them. But to Europe this route is probably more important than it is to us. If this route were lost, we would suffer, and suffer a great deal at that, but it would still be possible for us to survive. Europe, however, is dependent on it for its raw materials and for certain food supplies, and consequently it would find it much more difficult to cope than we would. I am very grateful to be able to say, with reference to what I have seen and with reference to discussions I have had, that a better understanding of the need to retain the Cape route has come about. Such an understanding has been gained by the heads of many states. The long continued propaganda we have been making in regard to this matter has finally fallen on fertile soil. One is intensely grateful for that. In fact, we should be grateful for that—and here hon. members must accept my word—if we look at the military picture and see what large-scale Russian infiltration has already taken place into the waters around Southern Africa—at places where they normally have no business to be and where one would not expect them to be. Just look at the nests they have made for themselves both at sea and on land. If one observes the feverishness with which they are establishing themselves here in the Southern Hemisphere, it must be obvious to all of us that they are here for a purpose, which, in addition to the other objectives they may have, is to sabotage this route around the Cape if and when it suits them. One appreciates how vulnerable the position is if one considers that as a result of the closure of Suez no fewer than 75 ships are sailing in our coastal waters every day, and that every day 620 vessels are present in this area within a distance of 3½ days from our coastal waters. Along with these factors we should have regard to the expansion of the Russian submarine fleet and the establishment of bases in connection therewith, something on which I need not elaborate at this juncture. All of this makes us realize what havoc they can wreak on shipping if they were to deem it necessary at a given moment. That is why one is glad that, regard being had to this position, a greater appreciation of the importance of the Cape sea route has come about.

Hon. members will expect me, or ask me, to state what the position is in regard to the supply of arms by the Conservative Government of Britain. At this stage it is, unfortunately, not yet possible for me to make any official announcement in this regard. Hon. members may be aware of the fact that an official announcement on this matter will be made in the British House of Commons to-day. How far it will go, I do not know. However, I assume that as honourable people the gentlement of the British Government will keep their word, which was given both privately and officially, as well as the election promises they made. This is what I assume, and along with hon. members I am therefore awaiting an announcement on this matter.

It is in our interests, and this is also how I felt about the matter, that we should make closer contact with other states. For that reason I paid a visit inter alia to Malawi. This and our relations with Portugal clearly show that South Africa’s standpoint is correct, i.e. that it is possible for one to have good relations with other states without pursuing the same domestic policy as they do. There is a world of difference between our policy and that of Portugal and between our policy and that of Malawi. Each of us has our own standpoint and views and, in spite of that, it is nevertheless possible for us to have friendly relations with one another and to receive one another as it ought to be done.

As far as Rhodesia is concerned, there has been no change in our attitude. We have stated that attitude over the years, and it is still the same. I paid a visit to that country, because it was consistent with the relations which have existed between these two countries over the years. We are concerned with sound relations with all states in Southern Africa, for this is where we have to live and work. I believe that as far as this is concerned, we have not only made a good deal of progress, but shall also make more progress as the years go by. We have problems with certain African states, but there will be an opportunity later on for furnishing this House with more detailed information in this regard.

Therefore the hon. the Leader of the Opposition need not be concerned about what the relations policy of this Government is in regard to its various population groups, nor about what our relations policy is in regard to the outside world; above all, he need not be concerned about our future economic position. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that the guarantee for a country’s survival lay in its military and economic strength. These are but two of the things that are necessary. There are many others that can be mentioned. For instance, a third factor which is absolutely essential as well, is the moral strength and the faith of one’s people. We as a Government are mindful of all these things. As far as the military factor is concerned, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is aware that small as we are, we are, with the means at our disposal, engaged in making South Africa a medium-class power. We can never hope to be more than that. However, this I know: We shall be a good medium-class power.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to our economic growth. Surely he is aware that before the war we had an average growth rate of 4 per cent a year, and also that later on, in the fifties, we pushed this up to 5 per cent. He is also aware that for the decade that ended in 1970, we maintained an average growth rate of 6 per cent—an average rate of 6 per cent over ten years, notwithstanding all the problems with which we were faced, notwithstanding the after-effects of Sharpeville and of other problems. I make bold to say that if we drew a comparison, we would find that in the whole of Europe only Spain and Greece had a growth rate higher than 6 per cent. In fact, according to figures furnished by UNO, only 14 countries in the entire world had a growth rate higher than that from 1960 to 1967, and this was accomplished in spite of the fact that our real growth only started in 1962. I could say more about the economy if time permitted, but I shall leave this to my colleagues, who will deal with it more fully.

In passing, and because it is important, I want to point out to the Leader of the Opposition, who expressed concern at this matter, that as far as border industries are concerned, we already have approved posts for 83,000 Bantu in those industries. If we have regard to the economic fact that in respect of tertiary industries we have two Bantu for every one who is accommodated in industry, and if we were to allot to each of those Bantu five dependants (which is not an unreasonable number, and which is the acceptable standard with which everybody is faced), it means that, thanks to the Government’s border industry policy, its policy of decentralization and its use of the agency basis within the Bantu territories concerned, it has made it possible to retain there 1½ million Bantu in all. The policy of those hon. members is that not only the Bantu labourer should come here, but that also his family should be housed and kept here. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition need not be concerned about those matters.

Sir, I referred in passing to the way in which we have over the years been doing our duty towards South Africa both in the sphere of education and on the research front. We have made available to our scientists facilities which, small as we are, are unique. Over the years we have from time to time reaped the benefits of this step. I am very grateful that I am in a position to-day to make an important and far-reaching statement in regard to this matter.

*Because it is of such importance, I take this opportunity of making the following statement in English so that there can be no misunderstanding about it:

In view of South Africa’s large deposits of uranium, one of the most important objectives the research and development programme of the Atomic Energy Board, which was launched in 1959 with the approval of the Government was to process South African uranium to a form more advanced than uranium concentrate. Important progress was made in this regard and was in fact reported on from time to time by the Chairman of the Board.

It is well known that a number of countries are carrying out research and development work in the field of uranium enrichment, i.e. to process uranium to its most sophisticated form. In many countries this work is being done without their having the motivation of their own uranium production, which South Africa has in no small measure. (I lay stress on this point because it is very important in South Africa’s case.) It is therefore obvious that the Atomic Energy Board would concern itself with this subject particularly for two reasons:

1. (i)As a result of the increased demand for uranium in the enriched form, it is obvious that South Africa, as one of the largest uranium producing countries in the world, will consider it in its own interest to market uranium in the enriched form.
2. (ii)South Africa finds itself on the eve of a large nuclear power programme of its own—of the order of 20,000 megawatts (electrical) by the end of this century, If such a programme can be based on enriched uranium, it will result in a very marked capital saving. However, such a course can only be followed if the supply of enriched uranium can be guaranteed, which, in the difficult world in which we live, implies own production.

Scientists of the Atomic Energy Board succeeded in developing a new process for uranium enrichment, as well as the extensive associated technology, and they are presently engaged on the building of a pilot plant for the enrichment of uranium based on this process. South African scientists have thus again added to the prestige of their country in no uncertain terms. In the past they have made lasting contributions to science, but perhaps the achievement that I am announcing to-day is unequalled in the history of our country.

To appreciate to some extent the scope of the achievement of the scientists of the Atomic Energy Board. I need only mention that because of the enormous costs of uranium enrichment, only the United States of America, the United Kingdom and France in the Western world have such plants. The plant in France, which was the latest to be erected in the West, and which is appreciably smaller than the U.S.A. plants, cost approximately R700 million (development costs included). The high cost stems on the one hand from the development and application of the sophisticated technology associated with uranium enrichment and which is kept strictly secret by those who possess it, and on the other hand from the fact that uranium can only be enriched at a reasonable cost in very large plants.

The South African process, which is unique in its concept, is presently developed to the stage where it is estimated that under South African conditions, a large scale plant can be competitive with existing plants in the West. What is more important is that the process still holds appreciable possibilities for further development, and research and development to achieve this are continuing.

It is unfortunately not possible to mention the names of all the scientists and technical personnel who contributed to this important development. However, I would like to mention two who were associated with the project from the beginning and are still guiding the development. They are Dr. A. J. A. Roux and Dr. W. L. Grant. Dr. Roux, at present Chairman of the Board, initiated the development when he called a meeting of heads of divisions in the early sixties and requested them, in the light of the importance of uranium enrichment for South Africa as a large uranium producer, to consider alternative processes for uranium enrichment. One of the heads at that time, Dr. W. L. Grant, presently Director-General of the Board, proposed the principle of the new process.

Under the general guidance of Dr. Roux, the work was continued and in his present capacity as Chairman, he still devotes a great deal of his time to the promotion of this project, of which a multitude of aspects call for his personal attention. From the start Dr. Grant was project leader, a task which he, together with his team of scientists and technical personnel, carried through with vigour to eventual success. These two scientists—a complementary team—who have been closely associated for 22 years in the service of science in South Africa, have through their combined effort and guidance made possible this important development—a development which nevertheless would never have succeeded had it not been for the real contribution (in some cases very important), zeal and loyalty of the personnel who were associated with the project.

In making this important announcement I would again like to emphasize, as has so often been done by the Government, that South Africa’s research and development programme in the field of nuclear energy is directed entirely towards peaceful purposes. I must stress this again because as we all know, this will be misinterpreted. I must therefore say again that it is directed entirely towards peaceful purposes. I would like to go even further. South Africa does not intend to withhold the considerable advantages inherent in this development from the world community. We are therefore prepared to collaborate in the exploitation of this process with any non-communist countries desiring to do so, but subject to the conclusion of an agreement safeguarding our interests. I must, however, emphasize that our sole objective in the further development and application of the process would be to promote the peaceful application of nuclear energy. Only then can it be to our benefit and the benefit of mankind.

I also wish to state emphatically that South Africa is prepared to subject its nuclear activities to a safeguards system including inspection, subject to the conditions that:

1. (i)South Africa will in no way be limited in the promotion of the peaceful application of nuclear energy;
2. (ii)South Africa will not run the risk of details of the new process leaking out as a result of the safeguards inspection system; and
3. (iii)The safeguards system, while efficient, is to be implemented on such a reasonable basis as to avoid interference with the normal efficient operation of the particular industries.

South Africa, as the House knows, has not yet acceded to the non-profileration treaty, and has on various occasions clearly stated that it would consider participation as soon as the safeguards system to which South Africa would be subjected, is known. The International Atomic Energy Agency is at present devising its safeguards system and as soon as its nature and scope are known, South Africa will seriously consider accession to the treaty in the light of the foregoing exposition.

In conclusion, I would like to mention that during the present Session of Parliament an Act will be introduced by the Minister of Mines to establish a corporation for the enrichment of uranium and to provide for matters incidental thereto.

*As we have to pay regard to the fact that the idea is steadily gaining ground that the world’s known coal and petroleum resources will have been exhausted in approximately 50 years’ time—in some countries it may take more time, in others less—a developing country or, for that matter, any other country will therefore be more and more dependent on nuclear energy for its power and fuel. Bearing this in mind, I believe that through this new process which has been developed by our scientists, a process which is not only new, but also has the potential of being improved and becoming cheaper, it will be possible to meet the future needs of South Africa. I believe that South Africa has made a colossal contribution on this peaceful front, and that South Africa is prepared to share that contribution, as I have explained in this statement. I want to extend my gratitude and appreciation and congratulations to Dr. Roux and Dr. Grant and to everybody who was associated with them in this project. This is a great and magnificent service which has been rendered to South Africa. It has furnished proof that in so many spheres South Africa has at its disposal the services of great scientists of world class.

One looks to the future. I do not know why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is afraid of the future. I myself am not afraid of the future. I believe in it so much the more because I am convinced in my own mind that the only way in which South Africa can be governed, is in terms of the policy and principles of the National Party. What is of greater importance, is not what I believe or what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or his people believe. What is of greater importance, is that the voters of South Africa believe in it too.

Mr. Speaker, we had a very interesting performance from the hon. the Prime Minister to-day. It was a speech with a climax and a speech with several anti-climaxes. I am very pleased to be able to say immediately that everybody in South Africa is overjoyed at the Prime Minister’s announcement that our scientists, Dr. Roux and Dr. Grant, together with their colleagues, have succeeded in developing a new and probably more effective process for the refinement of uranium.

This is a source of pride to every South African. It is a source of joy, because it opens new possibilities for South Africa, also in its relations with the rest of the world. We immediately want to express our joy and to extend our sincere congratulations to the scientists concerned on their splendid achievement. While the Prime Minister was speaking and was pointing out that it is in our interest to have uranium available in more refined form, I was astonished that he did not refer to the announcement of the Saldanha Bay project; I was struck by the thought whether it would not also be in our interest to have our other ores available in a more refined form. I was struck by the thought whether it is really in the interest of South Africa to export uranium and iron ore in the way we do while its refining in South Africa itself can provide greater opportunities and greater riches to South Africa.

You did not listen to the announcement.

No, I heard nothing which cast any light on this matter. There are two points on which I and, I believe, hon. members on this side of this House, are in complete agreement with the hon. the Prime Minister, and I want place this on record immediately.

Firstly, I refer to where the hon. the Prime Minister declared with so much emphasis that South Africa harbours no aggressive intentions against any other country in the world. I think the world should know that the official Opposition in South Africa shares that standpoint entirely. We believe that our Government has no aggressive intentions against any other country and we also believe that it is foreign to the character and the nature of our people to have such intentions. We agree with the Prime Minister that people who make such statements and base their standpoint against South Africa on the presumption that we may possibly have aggressive intentions, are under a complete illusion which can lead to erroneous conclusions and wrong actions which can only have unfortunate consequences for Africa.

I think I must go further and state that we of the official Opposition want to place on record that while we as a people harbour no aggressive intentions, it must be understood very clearly that should acts of aggression be committed against South Africa for some or other reason, the aggressor will be confronted by a people united as never before. I think this must be placed on record. I am saying this on the authority of every member on this side of this House, and especially on the authority of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I think it is perhaps important that the people who make these wild statements should explain why the only aggression committed in Southern Africa to-day comes from terrorists who are trained outside South Africa in order to harm us. They must explain to us why there is no similar action from our side against states in other parts of Africa who are hostile to us.

It is a long time since you asked such a sensible question.

The problem with that hon. Minister is that he never listens. He is so busy preparing himself to belittle other people that he has no time to listen to what they actually have in mind.

We are all interested in these matters which the Prime Minister mentioned and we can take them further later. But we are also greatly interested in the largest section of the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech. We expected a great speech to-day; we expected an important speech to-day; we expected a speech to-day which would portray the Government to us as a government with a profound vision, as a government which has great plans for South Africa. Judging by the Beeld, Dagbreek and all the newspapers which tell the Government what it should do—unfortunately the Government does not listen, because they sometimes give good advice—the Prime Minister would have released one bomb after another to-day in order to shatter the United Party once and for all. But we are still waiting. The only sensational and well-received statement made by the Prime Minister was that we can now refine uranium by means of a new process. This naturally falls to the credit of our scientists. Perhaps it would have been better for South Africa if those scientists sat in the Cabinet instead of the hon. the Prime Minister and the members of his Cabinet. Then we would perhaps have achieved something for South Africa. But where did the National Party’s politically controlled Press, the newspapers with the Ministers as their directors, get the idea to predict that the Prime Minister would make a great, powerful speech presenting a new dispensation and a new vision for South Africa? Where is it? The hon. the Prime Minister reproached my Leader with harping on the old themes. Where was the new tone in the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech? Where was something refreshing, something bringing new hope, something bringing new expectations, something which can bring relief for the South African people in that speech? It was petty logic-chopping from beginning to end, with the exceptions which I have already mentioned and for which I granted the hon. the Prime Minister the credit which he deserves. He referred to the old themes. But what must the Opposition do? I concede his argument: old themes were discussed. But how much new light did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not cast on these old matters? Here was vision. The best which the hon. the Prime Minister can hold in prospect for South Africa is that we shall become a medium class power. But by sound arguments which no economist and no sociologist can refute, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition pointed out that, provided we can change the policy of the Government and apply a truly enlightened outward policy in South Africa, we can become one of the ten most important states in the world before the end of the century. However, the hon. the Prime Minister did not react to that. He did not try to analyse, refute or approve of those arguments. He presented his own limited vision, his petty view, namely that if we are fortunate and if the Lord is merciful towards us while we remain under a Nationalist Party Government, which in itself will not be indicative of mercy, we can become medium-class people. What a contrast! How disappointed the Beeld, Dagbreek, the Transvaler, the Burger and the Oosterlig must be! These servants, these experts of the National Party who gave the Prime Minister such good advice, how disappointed must they not be? But he was incapable of implementing their advice.

The hon. the Prime Minister devoted much more time to the result of the election than the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did. I listened carefully. I wanted to establish what the hon. the Prime Minister’s argument was. Eventually, after I had made an interjection, he told me that the votes case were the main point. According to the hon. the Prime Minister’s own figures, the United Party drew the same percentage of votes, all the votes that count, as in 1966. These are his own figures. I can dispute them and I can argue about their application. But the National Party received between 4 and 5 per cent fewer votes than in 1966. Who is on the decline now? Surely this is the point: Who is on the decline? Not once did the hon. the Prime Minister explain to us how it happened that nine new members now occupy benches on this side of the House which were occupied by Nationalists before the dissolution of the previous Parliament. He did not explain to us how they fell out of the sky or how they happen to be here if there has been no progress on our side and no decline on that side of the House. Where is the hon. member for Zululand? Where is the hon. member for Umhlatuzana? Where is the hon. member for Benoni? Why is he in Langlaagte now? The hon. the Prime Minister should have explained these matters to us, but he did not even try to do so.

What about Florida?

Oh, there are so many; I cannot mention all of them.

Let us look back for a while. The statement which my hon. Leader made, namely that seldom in the history of South African politics has there been a governing political party which was so totally out of touch with the real feelings of the people, is a very valid one. I did not prepare myself for this subject so thoroughly, because I did not expect that the hon. the Prime Minister would discuss it to such an extent, but a Sunday or two before the election an article appeared in one of the South African Sunday newspapers which contained the hon. the Prime Minister’s prediction of the result of the election. I think it was in the Beeld. He predicted that they would win five more seats and that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would emerge from the election so humiliated that his self-respect would force him to quit the political field in South Africa. At a public meeting in Johannesburg the hon. the Minister of Transport gave the Prime Minister either Von Brandis or Bezuidenhout—I am not sure—as a present. The hon. the Prime Minister did not want to be outdone and then gave Von Brandis or Bezuidenhout—I am not sure how it actually happened—to the hon. the Minister of Transport as a present. Can hon. members believe that a government can be so out of touch? We tripled our majority in Bezuidenhout from 1,400 to 4,200. Nevertheless they gave these two seats as a present to each other before the election and not after the election. I just want to show how out of touch the Government is, and not only how out of touch it is, but also how presumptuous and arrogant it was. I think it was the Beeld which used Sanlam’s computer in order to predict the result of the election. The prediction was that there would be a larger majority for the National Party than ever before in the history of South Africa. One United Party seat after another would tumble: Von Brandis, Bezuidenhout, Gardens …

Hillbrow.

Yes, Hillbrow. [Laughter.] I am not fair towards them, I must not laugh. It was not Sanlam’s fault or the computer’s fault that the prediction was so erroneous. No, they fed the poor computer with information received from the Nationalist Party’s organization and its leaders. Do hon. members know what the information was?

They lied.

No, they were merely out of touch. They fed the computer with the information that the Afrikaans-speaking group was increasing by 2 per cent and therefore the number of voters supporting the National Party must be increased by 2 per cent as well. Then they simply fed the computer with an increase of 2 per cent per year. But they forget that our followers are also increasing. They also forget that people change their political views. And they forget that at every by-election since 1966, the Nationalist Party showed signs of declining. They disregard the facts. It is wishful thinking, it is foolishness. And then the Prime Minister still comes with a political party which does not know what is happening among its own people, and on the strength of that he actually goes so far as to suggest that the result of the election will necessarily lead to the resignation of the hon. Leader of the Opposition from the political life of South Africa. But he does not apologize. He does not admit that he made a mistake. He continues with his bluffing. He is bluffing himself and nobody else. This naturally gave me the greatest satisfaction in the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech. He is bluffing himself that things are well with the Nationalist Party. I hope he will continue believing that. According to his speech there was never a by-election in Langlaagte; according to his speech there is to be no by-election in Klip River. According to his speech there will never be another election in South Africa. They are now in power for ever. As long as the Nationalist Party’s leaders remain under that illusion and fail to realize the true political state of affairs in South Africa and as long as they give one another seats which they cannot win, I am perfectly happy and the United Party is perfectly happy and a very happy day in South Africa will arrive soon.

Mr. Speaker, there are so many little points. There is the accusation, which is unworthy of the Prime Minister, that the United Party was favourably inclined towards the Hertzog group or the Herenigde Nasionale Party in the past election.

Of course it was.

That is a mispresentation. It is untrue. It is totally and absolutely devoid of truth. In the history of South Africa here have never before been two political ideas which are so widely divergent as that of the Hertzog Group, the legitimate child of the Nationalist Party, and ours. There is, according to my study of politics, not one aspect of the policy of the Herstigte Nasionale Party which was not at some or other stage either the governing party’s policy or propagated by prominent leaders of the Nationalist Party. They are responsible for the mental attitude which was revealed in the H. N. P. And now they have the unprecedented, unforgivable and indefensible audacity to pretend that we of the United Party would want to be associated with the worst aspects of the Nationalist Party. They say this while ever since we can remember we have fought against the less bad aspects, but nevertheless bad aspects, of the Nationalist Party.

Let me point out the sort of argument that was used. The Prime Minister said very ostentatiously that in 1948 we had diplomatic relations with only 19 states and that there are 65 to-day. The Prime Minister forgets that the United Nations was established in 1945 with approximately 40 or 50 independent states of the world. Even if we had had diplomatic relations with all those states, there would still not have been 65. But since then 60 or 70 new, independent states have appeared on the world scene. It was therefore a matter of course that diplomatic representation had to grow. It does not matter which government is in power. As you develop and as your trade expands and you become a greater country, you must establish more diplomatic relations. This just shows how warped the Prime Minister’s knowledge of history is. He wants us to believe that it is a tremendous achievement that the National Party has established diplomatic relations with South America. But what is the result of that? Can the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell me how many of those South American states support our point of view or are sympathetically disposed towards us at the UN? In the days of Jan Smuts and a United Party Government, however, without diplomatic representation and only with the contacts which we had, they stood solidly behind South Africa virtually en bloc.

Hear, hear!

That is the difference. It is not the acquisition of representation, but the influence of a government, the image which a government creates of its country and the answer which it receives even from states in which it has no representation, that counts. This the Prime Minister cannot realize. He wants me to take this sort of argument seriously and to regard it as a reply to the imaginative and stirring view of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in the important speech which he made to-day.

The hon. the Prime Minister took delight in the fact—and I do not want to deprive him of it—that the subsidies for our universities have increased tremendously. He said this in reply to my Leader’s charge that educational facilities in South Africa are not meeting our needs. He calls it a tremendous percentage increase of many hundreds in the subsidies which are paid to universities. He said that the number of students had increased. I am pleased that this is the position. But the increase cannot be very adequate, because every year there are still hundreds of students who want to become doctors or engineers, but cannot gain admission to South African universities because the facilities are inadequate. At the moment there are negotiations afoot among committees of heads of our universities in order to ask more from the Government because what they are receiving is insufficient to meet the needs of South Africa. This is the test. The test is not to mention overall figures. The test is whether our educational system is meeting the requirements of South Africa.

We had a commission of enquiry into the training of engineers and technicians. Did they report that the Government was meeting their needs? One of the most acute shortages in South Africa is that of technicians—the men and women who stand between the artisan and the qualified engineer. What has been done to meet that? In 1948 we had four technical colleges; now we have five. The need, however, has doubled. What is being done to meet that need?

But surely you are talking nonsense now.

No. We all know there is a shortage of these people. What is the Prime Minister’s reply to the unquestionable fact which the Leader of the Opposition has raised repeatedly in this House, namely that our white population of 3½ or 4 million simply does not have the number of people to carry out all the skilled, administrative and executive tasks for our developing community? What is his reply? Is it border industries, where the main incentive for manufacturers to move there is the much lower wages than those paid in the existing urban industrial areas? Is it border industries, in respect of which the trade unions are already becoming uneasy, where there is injustice and where the germ of labour unrest in South Africa lies? Is this his reply? Why did the hon. the Prime Minister not reply to the things which matter and which were raised by my hon. Leader?

There is the manpower shortage. My Leader devoted some time to that. There is a manpower shortage on all levels of enterprise. But the Prime Minister did not say a word about this. There is no word of encouragement and no semblance of an answer. This debate is an important one. It is one of the most important debates we have had for a long time, because for the first time there is a decline in the Nationalist Party. My Leader showed why. The hon. the Prime Minister was called upon to show us that that decline can be halted by a government which has vision and which has an answer to our problems. I now ask any impartial listener to the speeches in this debate today to say where the Prime Minister gave any indication that the Nationalist Party has a vision for South Africa, a vision which will solve South Africa’s problems and which can serve as justification for the people to continue to have confidence in this Government.

Mr. Speaker, to me one of the finest things in my hon. Leader’s speech was his plea that we should become a “compassionate society ” and that we should show compassion towards the less privileged among us.

I think you wrote those words, but …

No, I did not. I give the Prime Minister my word. I did not. Will he please accept it?

But did you not read it?

Will he please accept it? The Prime Minister is making another … I will not say it is a half-truth, it is an absolute untruth. Why does the Prime Minister make the cutting remark for which he has absolutely no grounds? Why is he so irresponsible and so petty? Surely it does not enhance the debate. [Interjection.] No. An election taught us that it is not “Jolly John ”, but “Jittery John ”.

One of the finest things in my Leader’s speech was his plea for a compassionate society in South Africa. He asked us to care more for the aged, the less privileged, the ill and the suffering members of our entire society, White and non-White. During the election we pleaded time and again, and I believe it helped us a great deal, for State-assisted medical aid schemes. We pleaded for a national contributory pension scheme. It was well received, but to this important plea by my Leader there was not one single word of reaction from the Prime Minister, although he immediately stood up and, according to the predictions of the Beeld and Dagbreek, would make the Leader of the Opposition and the United Party look small and the Prime Minister mighty. After all, these are matters in which the people are interested. Is something going to come? Can we expect more compassion from this Government, can we expect more sympathy for the less privileged and a deeper understanding of the needs of those who suffer in our society? [Interjections.] Our record is that every social security measure placed on the Statute Book is the work of a United Party Government. I challenge the hon. the Prime Minister to name me one new Act or one new idea which was placed on the Statute Book by this Government during their 23 years in power for the protection of the less privileged and those who are struck by unforeseen circumstances.

Did you start the old age pension?

That was started by the old Nationalist Party of General Hertzog. Very well. The hon. the Prime Minister has mentioned one, but it was done by the old Nationalist Party, which was a good Nationalist Party. Now I ask the hon. the Prime Minister to mention one such Act which was placed on the Statute Book by this Government during the past 23 years. I ask the hon. the Prime Minister to mention one, besides two shillings here and five shillings there. The hon. the Prime Minister can be very talkative while one is speaking, but if one asks him a simple, pertinent question, he remains perfectly quiet. The hon. the Prime Minister must not ask me again what the United Party has done in this field, because the reply is obvious. We did the initial work; we did the planning; we were committed to a national contributory pension scheme as soon as our national income reached R2.000 million. It is now almost R9,000 million already, and where is that scheme? We are committed to a contributory medical aid scheme; we introduced free hospital services in the Transvaal and the Cape Province, which have been abolished by this Government. It seems that in the Transvaal to-day it costs more to collect bad debts under a maladministration than what a free hospital scheme will cost.

Apart from the announcements and the one other minor matter which I have mentioned, my charge against the hon. the Prime Minister is that his reply to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was the most superficial attempt I have ever heard in this House. My hon. Leader spoke about the tendency in South Africa to develop more slowly and the uncertainty which exists among the businessmen of South Africa and which results in a slowing down. He spoke about the manpower shortage, and he mentioned the dangers attached to a shortage of finance. Before me I have the latest survey of the Bureau for Economic Research of Stellenbosch, which has just been released. Every one of those points is repeated with emphasis. If I had the time I would have quoted then, but I want to mention just one. One point which they mention here—incidentally, it is something which we have propagated for many years—is that if we want to solve our problems in this country, we will have to make great progress in the economic field. We will have to become strong not only strategically but also so strong economically that a proper existence can be afforded to every citizen of South Africa so that everyone can have an interest in the maintenance of what is best in the existing order in South Africa. Here the Bureau for Economic Research mentions the negative aspects of the apartheid policy of which we hear so little, as being among the most important factors contributing towards the uncertainty among our businessmen, which is definitely retarding our development to-day. They mention the Physical Planning Act. This is the University of Stellenbosch! They mention other measures which are being injudiciously applied by the Government, but the hon. the Prime Minister disregards this. Apart from a section of his speech which lasted a quarter of an hour, he gave us two hours of petty politicising. My Leader presented a theme. It may be an old theme, but it represents a healthy line of thought which gives one courage for the future. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, year after year during the past few years I have had the privilege—whether it is a privilege I do not know—of listening to speakers on the Opposition side, and to the Leader of the Opposition, moving the customary motion of no confidence in the Government. This year’s motion was no different from that of the previous years; it was the same words and the same song, only sung to a slightly different tune. I should just like to read to hon. members what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in 1969 when he moved his motion of no confidence in the House. At that time, after the introduction of the proposal that the House had no confidence in the Government, he admitted “it will be seen that the motion is in general terms ”. He continued by elaborating on this in the general terms he himself mentioned. At the beginning of this year, during the first Sitting, it was the same story again. As it was last year, and at the beginning of this year, so it will now be again. Initially the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has the privilege of moving a motion, and for a few moments one thinks of the Government as being in the dock. However, when the Leader of the Opposition and his supporters have had a little more to say, one finds that it is that side of the House which has already been standing in the dock for 22 years and longer. This is now once more the case.

An accusation was made to the effect that the hon. the Prime Minister did not reply to the specific questions touched upon by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Anyone in this House who takes his work a little seriously will know that for five years at a stretch each of these questions raised here this afternoon was answered by members of this side of the House and by Ministers in dealing with their posts.

However, there is one exception, and that is in respect of the analysis which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition furnished at the commencement of his speech about the recent election. I want to say that I am delighted at the result of the recent election. I am not delighted at the loss of nine good members who sat on this side of the House—I regret that— but I am glad that clarity could be reached within Government ranks about what our standpoint was, and that at the next election South Africa will know that this Government and this Prime Minister were prepared to accept the full consequences of its standpoint in respect of race relations in South Africa. In this election the Government paid the pro tempore price for that by being honest and by even adopting a standpoint in opposition to good friends of the past. South Africa, and particularly the younger generation, will take note of the fact that this challenge was accepted by the Government in 1970 when it honestly and sincerely stood before English and Afrikaans-speaking South Africa and the world in order to put its standpoint, notwithstanding the possibility of a loss of seats.

If there was a single factor which adversely influenced the election results for the National Party, it was the fact that a United Party and its newspapers exploited something about which the National Party was being honest. As the English saying goes, “they were fishing in troubled waters ”. In this way they attempted to make capital out of it, and if they gained satisfaction from this and think that they will come into power with the aid of a temporary vote of grievance, they are welcome to the fools’ paradise in which they are living. I believe that as our problems become more compelling and urgent, the large majority of those who now voted against the National Party— excluding perhaps those who took the lead— will know that they must return once more to the fold where they belong. They will be welcome in defeating the common enemy, the United Party, which has always been South Africa’s enemy, with greater remorselessness in the next election.

To-day, as he and other speakers have done in the past, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition once more elaborated on the question of “morality, justice and reality ”, which are allegedly not being taken into consideration by the Government. I do not want to elaborate on that at length. Once before I have had the opportunity of pointing out that accusations are frequently forthcoming from that side of the House about the dearth of morality in our actions and in the determination of our policies. In speaking of morality, hon. members opposite should first give thought to its meaning. We on this side are now supposedly unjust to the non-Whites. We are supposedly acting immorally, and as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition claimed to-day “some things will not pass the test of simple morality ”. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and hon. members opposite to explain to me where is the “morality ” inherent in allocating the Government to 13 per cent of South Africa’s population and telling the remaining 87 per cent of the population that they must be satisfied with eight representatives in the House of Assembly. Where is the morality inherent in that, and what right has any hon. member opposite to point an accusing finger about morality at this side of the House when this Government tells the non-Whites: We are giving you equal rights, the full possibility for development and administration in your own area and in your own fatherland? But hon. members opposite say: No, for the sake of economic growth and because, by the year 2000, South Africa must be a mighty power, on a competitive footing with the rest of the world, as the hon. member for Yeoville said. They will not give these people those benefits, but they add that they should come along here to make us economically strong. Is this not flagrant exploitation? If there has ever been talk of immorality, is this not immorality? For the price of eight representatives in the House of Assembly they are asking these people to donate their powers so that we may grow bigger and fatter. That is what the United Party is holding up to us as a lesson in morality.

In the first place I want to deal for a moment with this question of race relations. I am glad that during the recent election clarity was reached about the standpoint of the National Party in this respect. As a junior member of this Parliament I want to call upon English-speaking people in South Africa— perhaps an example can be set by numerous English-speaking hon. members opposite—to take note of the standpoint of the National Party, to which by far the majority of Afrikaans-speaking people belong, the standpoint as stated in the newspapers which support this party’s view. I think that it should of necessity be said that one unfortunate state of affairs is that the standpoint of the National Party cannot be conveyed to English-speaking people in their own language, and that English-speaking people neglect to acquaint themselves with the true policy and standpoint of the National Party on this matter about which they are repeatedly mislead and frightened by English language newspapers, and about which they are frightened by people from whom one would expect greater responsibility, i.e. hon. members on that side of the House. They frighten the people in respect of the National Party on the grounds of their language. The National Party and the hon. the Prime Minister proved their good faith towards English-speaking people in South Africa with a loss of seats but with an absolute intrinsic gain, i.e. conviction in respect of their own people. To the world they evidenced a gain in respect of their honest intentions. The call which must be made to the younger South Africa, if the older South Africa will then not give heed to it— and which English-speaking South Africa must also take note of—is that they should know what is being written in the Afrikaans-language newspapers of our country. I believe that there is also a challenge in that for our youth. I am glad that there are discussions taking place at our universities and elsewhere—even though I do not agree with all the standpoints—to see how opinions can be exchanged and in order to explain points of view to one another. I want to express the hope that youth will take note of what the Government has done in the recent election to give realization to the ideal of one South African nation, even though we speak two languages.

In the second place I briefly want to deal with what was touched upon by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon in respect of the Coloured question, when he spoke of “immorality ” in our standpoint. It strikes one, and I say this respectfully to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, how ignorant the Leader of the hon. Opposition is about this Government’s policy in respect of the Bantu and the other population groups in our fatherland. In Hansard on 3rd February, 1969, Vol. 25, Col. 17, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition explains the Government’s standpoint in respect of the Bantu in South Africa as follows: “The first objective is the separation of Black from White. The second is the establishment of separate states, which hon. members opposite regard as separate nations. ” The following year when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had to explain what he understood of the apartheid legislation and of the policy of the National Party, he said that no one would deny that the actual chief objective of the whole National Party policy was to reduce the number of Bantu in the white areas. I consider it necessary that the United Party should also take note of its past and of its leaders. The hon. member for Yeoville spoke again, this afternoon, about what has been done by the United Party in the past, and about how their leaders were respected by the world. The opinion of the present leader of the United Party is that the main purpose is simply the reduction of the number of Bantu. In 1913, when the late General Hertzog adopted his standpoint about the future of the Bantu in South Africa, it was not only his standpoint. He said at the time (translation):

Mr. H. W. Sampson then stood up and said:

Mr. Patrick Duncan was of the opinion that: “Everyone would agree with the principle enunciated by the Minister that it was to the best interests of Europeans and Natives that points of social contact should be reduced to the least possible area. ” That is what was said then, and that is what is still being pursued by the National Party. In 1912, at Heidelberg, General Botha said the following on this subject (translation):

During a debate in 1913 he also said the following (translation):

This is precisely what we are now doing. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Orange Grove should rather confine himself to postal matters; with respect, he knows little enough even about them. “Under the supervision of Whites ” is what is now happening in the Transkei. Must we get away from that? Would the hon. member for Orange Grove now know better than the then Leader of the United Party? Let me quote to the hon. member what one of his party’s other leaders, General Smusts, said:

We are trying to restore the customs and habits of the Bantu in their own homelands, and even where they reside temporarily. The Government is then blamed for that. The most tragic of all is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, during the last session, in an election speech. He said, inter alia, that there were several people within the ranks of the National Party who said that too little was being done for the development of the homelands. On the other hand, he said, there are people who say that the Government is doing too much for the Bantu. What he said was true. It was an unfortunate truth. But what is an even more unfortunate truth is that the United Party went and said those things in the country districts, and in my constituency as well. They did not hesitate to use the word when they said: Look what the Government is doing for the Kaffir! And when they arrived in the cities, they told a different story. They said this in my constituency and reverted to the old word, to capture a few votes and to be able to say that they have the confidence of the South African people. We have experienced this repeatedly in the past. The people who speak of “morality, reality and justice ” use such methods where the winning of a few votes is concerned.

I want to make the admission that I too would like to see the development of the homelands taking place more rapidly. Also that I would like to see the separation between Whites and non-Whites taking place more rapidly. But let me tell the other side that I am grateful that that separation and the gaining of independence is not taking place as it has done in the rest of Africa. I see a new hon. member laughing about that. He must go and listen to what the rest of Africa says about where the United Party’s policy is heading, because during his lifetime he still has time at least to pull himself together. If it is a question of more rapid development as against stable development, if there is a choice between rapid independence and proper independence, the National Party prefers to choose the slow road, even though there are newspapers and people in our own ranks who say that we must quicken our pace. There are practical difficulties along the way every time. What we are engaged in to-day, our children will be engaged in. This is the challenge for the youth of South Africa not to say, as the United Party has said, that we should have all kinds of integration because this would solve our difficulties, but to choose the road which would at least guarantee us something in return for what we shall give.

The Leader of the Opposition said last year that his policy of theirs offered an immediate solution for a number of our problems. Perhaps it does offer an immediate solution for a number of problems. At those places where there are no white workers, non-Whites can be crammed in to excess. If the Opposition wants to be honest, let them ask the voters of South Africa whether they want the immediate solution for their problems at the cost of their continued existence, and they will know the answer. In the past the National Party repeatedly warned that this policy was going to demand sacrifices. Sacrifices will be demanded, during the present Sitting and in the coming years even more so than in the past. But the choice that the National Party has already made and which we want to hold up to the South African public, is that we must choose between a white future or a future in which we shall have economic prosperity, but with the white man and his civilization having to perish.

I am glad that I may be the first to have the opportunity, in conclusion, of being able to say to our hon. the Prime Minister that we have a very great appreciation for what he has done together with the hon. Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Finance, for the extension of our outward policy, notwithstanding what some newspapers have said. The people of South Africa are grateful to them for that, because among all who love South Africa and its interests, among all who have a sincere appreciation for the work of our Ministers, there was concern for their safety when they went overseas. We are glad that they have returned safely and that they have been so successful.

In this connection I just want to quote what the late Dr. Verwoerd said when he opened the tunnel through the Soutpansberg in the Northern Transvaal. He said that the great task of this generation would be to tunnel through the mountains existing between ourselves and the outside world. On that occasion he made a stirring call, a call which our present Prime Minister is putting into effect. I think it necessary that we as a South African nation should once more take note of that. He said (translation)—

He then concluded—

I think that with that spirit in our hearts, which our Prime Minister and his other Ministers have revealed these past weeks, we can also go forward to meet the next five years of government.

This motion of no confidence is symbolic of the weakness of an Opposition and has become typical and characteristic of it. It is a party which simply makes promises before and after elections and has no policy. At a subsequent election this Opposition will be even more crushingly defeated than in this election. [Laughter.] The Opposition’s joy is gratifying. I have never in my life seen people get such a hiding and feel so glad about it. It is as if they are steeling themselves against an even greater thrashing in the next election.

This hon. gentleman obviously suffers from what psychologists call projection. When you are guilty of something yourself, you accuse the other side of it. We thought that he set off quite well, until he suddenly decided to take over a speech which was made during a previous session by the ex-member for Benoni. Now, we all know what has happened to the ex-member for Benoni and he must be careful. He might become the ex-member for Witbank if he goes on like that, because like the ex-member for Benoni he also has not done his homework. He quotes what General Hertzog said on the race issue, but why does he not tell this House that General Hertzog never advocated the establishment of independent Bantu states— Why does he not tell us that General Hertzog was adamant in his belief that all the non-Whites should have representation in this Chamber? But it is quite clear that this hon. gentleman put his whole philosophy into a nutshell when he framed it this way. He said: “Ons hoop al die Nasionaliste sal terugkom na die kraal toe. ” That is the only place where they can keep them, inside the kraal. The moment people have an opportunity to look outside the kraal, they will not vote for that party any more.

The hon. member also took us to task on the question of morality. I want to ask what morality is there in this situation which is propagated by that side of the House, that three-quarters of the people of South Africa should occupy only 13 per cent of its land area. Is that a moral division? And he asks what we offer the non-white people. Sir, what does this Government offer them? Nothing but empty promises.

But I want to return to certain basic issues raised by my hon. Leader and to which the hon. the Prime Minister has not responded.

May I ask a question?

No, you will have plenty of time. We will send you back to Langlaagte again, where you could not answer any questions.

May I ask a question?

No. The hon. member has just had 30 minutes and said nothing of consequence. They are just trying to divert me, Sir, but they will not succeed. What the hon. the Prime Minister has overlooked is that this election to which constant reference has been made, was one of the most important in South Africa’s history. What he does not want to accept is that this election demarcates a clear political watershed as far as South Africa is concerned, that it signals the return swing of the pendulum, a swing which they will not be able to arrest. In fact that pendulum is gaining momentum as the bandwagon syndrome begins to show its affects. It is a swing of the pendulum which will ultimately usher in a completely new political era.

There are very many reasons why the Government does not want to take notice of this. To begin with, change is inherent in the democratic model itself. Unless there are cyclical changes of government, all these iniquitous symptoms of arrogance and authoritarianism that we see signs of every day, begin to manifest themselves. In order to have democracy, there must be change of government. If you do not have change of government you are left with a totalitarian régime. But the tide is also turning against this Government because all political movements are subject to certain irrevocable political laws. The longer a party remains in power, the more it begins to neglect the interests of the voters. The longer a party remains in power, the more the purpose for which it was put there becomes dissipated, and that is what has happened to this Government. It has become a Government without a mission. Every single one of its tenets to-day has been overtaken by events. Practically every single one of its beliefs have now to be abandoned in the face of reality. Its road is strewn with broken promises, notwithstanding… [Interjection.] You can get a chance later on. We want to see that Minister of Tourism in the no-confidence debate, because he has never taken part in one. [Interjections.]

Order!

But notwithstanding all this, this party tries to perpetrate the myth that it has a workable plan for South Africa. The only difference is that there are fewer and fewer of the voters who believe them. Dr. Dennis Worrall did a study recently in which he found that less than 30 per cent of the voters included in his sample believed that the Government was going to grant independence to the black states it was creating. What a shocking indictment of the Government, which has been in power for more than 20 years, when only a third of the people believe that it is either willing or capable of carrying out its stated policy! This is the credibility gap. This is what happened to the Wilson administration in England, and we know the way they went, and this Government will go exactly the same way. This Government is like a stock exchange whose shares have slumped alarmingly. Politically speaking, there is a bear market as far as this Government is concerned, and anybody who has any interest in it should sell his shares immediately in order to have more money so that when there is a take-over they will be able to invest in growth and in stability. More and more people vote against this Government because they can see it leading us into a political and economic cul-de-sac. There is a greater and greater awareness among the voters of South Africa that this Government is not equipped to lead us into the 1970s, into a new technological era. This Government is more and more the past echo, and it is incapable of providing dynamic pointers and leadership as far as the future is concerned.

Now, it is true that this Government still commands very formidable electoral support, but this we can easily analyse too. For years this Government has capitalized for its own purposes on Afrikaner sentiment, but this is beginning to change because the very nature of Afrikaner sentiment is changing too. All nationalisms run a predetermined course. Afrikaner nationalism started way back as a small stream in the mountains of Afrikaner grievance. It gained momentum as it plunged downwards and it became a mighty torrent. But now that it has reached the lower levels it has become sluggish and it has begun to meander slowly through the lush valleys of achievement and of wealth. But all rivers, Sir, whatever their size, must ultimately meet their own destiny when they are absorbed by something infinitely greater, the sea. And this Nationalist Party is in the same position now, because Afrikaner nationalism has got to the stage of the river delta, where it is entering the ocean of South Africanism, and it will do so through many mouths, some earlier, some later, but all inevitably. But this party which has ridden on the crest of this wave of Afrikaner nationalism all these years, now that this wave has begun to dissipate itself, finds itself floundering in the eddies and the shallows of internal bickering and of squalid squabbles.

But there is a difference, too, in this sense, that the new Afrikaner will not allow a group of ambitious politicians to exploit his sentiment for the purpose of entrenching themselves in power, and this second reason is even more important than the first.

There will be change in government in this country, too, because the Nationalist Party and the Government find themselves in a leadership crisis. Some of the old loyalties are beginning to wear thin and new groupings are continually being crystallised. Albert Hertzog might not be a member of this Chamber any more, but his spirit will continue to haunt the Government for years. The tip of the iceberg might have been broken off, but the iceberg itself is still there, and it is more dangerous than ever before because it is now invisible and cannot be clearly defined. The stability of purpose of a Malan, the political integrity of a Strydom and the deftness of mind of a Verwoerd have disappeared, and this Government now finds itself almost like a storm-battered schooner drifting aimlessly and being pushed hither and thither by alternating gusts of indecision and confusion. Never before in the history of this country have we had a government as confused as this one. Not a day, not a week, passes where Cabinet Ministers do not contradict one another. Two or three years ago the Government came to this House and with very great fanfare told us that it was in the national interest and that it would lead to greater efficiency if the Department of Cultural Affairs were to be separated from the Department of Education. Two weeks ago they came to us and in the same wording they said that it would be in the national interest and would lead to greater efficiency if these two departments were amalgamated. What are they doing? Are they playing a kind of blind man’s buff? That is all I can think of it. Tucsa recently wrote a letter to three Government departments to inquire about rail concessions and rail subsidies for non-Whites. They have now exchanged some 30 letters with different Government departments and the whole situation is becoming a kind of Langenhoven farce. There is not a single department that knows what the other one is doing. They are all contradicting one another; if it were not so pathetic one could laugh about it.

Mr. Speaker, there will be a change in Government also because the Government has lost its vision. There is none of it left. We heard the Prime Minister’s speech to-day; there was no substance to it. The paucity of policy had to be camouflaged by the brilliance of our scientists. But to illustrate the Prime Minister’s approach to this problem, may I refer to his recent visits overseas, to which he to-day also made reference, because he told us that when he was there he had to address the foreign Press. I understand in Switzerland he invited the foreign Press to come to him because, so he told them, “You don’t know what you are writing about; I will tell you what it is all about. ” One can imagine the scene: Here is the main representative from South Africa ready to make a vital presentation. Here was obviously room for something that had depth and penetration; here was an opportunity for great profoundness of thought, because here was the top man in our country now putting our point of view to the outside world, and that is what he went there for. Die Transvaler, that faithful mentor and mouthpiece of the Government from the Transvaal, gave us an account of it. Its heading is “Premier gee skitterende uiteensetting van beleid. ” Sir, one of the very first questions that they put to him was this: “Wat is die verskil tussen ’n Witman en ’n Swartman? ” The Prime Minister replied: “Dit is tog eenvoudig. Die een is swart en die ander is wit. ” I want to be as charitable as I possibly can be when I say that I am sure this is one of the Prime Minister’s new jokes, one that he will add to his repertoire of 23 that he told at all the political meetings during this election. But I cannot pass it off as easily as that because the rest of the interview goes on in exactly the same vein. He also talks about the Negroes in America. The question was: “Waarom neem Amerika die Neger in sy gemeenskap op? ” The Prime Minister replied: “Die Neger van Amerika en die Swartman van Suid-Afrika kan nie vergelyk word nie. Die Neger het geen taal en kultuur wat hy sy eie kan noem nie. ” That is precisely the point that I tried to put to the hon. the Prime Minister to-day. If discrimination is justified under conditions where people have a separate language and a separate culture, how then could this be applied to the Coloured people of South Africa? Are they not in the same boat as us? They have no separate culture and no separate language, and yet they are harried from pillar to post, all for the sake of this unattainable myth that the Government has put before itself. I want to say this, much as I hate to say it: If this is the sort of presentation that the hon. the Prime Minister gives when he goes overseas, then I think it is far better that he should send the editor of Die Burger who has had quite a lot of experience in handling a bad brief.

Why not you?

He would do much better.

We are told that there is a manpower crisis in South Africa; we are told that there is an absolute lack of managerial talent; we are told that there are not sufficient high-level skills available in this country. I am quite sure that this is correct and the place where it manifests itself more than anywhere else is in the Government itself. One only has to look at the top echelons of the Government to realize that portion of it is old and tired and a portion of it is young and ignorant and no one has the slightest difficulty in splitting them into either of these two camps. That is why every time the Prime Minister has to do a Cabinet reshuffle we find that it becomes such a half-baked and such a half-hearted affair. He is like a little boy playing the game of snakes and ladders. As you know, when you get a ladder, you go up and when you get a snake, you come down. The trouble with the Prime Minister’s board is that it has more snakes than ladders; he never gets off the bottom line.

One could take practically every member of the Cabinet and subject him to some of these tests and one would find that the ineptness, the incompetence, has seldom been equalled in South Africa’s history. [Interjections.] Sir, if I were the Minister of Sport I would be the last one to say anything on this matter. I want to pick just one of the hon. Ministers, one who does not seem to be with us at the moment. I am referring here to the Minister of Planning or better the ex-Minister of Planning. We want to have and the country is entitled to have as this House is entitled to have certain information about this ex-Minister of Planning. We want to know why he was given Irish promotion? Why was he relieved of the important portfolio of Planning? Was it because he was incompetent? We suspect that that might be the case. But why leave him in charge of two other Departments if he was incompetent in one? Surely he is also the same in the others. What we want to know is why he was not fully “Haaked ”? Why was he only half-“Haaked ”? Was it due to the fact that he threatened a very prominent industrialist in South Africa—surely the worst example of abuse of ministerial power that we have ever had in this country? I would say exactly the same thing if he threatened Mr. Haak or Mr. Jan Marais. If that is the case, why was he not publicly repudiated? Why has he not made a public apology? In any other Government in any other part of the Western world, if a Minister abused his powers to this extent he would have been kicked out; he would have been fully “Haaked ”, but here we still have him in a position of influence. What guarantee do we have that this ex-Minister of Planning will not now as Minister of Mines carry out the threats that he may no longer be able to carry out as Minister of Planning?

The voice of Harry.

If this was not the reason for giving him Irish promotion, was it because his credibility had become an issue? Here we have the unusual situation where a Cabinet Minister at a public meeting indicated that an airport in Malawi was going to be used for South African military purposes. Surely, it was the most undiplomatic statement that an ex-diplomat has ever made. But he was immediately repudiated by everybody under the sun and then he promptly denied having said this. But Die Beeld claims that they have the tape recording. May we now ask the hon. the Prime Minister this: He was so quick in getting enquiries off the ground in other cases; in the Kolver investigation I think it was initiated within 48 hours after the accusation had been made. Is it not a source of concern to him that the credibility of one of his Ministers should now be under a cloud? Why does he not appoint a commission of inquiry in this case? Die Beeld can produce their tapes. They can show what they have. The point is this: It is not just the credibility of a particular individual that we are concerned with, but the veracity of the whole Government.

There is also the other case to which the Sunday Times has given prominence, where the same ex-Minister of Planning claims that he was never a member of the board of a particular company. Yet photostat copies are being produced …

[Inaudible.]

Were you also a member of that board?

The Sunday Times did the same with Kolver.

Photostat copies were produced which show that he resigned from the board of directors of this company. How can a man deny that he was a member of a board when there is evidence that he had resigned from that board? Mr. Speaker, this particular issue and this Minister have lost the Government very many votes. It will continue to do so because the new South Africans will not tolerate this situation where the credibility of people in high positions can be questioned in the way in which this Minister’s credibility is under question at the moment.

Our greatest complaint against him is not this so much, but the way in which he has implemented and administered the Physical Planning Act. Here is a situation that has done South Africa great harm. I am not talking about the Act itself, Sir, because I know I may not discuss it. I am talking about its implementation. Here we have a highly sensitive economic instrument. We issued dire warnings when it was discussed originally. To leave an instrument of this kind, sensitive as it is, in the hands of a Government as hamhanded as this one, is like putting a bull in charge of a china shop.

There is no doubt that, as a result of the administration of this Act, industry is being forced into areas where industry does not enjoy maximum locational advantages, that the cost structure is being pushed up and that we are becoming less and less competitive. It is probably one of the reasons, too, why we have this massive deficit in our Foreign Trade Account. We cannot obtain from this Government precise figures as to its full implications. When questions are put in this House the whole thing is played down very considerably. In November last year when the Secretary for Planning addressed the F.C.I. he told them that only 4,000 jobs which had been requested for Africans had been rejected. This would suggest that its influence is only marginal, but when the Minister of Bantu Administration spoke to the Roodepoort Sakekamer at precisely the same time, in November last year, he had a somewhat different story. He mentioned a figure of 15,000 jobs. Now you will notice that there is already a difference of 300 per cent. It shows you the confusion in the Government. They derived their statistics from exactly the same sources, yet the Minister makes it 15,000. But he went further, Sir. He said that a request for the reclassification of 6,500 morgen of potential industrial land, a request for that land to be zoned as industrial land, had been turned down because of the implementation of this Act. And then, by some strange form of reasoning—he is really becoming the chief conjurer of figures in the Government—he says: This means that 220.000 jobs for non-Whites which would have been created, had this land been rezoned, were not in fact created. Sir, you know how expansive he can become when he gets around to these figures. He says that if you take into account the dependants of these people, it means that white civilization has been saved because one million non-white people would no longer come in here.

Sir, it is just as well that his alter ego. the over eager sidekick of his, the Deputy Minister, was not around, because he is never one to be left out of these things. He would probably have differentiated immediately between the de facto and the de jure situation. He would have sought to prove that there is not a single African left in any of our factories; that they are all back in the reserves. If we drew attention to this, he would have said that it was merely an economic issue and that, provided the socio-political matters were in order, it was of no consequence. But, Sir, if you find that a number of Africans, to the extent of nearly a quarter million, were kept out of our industrial structure as a result of the implementation of this Act during one year, then it assumes very significant proportions, because in 1968 the total number of Africans in industry was given as 650,000. That means that our potential industrial growth was inhibited by one-third in one year. That is in fact what he was telling us. Is this not what we are also told by the Stellenbosch survey? Do they not indicate that the majority of industrialists wish to expand? 97 per cent of them however say that they cannot do so because of the Government’s labour policy. 76 per cent of them mention specifically people of higher skills and 62 per cent of them refer to the implementation of this Physical Planning Act.

There is another way in which one can show what this Act is doing to South Africa. In 1969 private fixed investment in manufacturing industry decreased by 11 per cent. In the previous year, 1968, it decreased by 16.8 per cent. This means that over a period of two years it came down by nearly 27 per cent. However, if we allow for the fact that it should have increased, as was the case over the previous three or four years, by some 15 per cent a year, it means that private fixed investment in the manufacturing industry dropped by nearly 50 per cent over two years. This is economic sabotage of South Africa. This is completely unnecessary. That is why the hon. the Minister of Finance, we are now told, has instituted an inquiry into the working of this Act. Again, to show how confused the Government is, one Minister must now set afoot inquiries to see how other Ministers carry out their duties.

Let me just say that we in the United Party will approach this matter completely differently. We realize that economic growth is essential for our survival. Our salvation lies in economic strength. We will not inhibit economic growth. We say to the industrialists of South Africa: We will give you the tools so that you can do the job. If they can expand and grow, there will be more jobs for all our white workers. Our national income will then increase. and there will be a bigger slice of the cake for everybody. Can you imagine what would have happened if, at the turn of this century, somebody as stupid as this Government had introduced an act of this kind, and had implemented it in this way? Had this been done at the turn of the century, South Africa would have had half the factories it has now. Our national income would have been a fraction of what it is to-day. We would have been a poor and impoverished little state. We would have been vulnerable to the attentions of all foreign adventurers.

The choice before South Africa in this regard is clear. We can go on as we are to-day, inhibited by a small-minded Government, which is continually introducing controls which are hedging us in all the time, or we can think big. This party will think big. We will step up our growth rate very considerably because we know that it is herein that our salvation lies. This is the choice before the electorate of South Africa. If they go with this Government they will remain small. If they opt for the United Party we will become a great South Africa, a prosperous South Africa, a secure South Africa, a united South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I think that if the hon. the shadow Minister of Hillbrow were to get on to a soap box in Trafalgar Square, his word-inflation might perhaps impress a few people in his audience. But in this hon. House most of his talent is lost, because sometimes it becomes a little uncalled-for. The hon. member does not only suffer from a swollen head, but also from an over-riding ambition, i.e. to aspire to the crown of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. In that process he positively indulges in word-inflation and in reprehensible expressions aimed at this side. I do not want to go any further into what the hon. member had to say. I think that members of this House can judge for themselves. The refrain that the hon. member repeated time and again, sounded like a day dream to me: “There will be a change of Government. ” The hon. member consoles himself with the thought that it is a law of democracy that at some time or other, even though it might take a hundred years, a change of government must take place. That a party, which is sitting in the Opposition benches and which has been bold enough to move a motion of censure in the Government after a general election, can say here that a change of government must take place because it is a law of democracy, merely goes to prove how absolutely bankrupt they are as regards policy and a positive approach for solving of the problems of this country.

If, over the past three months, one had read the newspapers and looked at the statements that were issued by the hon. member for Hillbrow in particular, but also at those that were issued by the General Secretary of the United Party, one would have seen how presumptuous their attitude is. The statement that the Prime Minister may not address the people over the radio without the Leader of the Opposition also being given an opportunity to do so, is presumptuous. If one has read the newspapers and if one has listened to their speakers here to-day, one has to take a really good look to see what has happened to the people who have been talking in such a swaggering and boastful manner. Then one sees that it is merely the U.P. members here in their little corner. They are still merely sitting there in their little corner. One finds this hard to believe, and then one looks at this side again; then one thinks of the history of these people. Before laughing at them and judging them too harshly, one realizes that these people have a long history. For 22 years they have been wandering in the desert without ever having reached a single oasis. Mr. Speaker, you will be able to correct me if I am wrong, but I think that in Biblical times, when the people of Israel were wandering about in the desert, they did at least reach a little oasis every year or two. But these poor people had to wander about for 22 years before eventually reaching an oasis on 22nd April. Can one not perhaps forgive them their delusions of grandeur and judge them a little less harshly if one considers that they wandered about in hunger and thirst for such a long time, and that like the ancient people of Israel they had to start out on their wanderings because they did not have the courage, the pluck and the drive to tackle the problems of this country in a positive manner? After 22 years they still do not have the courage and the pluck to-day to get up here and to state to the country and to this Government an alternative policy which would solve the problems of this country effectively. No, they are only being negative, destructive. Can we then judge them too harshly for thinking they were in the land of Canaan when they reached their little oasis on 22nd April. For these two months they have been sitting at this oasis and thinking they had arrived in the Promised Land. To-day they have to start out again on their desert road. From now on things will no longer be so easy. If they do not learn that they should tackle the problems of this country in a positive way and that they should not try to take over the reins of government by way of scandal-mongering and disparaging statements, they will wander about for another 40 years or more. Then we also have the hopes and the expectations of the hon. member for Hillbrow and of the hon. member for Wynberg, who also wrote in the newspaper recently that it was a law of democracy that at some time or other a change of government had to take place. If they are living on that hope, they will still be wandering about for more than 40 years without reaching the Promised Land.

Delport has lost his seat, and you will be next.

I shall come to that hon. member in a moment. During the past election the United Party succeeded in winning a few seats from this party for the first time in 27 years or 30 years. Now I must say that they are actually traditional U.P. seats which belonged to them previously, but in 1966 they were so wretched that we took those seats from them. If they could not shake off that wretchedness, democracy in this country would have been in real danger. It was in fact the National Party’s dilemma that our democracy was in danger because the Opposition had crumbled, and for that reason it has, after all, been to the advantage of the image of this country and of the democratic institution that they have temporarily been able to gain a few seats. They regained those seats from us while we were not engaged in fighting against them. We were not fighting against them. It actually happened behind our backs. We were fighting an extremely harmful political movement which could have done this country and its human relations a great deal of harm. The Leader of this party had the courage and the conviction to say that this movement, although it was comprised of ex-colleagues and friends, had to be destroyed. We had the courage and the conviction to do this. Meanwhile, during that process, the United Party succeeded in gaining a few seats behind our backs. We succeeded in our primary task. I want to associate myself with what the hon. the Prime Minister said, for when we were fighting these people who had taken an extremely dangerous political course, this party, which professes to be the party pre-eminently looking after the interests of the English-speaking people in this country …

That is not true.

It is. Then they became exceedingly friendly with the Hertzog people and co-operated with them. Not once, neither before nor after the election, has the Leader of the United Party or any of his lieutenants stood up in this House and repudiated the Hertzog Party. They have not done so once. I challenge them to prove to me that they have done so. They have not done so to date. To my mind this is reprehensible political opportunism unworthy of an official opposition.

While we were engaged in a primary task, i.e. to try to destroy a dangerous political movement, these gentlemen were engaged in scandal-mongering and doing destructive things. Actually, they had a task as well. They, as a responsible Opposition, actually had an important task as well. Just as we had an important task to the right, they had an important task to the left. The hon. member for South Coast knows that the dangerous political trend of the Progressive Party is just as harmful to this country. Actually, it was their task to expose and destroy these people, but they failed hopelessly in that primary task of theirs, so much so that it was possible for the hon. member for Houghton to treble her majority, that they nearly lost in Sea Point and Parktown. and that it was possible for the Progressive Party to gain a considerable number of voters. Whereas we succeeded 100 per cent in our primary task, they failed 100 per cent in theirs. They evaded this issue, not only because of their political opportunism, but also because of the fact that they have an impossible composition. Whereas we on this side of the House are sitting here as people who are as one at heart, in mind and in being, they on that side of the House are sitting there as a divided party; they are sitting there with their original verkramptes and their ultra-liberals. They cannot prejudice either of the two elements in their party too much, for then they would split in two. This is true; we know what we are talking about. When they speak at Upington, Vryburg or Kimberley they say that the Government is negrophilistic. Then they say that the Government is giving too much money to the Bantu and doing too much for the Bantu. This is true. The hon. the Opposition cannot dispute this, because this is what they said there. But if they speak at Houghton or at Parktown, they come up with a different story. Then they plead for equal opportunities for White and Black in this country. That is why I say that their composition is such that they could not carry out their primary task. It makes them as a party quite unsuitable for taking over the government of the country. They need not even consider being prepared to take over the government, as the hon. Secretary of their party said. Oh, well, one will just have to accept it with a little humour. This, then, is the enormous dilemma of the United Party to-day, i.e. its composition of verkramptes and liberals. With this composition the United Party now has to try to win the next election. Because this is its composition, the United Party did not fight the past election by pitting policy against policy.

No, at one meeting after the other one looked for a positive statement on policy by one of the leaders of the United Party, but one did not find it. Over there we have the United Party’s future Cape leader, the shadow Minister of Agriculture and Coloured Affairs. If one could have expected a statement on policy by one of the United Party people, one would probably have expected him to state the policy. But he was one of the worst creators of unrest, one of those who insinuated misconduct on the part of the Government, and one of the scandal-mongers.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, it is a pity that our politics should have reached such a low-water mark. It is a pity that in this country, which offers so many dynamic challenges to its rulers, the Opposition has not succeeded in sharpening wits against wits by pitting argument against argument so that the real problems of this country may be thrashed out and be laid before the electorate of this country. I think it is primarily the task of the Opposition to do so.

We did state the policy.

I am coming to the policy. When we come to the major problems of this country, our relations problems. our population problems, we get from the Opposition vague, general statements which they themselves do not really understand and which nobody really understands. So often in the past the United Party has come up with a slogan thinking, “Now we have something. ” Then they got carried away by that slogan, hoping that by using it they would be able to bring about the downfall of the Government and sow distrust amongst the people. In the same way they have now come up with a slogan again. What did the United Party and its newspapers say in 1948 when this party came into power? They said that a racial war would break out in this country; that the banks would close down; that the people would emigrate from South Africa in their thousands; that there would be stagnation in the economic sphere; that a cultural war would ensure between the Afrikaans-speaking section and the English-speaking section. That was not so long ago. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said to-day that we should forget the past and think about the future. It suits the United Party to forget the past. It suits the United Party that this book be closed never to be opened again, but we should take from the past what is good and build on it for the future. It is a good thing to see in what respects the United Party sometimes went completely astray in the past. In 1948 they suggested to the people of South Africa that there would be a total collapse in the economic and political spheres. What happened? In the 22 years since 1948 South Africa has experienced one of the most wonderful periods of economic revival in the world.

This Government, which came into power in 1948, has indeed made South Africa a great country. It has made South Africa a great country of which the United Party has no understanding to-day. If South Africa should be struck by the disaster of their coming into power, they would be quite unequal to the task of taking over the lead, because they are still living in 1947. They have not kept up with us. This has become a great country and they and their children have shared in the advantages of this process. Some of them have become rich and have been enriched economically and industrially as a result of the prosperity which the National Party Government has brought to this country. They have been sharing in that prosperity. To-day they say that this party will bring disaster to this country. In 1960, after Sharpeville, the refrain of prophets of doom was heard again. What was the result? Since 1960 South Africa has become the most fantastic and most sensational success story of the whole free world. Since 1960 the number of immigrants from Europe increased more than fivefold, with a record total of 48,000 in 1966. Imports and exports increased by 45 per cent. Foreign capital investments increased by more than R400 million. The creation of new capital reached the impressive figure of 24 per cent of the national product, and the national product itself increased by 64 per cent. This is what happened after those people had said that this was the end of South Africa and that we would collapse economically. In spite of what they had said, South Africa became the most fantastic success story of the world. To-day they say that South Africa is heading for disaster as a result of the fact that apartheid has failed and cannot be proceeded with. Will the people believe them now? The people did not believe them 22 years ago; nor did they do so ten years ago. They will not believe them now either. But because this party believes that it has a calling in this country, it will not be put off by such scare stories. The National Party feels called upon to unravel the intricate population problems of this country, where they have become entangled as a result of being under colonial régime for 300 years. This is no easy task. If hon. members on that side of the House were to say today that apartheid has failed, I would tell them they are behind the times. We are not at apartheid any more. We have already passed apartheid on the road of development.

Mr. Speaker, I move as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (1) Standing Orders Nos. 54, 85 and 90 to 105 be suspended.

2. (2) The proceedings on the stages of the various Appropriation and Taxation Bills shall be limited as follows:

   1. (a)147½ hours for the Consolidated Revenue Fund Appropriation Bills and Taxation Bills;
   2. (b)18½ hours for the Railways and Harbours Appropriation Bills; and
   3. (c) 7½ hours for the Post Office Appropriation Bills:

   Provided that—

   1. (i)the period allotted under paragraph (a)shall exclude—

      1. (aa) the time taken by the Minister in charge of the main Appropriation Bill in replying to the Second and Third Reading debates on the Bill; and
      2. (bb) the time taken by Ministers in charge of the respective Votes in the Committee Stage of the main Appropriation Bill; and
   2. (ii)the periods allotted under paragraphs (b)and (c) shall exclude the time taken by the Minister in charge of the main Railways and Harbours Appropriation Bill and the Minister in charge of the main Post Office Appropriation Bill in replying to the Second and Third Reading debates on the Bills.
3. (3)The Committee of the whole House on the main Consolidated Revenue Fund Appropriation Bill may at any time, on the motion of a Minister, to be decided without amendment or debate, revert to any Vote appearing in the Schedules to the Bill and previously disposed of by the Committee.
4. (4)All Estimates of Expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the Railway and Harbour Fund and the Post Office Fund shall, when laid upon the Table, stand referred to the appropriate Committees of the whole House.

5. (5)

   1. (a) Subject to paragraphs (b) and (c) no member shall speak for longer than ten minutes at a time in Committee of the whole House on an Appropriation Bill, but members shall not be limited in regard to the number of times they may speak;
   2. (b)The Minister in charge of a Vote or Head shall not be restricted in regard to the length of time he may speak;
   3. (c)When the various Votes or Heads in the Schedules to the main Appropriation and Railways and Harbours Bills are under consideration, the Chairman may permit two speeches not exceeding 30 minutes each in respect of a ministerial portfolio: Provided that this privilege shall not be granted unless the member desiring to avail himself of the extended period states his intention to do so on rising to address the Chair, or unless the member subsequently obtains the unanimous consent of the Committee.

6. (6)In Committee of the whole House on an Appropriation Bill—

   1. (a)the Schedules of the Bill may, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 57 (2), be taken into consideration before the clauses;
   2. (b)on the motion of a Minister to be decided without amendment or debate, precedence may be given to any Vote or Head in a Schedule;
   3. (c)no condition or expression of opinion shall be attached to a Vote or Head, or item of a Vote or Head, nor may its destination be altered;
   4. (d)the question shall first be proposed from the Chair on the largest reduction if more than one reduction is moved in any Vote or Head, or item of a Vote or Head;
   5. (e)the rule of anticipation shall not apply; and
   6. (f)a member may not move “That the Chairman leave the Chair ”, and no member other than a Minister may move “That the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again ” or that the further consideration of a Vote or Head be postponed, the question on such a motion by a Minister being put forthwith without debate.
7. (7)All taxation proposals shall, when laid upon the Table, stand referred to the Committees of the whole House on the respective taxation bills.

8. (8)In Committee of the whole House on a taxation bill—

   1. (a)no member other than a Minister may move an amendment which alters the incidence of a tax or which will have the effect of increasing taxation;
   2. (b)a member may not move “That the Chairman leave the Chair ”, and no member other than a Minister may move “That the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again ” or that the further consideration of a clause, schedule or item in a schedule be postponed, the question on such a motion by a Minister being put forthwith without debate.
   3. (c)no member shall speak for longer than ten minutes at a time, but members shall not be limited in regard to the number of times they may speak; and
   4. (d)the Minister in charge shall not be restricted in regard to the length of time he may speak.
9. (9)When an appropriation or taxation bill has been reported with amendments, the amendments may be considered forthwith.

10. (10)

    1. (a) The provisions of Standing Orders Nos. 51, 66 (2) and 68 (1) shall not apply to an Appropriation Bill;
    2. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 68 (2), the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister in charge of the Bill shall not be limited in regard to the length of time they may speak on the Third Reading of the main Consolidated Revenue Fund Appropriation Bill.

This is the same motion as was introduced in the past two sessions of this House. It is aimed at expediting the business of the House. I hope to have these proposals incorporated in the Standing Orders during this Session, so that they will be a permanent institution.

Motion put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays:

2.15 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.

8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.

Tuesdays:

2.15 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Fridays:

10 a.m. to 12.45 p.m.

2.15 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.

The motion is self-explanatory.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this side of the House, I want to register our protest against the suggestion that we should have night sittings so early in the session. In fact, I protest against night sittings altogether. In 1963 the late Prime Minister, the hon. Dr. Verwoerd, proposed that a select committee should sit in connection with the rules of this House. It was a unique committee in that there was an equal number of members from both sides of the House. The Prime Minister expressed the view that when this committee sat, he hoped that it would come before this House with a unanimous decision, because he wanted both sides of the House to be unanimous in their views. There were five members from each side of the House and I would remind hon. members of the eulogies which were paid by the Government side and by this side of the House to the outstanding work done by Mr. Sauer, the former Leader of this House. I hope that it is not the attitude of the present Leader of the House that we are not bound by previous Parliaments because the understanding was at that time that when we altered the rules, we curtailed certain times and consideration would be given to the abolition of night sittings. The Opposition minority groups gave away certain rights. We had the right in those days to speak for 40 minutes and get an extension of time. We had the right to speak as often as may be necessary on the committee stages of Bills. We had the opportunity of continuing a debate as long as we thought reasonable and there were many occasions when we had all night sittings. All those rights have been curtailed and the Opposition gave up those rights in a spirit of compromise, hoping that as a result we would have a streamlining of the work of this House. That direction was followed for a few years but there is a tendency on the part of the present Leader of the House, as he said, to make the House work. I want to disillusion him if he thinks that he is going to make the House work in that way. The Minister knows that most of the accidents on his Railways occur when people are overtired and most of the accidents in this House happen when people are overworked and when they work for excessive hours. Tempers rise, there is irritation, the job of Mr. Speaker is made more difficult and the job of the staff of the House is made more difficult when members sit for lengthy hours, virtually morning, noon and night. Members are responsible daily for their correspondence. They have to attend their respective group meetings. They have to attend select committee meetings. Towards the end of the session there is a tendency on the part of the House to allow select committees to sit in the afternoons so that members are not in their places in the House.

Mr. Speaker, it is government by exhaustion. We find the position to-day that the Minister in what is virtually a budget session is coming forward with a large number of Bills, all of which he assures us are non-contentious. I have been a Whip in this House for 17 years and every session I have heard the Leader of the House say, “There is nothing really contentious this session ”. We find out whether a Bill is contentious or not by a close study of the Bill. When we do not have the opportunity to study a Bill closely, that is when the mistakes are made both on the Government side and on the Opposition side.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that it is an imposition to come at this stage of the session with a motion like this when the hon. the Minister had already curtailed our rights as regards private members’ days. This was reluctantly accepted on both sides of the House. Now the hon. the Minister endeavours to pass this motion before the House, namely to sit three nights of the week. If at the end of the session there is too little time to fulfil the hon. the Minister’s programme, he will come with morning sittings as well. Then if there are mistakes in the legislation or tempers rise and incidents occur in this House, no other person will be responsible than the Leader of the House. I suggest that this is unfair on the House, unfair on members and unfair on the running of Parliament to come with night sittings for nearly two months. It is against the spirit of the new rules which were brought in. Give and take was required on both sides of the House with the new rules. However, so far we have been doing all the giving and the Government has been doing all the receiving. I suggest that the hon. the Minister is being unreasonable asking the House to pass this motion on night sittings at this stage of the session.

Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.]

Order!

Yes, Sir, I hope hon. members on the other side of the House will be patient. They will hear what I want to say.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a case of changing an Act of Parliament. There is no Statute involved here. This is one of the rules of this House made by the House for its own governance. This side of the House, the minority, will always look with the greatest care at anything which curtails our powers and our rights in terms of the rules. The rules are applicable to that side of the House as well as this side of the House. Anything that curtails those rights and those powers which we enjoy will be examined by us most carefully. We have just agreed to Resolution No. 1 moved by the hon. Leader of the House without debate, thus giving him powers which are a restriction of the rules of this House so that he can get ahead quicker with the work which is before us. When we come to this particular motion which we are now debating, the answer is that this has a history attached to it. I was one of those who discussed the matter at the time with the late Dr. Verwoerd. What was the late Dr. Verwoerd’s attitude then? His attitude was that in the discussions that took place, he would not have a majority decision in regard to any changing of the rules. He said he was not going to be put in a false position and be made to look as though the Nationalist Party, because of its majority in Parliament, used a majority to change the rules. The precise point in this motion before us is to abrogate the rules and in particular the rights of the minority. That is the purpose of the motion before us. When that motion was moved by the late Dr. Verwoerd and he made that statement and our then Chief Whip had to bring the matter to our caucus, the gravest doubt was cast upon the integrity of the Nationalist Party and its power and will to carry out the undertaking that was given through the mouth of the then Prime Minister. Let us face it. That we brought back again and we put it to Dr. Verwoerd. We received an assurance from him in regard thereto. As my colleague the Chief Whip has said, when subsequently the Select Committee was appointed, it was appointed under Senator Paul Sauer with an equal number of members from both parties as a token of the Prime Minister’s desire to play absolutely fair and to try and get agreement in regard to the abrogation of the then rules. Those were rules which we on this side of the House had taken advantage of. Hon. members know that. We had all night sittings and so forth. We took advantage of those rules much to the annoyance of hon. members on that side of the House who were here in those days. But those were our rights. If we could get the Speaker to agree that we were dealing properly in terms of the rules of debate with Bills and motions before the House we were entitled to carry those debates on for 24, 36 or 48 hours. And we did so. Therefore, when our rights were abrogated we were naturally suspicious. I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the House that this is getting perilously near to a breach of faith. I said so the last time this matter was raised. The hon. the Leader of the House virtually says it does not matter what happened in the past. This is “die dooie hand van die verlede ”. you cannot bind this Parliament. No, this is precisely the point we put to the late Dr. Verwoerd, namely that the Nationalist Party could not be trusted to carry out this undertaking given through the mouth of its own Prime Minister. What does the Government want? Traditionally it wants to pass the Budget. We are willing to do that and give adequate time for the purpose. But that is not what the hon. the Leader of the House wants. That is not what the Government wants. That is not what the hon. the Prime Minister wants. He is the leader of that Party. The hon. the Minister of Transport cannot lift a finger nor utter a word unless he has the approval of the hon. the Prime Minister. What the Prime Minister wants is to get legislation through in a hurry which, with the adequate time provided for in the rules for a normal session, would meet with very great difficulties. So, in a session like this, primarily to deal with the Budget, these other measures are to be slipped in in bits and pieces here and there, until, as my hon. friend the Chief Whip said, by a process of exhaustion we will be sitting here during night sittings from the middle of August, until somewhere towards the latter half of October or whenever it may be. The Leader of the House has not told us what date he has in mind; until then we are to go on trying to masticate all this pabulum which is being brought from the 18 different Cabinet Ministers. It will be thrown at us here; there are only two of us to deal with one Cabinet Minister. And how adequately we can deal with them in terms of the rules! This is not in terms of the rules. When the Government, even with its overwhelming majority, is still not able to meet the opposition from the United Party, and cannot beat or cope with it, what does it do? It changes the rules. What a lesson to apply to rugby! Let us think of a South African team with a referee who says that he will change the rules to assist the Springbok team. No. Sir. this is perilously near a breach of faith. It is going back deliberately because the Leader of the House knows the statement that Dr. Verwoerd made. Dr. Verwoerd said that he would not ride through his majority over the minority in this House. That was not a principle. He would not accept it and was not prepared to play along in that way. There is no need for this motion to get the estimates through the House. The only reason why this is brought forward is to enable the Government to get through legislation which is not properly before the House in this short session. We object to this proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I should also like to add my voice to the objections which have been expressed so eloquently by the Chief Whip and the hon. member for South Coast. As my hon. friend has just said, it affects the rights of minorities, which is a very important basis of thought in a parliamentary institution. But what is more disturbing to me is that it reflects the attitude that this Government has to Parliament itself. One sees this manifestation quite often in many ways. This is all important. It affects the Opposition more than it affects any one else. In the nature of things, if this Government could go home to-morrow and have no discussion on the Budget and not have its Ministers and its activities subjected to the surveillance of this House, it would do so. It, however, also affects the hon. members over there. I think it is time that they realized that they are not just Nationalist members of Parliament but that they are in fact members of Parliament and that they have a duty as such, as opposed to their duties as members of their caucus.

The hon. the Chief Whip pointed out that there are other rights that were lost when it was decided not to have night sittings.

Times of sitting are part and parcel of the new rules. They are all related to one another. If one looks at the report of that committee on the revision of our rules one will see that it deals with private members’ rights, the rights of the Opposition as such as well as the times of sitting. When that recommendation was made unanimously and agreed to unanimously by this House, it was at the same time agreed when the hours were cut down that certain other things would have to be cut down in order to streamline the whole parliamentary procedure which had not been done for many years. It was not only those things the Hon. the Chief Whip mentioned that members on both sides of this House had to give up. It was not only the fact that they could no longer speak for 40 minutes and that they had to curtail their speeches to 30 minutes at a time. It was not only that they could no longer speak as many times as they liked in Committee of the whole House on a Bill. The times of the debates were also curtailed. For example, the Second Readings of Bills were curtailed to only 12 hours—all this so that we could accommodate ourselves; we had to give up these rights so that we could accommodate ourselves in terms of the new hours which were agreed upon. It is one and the same thing, and now we have this.

This is too important a subject to be a matter of party politics; it is too important a matter for hon. members opposite to sit in their seats and vote party when the division bells ring. This affects Parliament itself. Too often have we seen this attitude. Do you remember, Sir, that when the South-West Africa Affairs Bill was debated last year it was provided that the State President, in other words the Cabinet, could amend Acts of this Parliament applying to South-West Africa? For instance, Acts could be repealed without reference to us. Well, we objected but we got no support from the other side of the House. It is part of this particular attitude of mind.

Order! The hon. member must not go too far now. He should confine himself to the motion.

Very well, Sir. It is this attitude of mind which promotes a thing like this which disturbs one. When the hon. the Minister of Health, for instance, can say that this Government can do without an Opposition, which is part and parcel of a Parliament …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the motion.

The other day, as the hon. Chief Whip on this side indicated, private members’ rights were removed, rights which were also dealt with in this report. The motion has been adopted by the House but that, in conjunction with this motion, is going to cause a further deprivation of those rights, rights of members of Parliament as opposed to rights of members of a party. So far as I have been able to find out it has never happened before that in any single year, whether there were one or two sessions of Parliament, no time at all has been allowed for private members or for the Opposition.

Order! That is a different matter altogether. That is a resolution which has already been adopted by the House.

With great respect, Sir, it is apposite here in the sense that this report which recommended the new rules and the absence of night sittings said that amongst the most important changes was “the right of the Opposition to initiate debates on matters of public importance during Government time as distinct from debates on motions for the adjournment of the House on definite matters of urgent public importance ” …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the motion now.

These rights, as I have said, have been taken away. Now we have no time whatsoever. We have now to be subjected to these long hours and it is we mostly who have to be subjected to them.

This is not a political issue; it is a matter where Parliament itself is affected and it is to be much regretted that the hon. Leader of the House feels that it is necessary to come with this motion in a budget session. The reason for it is simply that the Government has so bungled its affairs that it has two elections in one year and suddenly has to race to the next election because it wants to get onto the hustings; they want to get away from here, from this great institution, from the surveillance of Parliament, where Ministers are constantly under the surveillance of Parliament. That is what they want to run away from and that is why I say that our country and this House does not deserve this motion.

I think that the principles involved in this matter have been thoroughly discussed by the previous three speakers. Therefore I, in turn, want to discuss this matter in terms of a personal conversation among the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Leader of the House and myself. I should like to affirm what was stated so clearly by the hon. member for South Coast, i.e. that in 1963 the rules were changed in the light of a clear understanding. I have personal reasons for remembering that it was a clear understanding between honourable people. After the rules had been in force for a while, some members felt that the adjournment of one hour on Wednesday evenings was insufficient, and I was one of those who were asked to discuss the matter with the Chairman of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders at the time, Mr. Paul Sauer. We asked Mr. Sauer whether he could not arrange for the House to adjourn for an hour and a half for dinner. His reply was that he would have liked to accommodate us, but that he was under an obligation, after the Committee had met and in the light of the attitude of Dr. Verwoerd and of the House, to see to it that none of the time of the House was taken away which could result in our having fewer hours per week to devote to the business of Parliament than when we sat three evenings a week. In the old days we adjourned according to the clock in this House, five minutes before the normal time for adjournment, but since the extra half-hour was granted for adjournment on Wednesday evenings, we have adjourned at 7 o’clock precisely—all this is done to ensure that the House will not have less time at its disposal than when we sat three evenings a week.

On the Select Committee members felt that evening sittings did not serve their purpose properly and did not contribute to the dignity and efficiency of Parliament. The purpose of those discussions was, in fact, to do away with evening sittings. Mention has already been made of what we of the Opposition had to forfeit. We even had to forfeit one private members’ day a week at the request of the Government, at the request of Dr. Verwoerd, to do away with evening sittings. We forfeited our Tuesdays and we limited ourselves to two hours, i.e. from 4 o’clock in the afternoon for private members’ motions or bills. We did so because the Government members on the Select Committee felt that we had to do away with evening sittings in the interests of the more efficient functioning of Parliament. These are facts, this is history. I remember that when we discussed this matter in our caucus some of our members doubted whether the majority of a Nationalist Government in South Africa would honour this undertaking. This was doubted, and some of us got up and said that when it comes to matters affecting Parliament—and you will appreciate this, Mr. Speaker, because I know how dear the parliamentary institution is to your heart—we could count on the integrity of the Government. In other words, we did not expect what happened last year and what is happening again to-day; we did not expect that it would happen again after the defence which we … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Waterkloof, who is interjecting now, knows nothing of what we are talking about; he must rather keep quiet. He knows nothing of what we are talking about; it happened before his time. As I said, Mr. Speaker, we had the right to expect, in terms of the spirit of honouring undertakings, that the Government would not come forward with a motion such as this. Therefore I want to express my great disappointment and regret at the fact that the Government has nevertheless come forward with such a motion. To the hon. the Minister I want to say that if he continues with this sort of thing he must not hold it against us if we eventually come to regard him and the hon. the Prime Minister as being guilty of breach of faith. I hope it will not be necessary, but the hon. the Minister is running that risk.

I have seldom listened to more nonsense than during the past half-hour. I think in the days when Mr. Higgerty was the Chief Whip of the Opposition we had much more reasonable opposition from that side of the House. The hon. member for South Coast is one of the most senior members of this House and the leader of his party in Natal, and it is high time that he stopped talking nonsense. I was really amazed, having to listen to this type of thing.

What is the nonsense I spoke? I did not speak as much nonsense as you are speaking.

I will tell the hon. member what the nonsense is he spoke. The hon. member does not realize when he is talking nonsense. That is his weakness. It is only when people tell him he is talking nonsense that he realizes it.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for South Coast might be very aggressive and he might attack seven Coloured people with a pen-knife, but his aggressiveness is of no use at all in this House. [Interjections.]

Order!

Stop the personalities.

When the hon. member for South Coast has stopped getting excited, and when he returns to his ordinary sanity, I will continue and tell him …

What is the implication of that? That I am insane?

I have never made any insinuation or innuendo that the hon. member is insane. He might be on his way to senility, but not to insanity. [Interjections.]

What dignity!

Let me deal with the type of thing the hon. member said here. He said that when this matter of the changing of the rules came before his caucus there was doubt cast upon the integrity of the Government party to abide by the rules. Now, first of all, Sir, this has nothing to do with the changing of the rules. This is no new thing. It has been done every session. It was done under Dr. Verwoerd as Prime Minister, namely to move a motion in regard to the additional hours the House had to sit. It was done last session and also the session before that, and we never had this exhibition from hon. members. In some cases we had a dignified protest from the Chief Whip, but we have never had this type of exhibition like that of the hon. member for South Coast. Sir, it really looks as if gallant little Natal was coming to the rescue of the hon. member for Pinetown. But we never had this type of exhibition before, because responsible hon. members knew that it was essential to get the work of Parliament through in the shortest possible time.

Why?

Because it is necessary. It is the taxpayers’ money that we have to consider. [Interjections.] And those hon. members are as anxious to get away as everybody else; they also want to go and fight a provincial election, and this is merely camouflage. The hon. member was talking about a breach of faith, and also that hon. member. What does he know about a breach of faith? What evidence has he got for that?

I did not say anything about a breach of faith.

Of course you said so. You said this was coming very close to a breach of faith.

I did not say that— because I was not part of that Committee and could not say so.

If the hon. member did not say so, I will excuse him from saying this. The hon. member for South Coast talked about breach of faith. There is no breach of faith. Why has that accusation never been made in the past when similar motions were introduced?

It was done in 1966.

It was not made because there was no question of a breach of faith. In 1966 there was no accusation in regard to a breach of faith. In fact, on some occasions there was agreement between the Whips that the House should sit additional hours.

At the end of a session.

It does not matter. Does the hon. member expect this Session to last five months?

If necessary, yes, in the interests of the country.

Of course, Sir, if that hon. member has his way, he will talk for hours and hours and still say nothing and keep Parliament here. This is no breach of faith. This is no changing of the rules. It is the usual procedure which has been accepted by this House session after session, that additional hours should be sat in order to get through the work, and all responsible members in the past have always accepted that. I think this is the first occasion when the hon. member for South Coast has objected.

That is not true. Read what happened in 1966.

The hon. members do not know what happened in 1966. That was the time when Dr. Verwoerd was assassinated.

Read Hansard and see what happened.

The second session of 1966 was the short session of Parliament during which Dr. Verwoerd was assassinated. A motion to sit three additional nights a week was introduced, starting in August.

And the hon. member for South Coast objected.

He did not object the way he objected to-day, if he objected at all. The fact remains that the work has got to get through the House. Hon. members have ample opportunity to examine the Bills. They are even bragging about having nine additional members. Therefore they should have sufficient members to deal with these Bills before the House.

Why did you not plan your work differently?

The hon. member is talking nonsense. He is trying to emulate the hon. member for South Coast. The work has been planned very well. I have given notice of when the Budgets will be introduced and hon. members know which legislation has to be passed. The Whips have a list of all the Bills which will come before this House, but the hon. member still talks about planning. He was present when I gave it to them. He should therefore rather keep his criticism for the Whips’ Room. Sir, I say this is the usual procedure which has been adopted almost every session so that the work of the House can be done. And in the beginning I am meeting hon. members. They are not sitting Tuesday nights. They still have Tuesday and Friday nights free. Surely even those hon. members realize that they are not the only people who suffer from this disability. All the members of this House have to sit those nights. I also have to sit those nights, and I am usually in my place.

All your Ministers’ benches will be empty.

No, all the Ministers’ benches will not be empty. We are not the same as the Opposition. But in any case this work has to be done and I am afraid hon. members will have to resign themselves to it.

It must be very clear to everyone that the Opposition has already lost the no-confidence debate and that they are trying to run away from it, judging by the manner in which they are wasting time here on other matters.

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned yesterday I was pointing out that, as in 1948 and again in 1960, the Opposition is at present trying to fill the role of a prophet of doom. As was the case then, they are now once more raising the cry about the national economy collapsing as a result of this party’s policy. I indicated that, as was the case then, this Government will not allow itself to be driven off course by scare-stories of this type, because this Government has a task and a calling to solve the complicated national and population problems in the interests of the Whites and the non-Whites. In conclusion I indicated that the Opposition, with its cry that apartheid had failed, is far behind the times, because the National Party is a dynamic party, progressing along South Africa’s road, and not halting at apartheid. With the establishment of the various Bantu homelands under their own Bantu authorities, with the acceptance of the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Bill, with the establishment of the Legislative Council for the Coloureds and with the disappearance of the Coloured representatives in this House, with all these dynamic developments the National Party is entering the new decade of the seventies, not with segregation or apartheid as its policy, but with separate development as its policy. Sir, it is a long road. A road which began many years ago with segregation, the natural feeling of traditional separation between population groups. It continued and developed towards apartheid, which perhaps, in a measure, embodied something that was negative, but which nevertheless also embodied a great deal which was positive. This same path is now leading to parallel development, a concept which embodies nothing that is negative. This is a road which is not a cul-de-sac. It is a road offering the most fantastic possibilities to all the population groups of South Africa. It is a policy which, in world history, will undoubtedly be known as the most humane and most effective method of solving racial discrimination and population problems. If the United Party and the world outside would only recognize the one indisputable fact that we are not dealing here with race problems, but with population problems, because we are not a multi-racial country, but a multi-national one, they will realize that we are actually far ahead of the world in this field, and that the rest of the world could come and learn from us.

In June 1965 the U.N. held a seminar about “The Multinational Society ” in Yugoslavia. One of the papers dealt with “Measures which should be taken to ensure the realization by ethnic, religious, linguistic or national groups, of the special rights necessary to enable them to preserve their traditions, characteristics or national consciousness, the right to use their language in public assembly and courts of law, the right to establish autonomous educational institutions, the right to develop their own traditions and characteristics autonomously. ” Sir, while the U.N. was still delivering papers about this matter in 1965, i.e. the important processes of ethnic groups emerging as peoples, our blueprint in South Africa had already been completed. They could at that stage have come along here to see how this could be applied in practice.

In 1965, at the 26th congress of the World Zionist Organization in Jerusalem, the chairman, Dr. Nahum Goldman, said: “The number one problem of Jewish life in the Diaspora, the problem of the survival of 3 million Jews in the Soviet Union, is the most dramatic example of the tendency of a powerful state not to persecute its Jews in the usual meaning of anti-Semitism, but to deny them the right to live their own life religiously, nationally and culturally and to maintain their identity as Jews ”. Sir, what the U.N. wanted in 1965 for its ethnic minority groups and could not get, and what Dr. Goldman wanted for his 3 million Jews in Russia and could not get, the policy of separate development ensures for each population group here in South Africa. With this policy of separate development we are laying the foundation stone for peace, quiet, prosperity and co-operation.

Now compare with this the United Party’s federation policy, a policy which boils down to an unashamed White dominance. This is a policy which points to unending political servitude for the non-Whites, and which essentially does not differ from 19th century colonialism. This policy, which wants to break down the Xhosa, Venda, Shangaan and Zulu into a neutral, anchorless group, cannot actually be regarded as anything other than wholesale genocide. This policy satisfied no-one. The position of the Whites in their own country is jeopardized. The non-White will never accept unending servitude, and neither will the world outside. By giving 15 million Bantu eight representatives in the White Parliament, representatives who would initially not even be their own people, one is committing the greatest degree of racial discrimination imaginable, and racial discrimination is, in fact, the international swear-word to-day. I do not know how those hon. members think they will get away with it. Their policy of an uncontrolled influx of Bantu from the Bantu areas, and their policy of training Bantu as skilled workers within the White areas, will all create the greatest degree of unrest, friction and uncertainty there has ever been in this country. Eventually it must lead to general integration, and this must lead to South Africa becoming a black man’s country.

Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that it is the policy of separate development that is breaking down our economy. Does he not know that the prerequisite for economic development is, in fact, peace, quiet, order and mutual trust? In fact, it is since this Government came into power and, as a result of the order, the peace and quiet and the mutual trust existing in this country now, that this country could experience hitherto unknown economic prosperity. As our multi-national programme develops, we are establishing the basis and the foundation for peace and prosperity, thus creating the foundation for an economic boom and economic prosperity for all.

That side now wants to force the Government to move too rapidly. They want to force the Government to tackle sensational programmes in the Bantu homelands. Sir, the Government is doing its best, but we must remember that sensational programmes are not always sensible programmes. Sensational developments elsewhere in Africa, for example in the Congo, in Ruanda, in Burundi and in the Sudan, have led to sensationally bad results, and even, at times, to sensationally gruesome results. Our development of the homelands is progressing steadily, so that the people of the homelands can develop jointly in the technical. scientific, agricultural and economic spheres. Our border industries are occupying an increasingly important place. I trust that within the foreseeable future we shall be able to introduce a system of contract labour, with the possibility of transporting large numbers of non-Whites by air to the industrial areas. [Interjections.] Hon. members may laugh but this will come. In various European countries this system is already in use. The system works there, and I believe that it is also economically feasible in South Africa. I definitely believe that it will to a large extent solve our labour problem in our industrial complexes, and that it will also prevent the Bantu from being uprooted from his homeland. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Algoa finished off his speech by suggesting that we were prophets of doom because of what we had to say about the economic position and various other matters. I must say that it is quite remarkable that no hon. members on that side have so far had any adequate replies whatsoever to the charges made by my Leader and other members on this side of the House. This is of course not just what we say. The hon. member for Algoa does not even have to listen to us if he does not want to. It is what their own economists, their own academicians, their own trade union leaders and even Nationalist Party newspaper editors have had to say about these things that is really of great significance.

Sir, I want to bring the debate back to the manpower position in South Africa, and relate it specifically to the question of training. Hon. members on that side continue to play fast and loose in their official attitude towards Coloureds and Bantu doing skilled work. We know that only too well. In February of this year the hon. the Minister of Labour said that the country’s phenomenal growth rate demanded that more and more non-Whites should fill skilled and semi-skilled jobs. I quote him. He said that it would be sheer idiocy to hold back South Africa’s development by not allowing non-Whites into the trades. He went on to add that it was the Government’s policy to allow non-Whites to enter a trade if there were still not enough Whites to do the work. That was what the hon. the Minister of Labour said in February, 1969. On 28th October of last year, soon after the date of the General Election had been announced, the hon. the Minister was reported in the Press after he had made a further statement in this regard. There was obviously verkramptes and various other people about, as he was reported in the Press as saying that there must not be an uncontrolled inflow of non-White labour into traditionally White occupations because that would not solve the labour shortage problem and would disturb our industrial peace. Then in May, 1970 he made a different type of statement which I will quote a little later on. What puzzles me is why the Government is so afraid of facing this situation. Surely what we need at the moment in South Africa is the courage and the imagination, both of which are lacking on the Government benches, to do something really specific and to have some consultation with the right people about this matter. Why is it not possible, for instance, for the employers, the organized trade unions and the Government authorities to get together and work out a solution? It is all very well shouting at each other across the floor of the House but these are practical problems.

The three main factors that have to be taken into consideration, when we are dealing with this particular problem are, firstly, that the employers naturally want greater freedom in the use of labour; secondly, the trade unions quite rightly want to protect the rights of their workers and their standards of living; and, thirdly, the Government itself wants industrial peace. Those are three specific practical demands by three sections of the community. If those three sections of the community were to be got together on a proper basis of co-operation I do not see these three objectives as irreconcilable. Something must be done about the situation and I suggest that it needs to be done as soon as possible. It is hardly necessary for us in this House to make our own appeals on this matter because all this has already been said most specifically outside this House already by people who are active in this field. It is our duty, nevertheless, to hammer home what has been said by leading figures in our economy, by our trade unionists, our academicians and even by the Nationalist Press. All one has to do is to quote them. In this regard I want to remind hon. members of some of the different people who have made very positive statements and, I think, very constructive statements on this issue. As far back as 21st October, 1968, Mr. Tom Murray who is a member of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council and who was then outgoing president of the Trade Union Council made a statement in Johannesburg. I quote from a report in the Cape Argus—

He is so right—

That was in 1968 and it came from a very respected figure in the trade union world and from someone who is a member of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council. Then Mr. Liebenberg who is the president of the Railway Artisans Staff Association made a statement on 24th June, 1970, in which he said—

He is so right. We must get down to the matter instead of talking about who we are going to keep out on the grounds of colour. He said—

He is entirely correct.

Then finally there is the report of the C.S.I.R. for 1969 which was issued during this year. There was a report about it in the Press and I want to quote from the Cape Times of 18th June, 1970. This is what the C.S.I.R. had to say—

That was according to a report by the National Institute for Personnel Research contained in the C.S.I.R.’s report. They also make this very pertinent comment—

I know very well that hon. members on that side of the House keep saying that we must work harder. All of us, young and old, must really do something to contribute to the development of South Africa. I would agree with those sentiments but where there is no competition this becomes increasingly difficult and morale does suffer. There is no doubt about it. The most interesting thing of all is that the editor of Dagbreek en Landstem who writes a column in his paper every Sunday, last Sunday said precisely the same thing. He went even further and said this—

We know that that wins elections but when you are dealing with practicalities these attitudes have to be modified—

In regard to the Railways he says—

Then he went on to describe the whole shortage of workers through the professional, the technical and the managerial spheres in South Africa. Here I entirely agree with him. He said—

Of course he is entirely right. The hon. member for Algoa says that we are profits of doom. The newspaper editor I have just quoted is a supporter of the Government but he is dealing with facts and practicalities and more power to his elbow for having had the courage to say this.

Why do we not face reality and admit that no job can in the long run be reserved for one race only? The hon. the Minister knows it very well. If the State itself continues to educate people of different colours, as it is doing, and there are not jobs for them in their own areas—the Coloureds and the Indians do not have their own areas anyway, but they remain an inextricable part of our economic system once they are educated—for how much longer is this state of affairs going to continue? I just want to issue a warning. If non-Whites are not allowed into positions now occupied by Whites, where there are no Whites to fill those jobs, then greater demands for skilled labour will be made on the white population in South Africa than it is capable of meeting. These demands are increasingly being made. That is a situation we have already met.

One of the most important outcomes of that type of situation and one of the chief sufferers, if I may put it that way, is white education itself because, squeezed in the pinch of the demands of an acute shortage of trained people and the highly competitive offers of the private sector, white education will have to adapt at least part of its structure, if we are to maintain present standards let alone raise them to any degree. Yet we get such pathetic ministerial reaction to these concerted pleas by responsible members of the public who are concerned to maintain our economic growth rate. I just want to quote the ex-hon. Minister of Planning. Dr. Carel de Wet, the hon. the Minister of Labour and the hon. the Prime Minister himself. All three statements prove quite clearly the extent to which the Government is a prisoner of its own ideological concepts in this regard. They do not mind whether the economy suffers. The Nationalist Party just blunders on. The ex-Minister of Planning made a speech to an audience in Pietermaritzburg on 27th January, 1968. This is what he said—

Well, now we know what has happened in spite of that statement. The hon. member for Hillbrow proved that practically all applications to that hon. Minister for extra black labour in the metropolitan areas have in fact been approved.

The hon. member knows that that is not all I have said.

The only other thing that that hon. Minister said at that meeting was that there was a certain degree of uncertainty about the aims of the Department of Planning. Then he gave the assurance that he was not building an empire. In fact he never built anything. The only other interesting thing in this speech is the fact that the hon. the Minister denied that there was any verkrampte-verligte dispute in the Nationalist Party. Those who claimed there was had no understanding of the Afrikaner whatsoever. The hon. the Minister of Labour himself made the following statement on the 22nd May of this year. I quote from Die Burger. He said—

Why this should be the permanent equation I do not understand. The extraordinary thing is the assumption always that if you have a controlled system of allowing people to move up into jobs where others have moved up into still higher ones, the safety of the white man is automatically in danger. I say it is very much more in danger if we do not allow people openings of a kind as and where we possibly can. The hon. the Minister himself said this before the election. The hon. the Prime Minister, who commented upon the report of his own Economic Advisory Council in May of this year, made the most astonishing statement. I want to quote from a Press cutting of the 5th May of this year. It reads—

Well, for Heaven’s sake, with a Government of that sort in office, people who are afraid of their own shadows, how are we going to deal with the practicalities of this situation? There are certain shadows that are quite all right!

I wonder whether the hon. the Prime Minister really thought that he was replying adequately to our charge about the inadequacy of the educational position in the course of his reply to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He quoted the subsidy figures given to the universities in 1948 which, I think he said, were R2 million and, by 1970, under his dispensation, have reached R46 million. What a fatuous argument. What do you expect? Had we been in power it would not have been R46 million, it would have been nearer R80 million. Let me expose the fallacy of this argument. In every country of the world to-day the population has increased considerably since 1948, whether they are Whites or anybody else. In the second place the standard of living here, as in so many other countries, has considerably increased with the result that thousands more youngsters are demanding and, in fact, needing, higher education, as the hon. the Prime Minister knows very well. He also knows or should know that modern techniques demand a higher standard of education of our youngsters before they go out into the world of competition and business than they did in 1948. The whole scene has changed. To make a comparison between then and now is totally invalid. The hon. the Prime Minister must know that the number of students in South Africa, as is the case in practically every other country in the Western world, has increased virtually in the same proportion to the amount of money that is being allocated to the universities to-day. I should like to say that the universities could have a lot more money if this Government would permit large donations to be made, tax free, by the private sector for purposes of research on specific projects as they do overseas. The universities would be all the more free to function in the academic field under those circumstances. This can be discussed further under the Education Vote.

I want to make a few constructive suggestions about the educational position. [Interjections.] Well, the hon. members may laugh, but it is our function not only to criticize the Government but to produce suggestions. There was very little mention in the State President’s speech last Friday about the matter of education. I was very disappointed. All that the State President had to say was that the manpower shortage was receiving urgent attention and the overlapping of the work done by the universities and the technical institutes would receive attention. There was nothing imaginative about that. In fact, really, we have had so much of this kind of statement from the Government that we do not accept their bona fides or even their stated intentions on the subject anymore.

The manpower shortage as we have already been told—and we have agreed—is largely artificial in South Africa. The basic truth of the matter is that, taking the more optimistic view, however much the Government may try to adapt our labour patterns to present requirements, such adaptations will be of no lasting value whatsoever unless a really imaginative training programme, worked out in conjunction with the leaders of commerce and industry, goes with it. As far as we are concerned, it is axiomatic that any such training programme must include Whites, Coloureds, Blacks and everybody. We have had warnings on this issue by Mr. Jan Marais, by T.U.C.S.A. and Volkshandel over the years. But the Government will achieve nothing unless it gets down to the practicalities and considers our labour force as one unity for purposes of employment and training, because we have one economy and not several economies. I just want to say that apart from educationists we have had dire warnings over the years from representatives of commerce and industry, bankers, trade unions, mining houses and even the Public Service. We had warnings of the gravity of the situation building up in this country and of the need to plan ahead in the educational field, particularly with regard to training of our youngsters at an early age. Warnings have come from various commissions as well. It is really quite interesting to read the recommendations of the De Villiers Commission on technical and vocational education, which was appointed by the Smuts Government, reported in 1948. I want hon. members to listen to what they recommended in paragraph 157—

And finally in paragraph 539 the Commission said—

Mr. Speaker, it is 22 years since those words were written by the De Villiers Commission. I suggest that they have received the scantest possible attention from this Government during that whole period of 22 years. The situation remains exactly the same. There is the scantest possible correlation between the education authorities and the private sector. The big need at that stage was to introduce differentiated courses in our secondary schools and for the establishment of more commercial and technical high schools. It was not a difficult problem. It could have been handled years ago. On the subject of differentiation, we had all sorts of people calling for it. There was Mr. Bruwer, head of the Paarl Training College, who in 1966 said that it was a “nasionale ramp ” because we did not have differentiation and that the Government was not paying sufficient attention thereto. On the 26th March, 1970, the Onderwysraad executive for instance met in Stellenbosch under the chairmanship of Professor Thom. In the course of their meeting in March, 1970, the following lovely statement appeared in Die Burger—

It is pathetic that it was only on the agenda after 22 years in office.

Then we have Mr. Werner Pauw, a former President of the Handelsinstituut, who made a very important speech on precisely those lines which appeared in Volkshandel under the big heading “Kommer oor beroepsonderwys ”. Well, we are still only talking about it, and then hon. members opposite have the temerity to say that all sorts of things are being done. I am not tackling the new incumbent of the portfolio of Education because he has not been here long enough to be responsible for this. But he is still answerable for what has not been done.

What we need is a national survey of the labour position. The Government has not done it; so the Associated Chambers of Commerce in South Africa is undertaking one right now. This is something which should have been done by the Government long ago. The initiative, however, has been taken by the private sector. I should like to quote again—

It is Volkshandel who published that. Not us. This passage appeared in Volkshandel in July, 1968. It says we are a quarter of a century behind.

Who is Volkshandel?

Volkshandel is the official journal of the Handelsinstituut and the hon. member knows that very well.

Mr. Speaker, I want to give hon. members an example of the kind of thing we have when investigations are made into the educational position. There is an investigation going on at the moment in the Cape Province into the whole system of education. When the chief education planner for the Cape Province under the National Education Act addressed the SAOU in June this year he said:

Now, what did he mean by that? We all know. We know exactly what he meant by that. He simply meant that the shortage of teachers was so appalling that if he had given the figures, people would have made capital out of this situation. In fact that is the situation in a great many areas of the country. Most employers accept Std. VIII as the lowest educational qualification for the average job. A very high percentage of our pupils leave school at the age of 16 with only Std. VI and VII certificates. The academic achievement of these pupils may not be very great, but their potential for South Africa is enormous. Their capabilities are not being properly developed. Those who have no further training when they leave Std. VI or VII go into the dead-end jobs with no prospect of promotion after a certain period of their lives. These are the people who do not have enough training to move up the economic ladder and thus they prevent Coloured people, for instance, from advancing as they should.

We have advocated for many years in this House, and we do so again, various forms of State assistance for competent pupils who have to leave too early. Most of them leave for economic reasons. I wonder whether hon. members realize that in 1966—and the situation has improved very little since then—35 per cent of all white pupils in this country who left school had not studied further than Std. VI; 55 per cent had not gone beyond Std. VII; just over 10 per cent passed matric, while less than half of those went to university. The position has improved slightly since 1966, but that is not good enough.

Give us the figures before 1948.

Oh, for goodness sake! We are not talking about the days gone by. We maintain that any scheme of allowances, about which the Government should be thinking, should be established on an income-group basis, whenever a parent voluntarily applies for assistance in order to keep his child at school. This need not be a serious innovation because in practice school boards have to go into this matter already in regard to children in respect of whom application is made for exemption from school attendance where the parents cannot afford to keep them at school until they are 16. Economic assistance of this kind will ensure equal access by many more of our young people to all stages of technical, vocational and higher education. Such assistance should be based on merit. It would pay the Government and the country hands down an unlimited dividend in terms of skill and technical efficiency if such a scheme were introduced. This scheme could be applied to part-time students as well. There could be a periodical review in the different provinces of the type of assistance that is to be given. It could be assessed by the school board concerned. Once the maximum payment had been agreed upon, details of the financial scales to be allowed could be suited to local conditions and left to the local authorities. Why do we not have any ideas of this kind from hon. members on the other side? [Interjections.] Hon. members go on buzzing away at the back here. These are practical proposals and when we make them we are always jeered at because we are criticizing the Government. In making practical proposals this is what happens to us in this House. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wynberg dealt with the manpower shortage in a part of her speech. I shall deal with that in the course of my speech. I shall not follow her in the byways and highways of education. I shall leave that to other members on this side of the House.

For days before the start of this censure debate the public was regaled with stories and predictions by the newspapers supporting the United Party about the devastating attack the hon. Leader of the Opposition and the United Party were going to make on the Government. We read about the rejuvenated United Party, we read about the party that is now on the road to victory, we read about the party that is prepared to take over the government of this country at any time and they even appointed a shadow Cabinet. A shadow Cabinet! I cannot deal with the whole shadow Cabinet, but there appears to be more officers than privates, because more than half the present United Party Members of Parliament are members of that shadow Cabinet. Just imagine the hon. member for East London (City) being appointed the shadow Minister of Tourism. Well, he knows something about wool, but what he knows about tourism, heaven knows. The hon. member for Orange Grove was appointed the shadow Minister of Information. I can only say that all the information the public will get through the hon. member about the United Party will be most unreliable. Then there is the hon. member for Hillbrow. For a moment I have forgotten the shadow of what he is, but I think he should really be appointed the shadow Leader of the Opposition. He should be appointed shadow Leader of the Opposition after all his frantic efforts to obtain that position by way of interviews and statements in the newspapers and be appointed Leader of the Opposition when the United Party does not want the hon. member for Rondebosch any more. I think that the hon. member for Hillbrow makes more statements and gives more interviews in one week than the hon. Leader of the Opposition does in one year. However, he might succeed in due time. For that reason I think he should be appointed shadow Leader of the Opposition.

The hon. member for Sea Point is completely left out in the cold. He is one of the most senior members on that side of the House, but he was not even taken into consideration in the appointment of this shadow Cabinet. It reminds me of the heads of the black states. When they get into power they appoint almost all their supporters to some job or another, whether it is a Minister, a Deputy Minister, a Minister of State, or a provincial Minister. There everybody has to have a job. The hon. Leader of the Opposition had to do the same with his parliamentary party. Apparently these hon. gentlemen are forgetting that the Government still has a majority of 71 seats in this House and if the United Party had to progress at the present tempo it would take them 25 years to take office. Not one of those members of the shadow Cabinet will be in the House in 25 years’ time. Therefore, I think their expectations are not very bright.

Now, the hon. Leader of the Opposition has launched his devastating attack, but what a damp squib it turned out to be. Immediately after the Prime Minister had spoken they had to put up the most important shadow, the hon. member for Yeoville, to start the defence and what a poor defence it was. The hon. member for Yeoville spent at least ten minutes in juggling with the election figures and percentages. To prove what? To prove not that the United Party had progressed, but that it has remained static over the years.

Mr. Speaker, I will grant the United Party that it won back nine traditional United Party seats in the election, but that is nothing to crow about. As the hon. the Prime Minister has pointed out, there was no swing away from the Nationalist Party. The United Party is so easily satisfied. They have picked up a few crumbs from the rich man’s table and now they are in ecstasy over it. What they forget is that the few additional votes they received was not because they received more support for their policies. No person in full possession of his faculties will support such a stupid policy, namely that of race federation. They received protest votes, those people with grievances. Obviously, any Government worth its salt cannot satisfy all the people all the time. After 22 years it is only natural that there will be many people with grievances. Hon. members opposite should rather be very concerned about the inroads the Progressive Party has made on their strength. Let me give a few examples In Houghton the Progressive Party tripled their majority. In Parktown the Progressive candidate increased his votes by 1,500 and reduced the hon. member for Parktown’s vote by approximately that number. In Sea Point the United Party candidate retained his seat by the skin of his teeth. I can only say that there is “naught for their comfort ”, to quote Alan Paton. They are losing the support of voters. [Interjections.] If hon. members opposite interject one at a time I can reply, but if they all interject simultaneously it is impossible to hear what they say.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition commenced his criticism of the Government in the same way as he did before and after the election. In the past week the United Party newspapers flogged all these matters to death. We heard about Ashe, the Japanese jockey, about the hon. the Minister of Health, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, etc. We heard nothing new or original. As soon as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stands up we almost feel like singing that well-known hymn, “tell me the old, old story ”.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was very concerned about the worsening, as he termed it, of race relations in South Africa. He said, amongst other things, that the Government is destroying the loyalty of the Coloured and Indian people. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition should be the last to talk about that. Are the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party not guilty of a shameless betrayal of the Coloured people of this country? In 1950 when we proposed that the Coloured people should be placed on a separate roll we were opposed by that party for days, weeks and months. They then spoke about the solemn pledges given to the Coloured people. At that time they again made solemn pledges to the Coloured people that when they come into power they will restore them to the common roll. Do hon. members opposite deny that the United Party gave solemn pledges to the Coloured people of this country that when they take office they will restore them to the common roll? If hon. members want any proof of this, I can give it to them. I have here one of their typical yellow books with the title “Handleiding vir beter rasseverhoudinge ” which was published in 1963. From this book I quote the following:

Do hon. members opposite deny this? These were the solemn pledges they gave to the Coloured people in 1963, and before 1967. The United Party went even further. In 1962 Major Piet van der Byl, one of their leading members, addressed a meeting, and this is what he said:

Major Van der Byl gave this assurance at a meeting in the Gardens constituency in 1962. He was never repudiated. Hon. members opposite accepted that statement. The amusing part of the story is as follows. When Major Van der Byl was asked by a questioner whether he would serve under a Coloured Prime Minister, he replied: “That is a personal matter and no business of yours. ” What is their policy now? In their book “The Answer: You want it? We have it! ” they say the following:

There will be—

In spite of this hon. members opposite have the impudence to accuse us of breaking pledges. They gave these pledges to the Coloured people of the Cape. They are breaking those pledges. Again they are trimming their sails to the prevailing political wind. They are under the impression that they are gaining the support of the conservative people by breaking their pledges to the Coloured people. I am amazed that these liberal British papers in South Africa have not attacked them for breaking the pledges and undertakings they gave to the Coloured people. Is there any wonder that nobody trusts them? Is there any wonder that nobody accepts their word for anything? They talk about credibility. There is no such thing as credibility on that side of the House. And in spite of this flash in the pan in the recent election, the voters will not put them into power.

I have here a copy of a letter written to the Leader of the Opposition by a former prominent member of the United Party.

I thought you said you would win Von Brandis?

I wish the hon. member would stop his nonsense. If he makes a sensible interjection, I will reply to him.

Did you say you would win Von Brandis from the United Party?

I have nothing to do with Von Brandis: I am speaking about the letter which I want to quote. I never said that we would win Von Brandis. That is quite untrue. I challenge the hon. member to show me where I said that.

And then you gave Bezuidenhout to the Prime Minister.

No, I did not. That is also untrue. But that is typical of that hon. member. He cannot speak the truth. It is impossible. He talks about credibility. There is no such thing as credibility as far as he is concerned. He has told two lies now in this House, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

Very well, Sir, I withdraw the word “lies ” and I will say “untruths ”. The hon. member has told two untruths in succession. That is an hon. gentleman who places himself on a very high moral standard and talks about credibility. He knows nothing about credibility and he knows very little about the truth.

I have here a copy of a letter written by a former prominent member of the United Party to the Leader of the Opposition. I want to read some extracts from it. This letter was dated the 17th September, 1968. This is what he said among other things:

Harry Lewis.

No, it is not Harry Lewis. The hon. member is anticipating.

[Inaudible.]

Of course that hon. member is smiling and laughing again. He has a very peculiar sense of humour. When his Leader speaks, the hon. member for Yeoville is always wagging his tail and then he suddenly bursts out laughing and nobody knows why. He is only amusing himself. He reminds me of a story about a man walking in the street. As far as he was walking, he snapped his fingers behind his ears. So somebody came up to him and asked: “Why are you doing that? ” He replied: “Oh, I am telling myself jokes and when I have heard one before, I say, no, you have heard that one before. ” I want to read some more extracts from this letter. [Interjections.] They do not want to hear it.

Order! I want to ask hon. members to stop making all these interjections.

He said:

This is a letter addressed to the Leader of the Opposition. He continues:

Then he says:

The writer of this letter was one of their prominent members, Mr. Badenhorst Durrant. [Interjections.] I say he was one of the prominent members of that party. He sat in the second bench from the front, and he was one of their spokesmen on quite a number of matters. He often spoke on Information, before that hon. member over there received promotion as the Shadow Minister of Information. But of course he left that party, and he wrote a letter telling the truth, and now they sneer and jeer at him, as they do with all the members of that party who have left them and joined the other party.

Tell us what Jaap Marais said about you.

That hon. member is also making funny noises.

Order! Will hon. members please stop making interjections and allow the hon. the Minister to make his speech.

I do not mind interjections, but they are the first to squeal when somebody interjects from this side when they are talking. Most of them are always squealing, including that hon. member. I have never objected to interjections. Even when they kick up a row I do not mind, because it merely shows that I am getting home to them.

Now I want to deal with the manpower shortage. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said we are well acquainted with the United Party’s labour policy. I agree with him. We are well acquainted with it, if you can call it a policy. In fact, we are too well acquainted with it. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was again guilty of a number of platitudes. He said that 3½ million cannot provide all the skills necessary for a population of 20 million, or something to that effect, and I agree with him if he did say it. He referred to the vast potential amongst the non-Whites, meaning of course mainly the 14 million Bantu we have. More platitudes, Sir. Lower-paid white jobs must be done by non-Whites, and Whites displaced must be trained for better jobs. But in 1963 the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said this, as reported on 20th November, 1963—

That is what he said in 1963 about job reservation. I wonder whether they still say that? Now they do not say a word. Do they still stand by that statement made by the Leader of the Opposition in 1963? Because the implications were: Throw the doors open to all non-white labour to enter any sphere of employment. That is the logical consequence of that statement. 1963 was three years before a general election, but during this election they issued this book, and this is what they say—

In 1963 he condemned job reservation as something evil, but in 1970, when there is an election in the offing, he says job reservation is not enough to protect the white worker.

It is quite useless.

I am speaking to the Leader of the Opposition and not to that hon. member. Now let me deal with their so-called labour policy.

Have you finished with that?

I have finished with that and I will finish with those hon. members. I want to apply that so-called labour policy— he said we were well acquainted with that labour policy—to a very large extent as it will affect the S.A. Railways if this policy is implemented. First of all, they say that to meet these problems the policy of the United Party is the following. He refers to the shortage of manpower in South Africa. He says they guarantee the employment of Whites at real wages, not lower than those they earn at present, and the guarantee should last for at least 10 years in those industries where non-Whites are beginning to do white jobs. Now, on the S.A. Railways I have an acute manpower shortage, a very serious shortage. All the white workers on the Railways are protected by law. They cannot be summarily dismissed. If they are dismissed it can only be as the result of serious misconduct and they still have the right of appeal. In other words, they have this protection that the hon. member said should be given to those workers in the industries where the non-Whites are coming in. He said they would introduce a national minimum wage for Whites. That is one of their solutions. There is a minimum wage for Whites on the Railways. Unskilled Whites who are the lower-paid workers receive a minimum wage. He says the rate for the job should be applied at realistic, not minimum, wage levels in all those cases where normal wages are above the national minimum wage for Whites. But he has not given it any thought. Directly a wage for a particular industry is applied, it becomes the minimum wage in any case, whether it is the real wage or not, whether it is above the minimum or not. Directly an industrial agreement is arrived at and is published to give it the force of law, that particular wage becomes the minimum wage. It shows that they have given no thought to this whatever. They say they recognize the liberty of trade unions to negotiate agreements enforceable in law. But that has been the position since 1924. Does the hon. member not know that? The Industrial Conciliation Act was passed in 1924.

By Smuts.

Never mind by whom, whether it was by Smuts or anybody else. It was passed by this House, not by Smuts. Again, listen to that silly laughter. The hon. member finds it very amusing to say it was passed by Smuts. Sir, the Preacher says you must answer fools according to their folly, but I am afraid I cannot even answer that hon. member according to his folly. But they are trying to get away from this. That is their whole object. They want to recognize the liberty of trade unions to negotiate agreements, and they and the employers must be entrusted as far as possible to make adjustments in a changing labour pattern. This is their solution for the manpower problem. Sir, is it any wonder that not a single trade union leader has said in public that he supports the labour policy of the United Party? And they will not, because they know how foolish it is, how futile it is. I wonder why they do not summon up sufficient courage to say what they really want and what they mean, and I am challenging them to-day. That hon. member who has so much to say, and who is supposed to be the shadow Minister of Labour, I am challenging to say whether they are prepared to throw open the doors to non-Whites in all spheres of employment, even if the trade unions do not agree with it.

You have our policy there.

This? A policy? Sir, it is not a policy; it is an anachronism. [Interjections.] You see, Sir, that hon. member has not the courage of his convictions. The Leader of the Opposition said in regard to job reservation in 1963 by implication that all the doors must be thrown open, but to-day he has not got the courage, because there is a provincial election in the offing, to say that the doors must be thrown open for non-Whites even if the trade unions do not agree. What those hon. members are doing is to hide behind the trade unions.

As you are doing on the Railways.

I am doing it on the Railways, with the concurrence of the trade unions, yes, but I have the courage to say what my policy is, while those hon. gentlemen do not have the guts to say what their policy is.

But you took that over from us.

Oh, do not talk nonsense. Sir, the hon. member cannot help talking nonsense. I took it over from them! I am asking them what their policy is in this regard. Will they summon sufficient courage to say that they stand, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said by implication in 1963, for the unrestricted use of non-white labour, even if the trade unions do not agree with them and do not support them? I say that they will not have the courage to say that they will do it. They hide behind the trade unions. They are more concerned with political expediency than with the good and the interest of the country. They are afraid that they might lose a few votes, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will have an opportunity to reply. It is a very simple question. Does he still stand by his statement made in 1963? The country wants to know. Is he prepared to say that they will stand for the unrestricted use of non-white labour in all spheres of employment, in spite of what the attitude of the trade unions is, or will he continue to hide behind the skirts of the trade union leaders while he does not have the guts to say what he stands for? I challenge him to say that. He will have the opportunity to do so. Sir, I predict that he will get out of it somehow. He will not give a straight reply. He has never done it in the past. The trouble of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is that he must depend for the labour knowledge he has on the hon. member for Yeoville, and what he knows about labour is really dangerous.

But you are in labour now. You are labouring.

Sir, this hon. member is one of the first to complain when someone interjects while he is speaking and he will not reply to any questions, but as long as someone else is speaking he makes the most futile, stupid and silly interjections possible.

That’s right; be personal.

My time is very short, but there is one thing that saddens me in this debate, and that is that when the Prime Minister said that at least 140,000 English-speakers voted for the Nationalist Party, there were cries of derision from that side of the House. Do you know why, Sir? They claim a monopoly of English-speaking support. Of course, in spite of their stories of national unity they still beat the racial drum, as they did during this election—they and their newspapers. They are still making attempts to drive the English-speakers in this country into the racial kraal. They still misrepresent the aims and policies of the Nationalist Afrikaner in order to frighten the English-speakers, the same as the hon. member for South Coast did during the referendum campaign. I can quote a lot that he said at that time which he is ashamed of to-day. I have them all here.

Act your age. Grow up.

Would the hon. member like me to quote some of the things he said during 1961? [Interjections.] I say that these hon. gentlemen still misrepresent the aims and policies of the Nationalist Afrikaner to frighten the English-speakers. Any prominent English-speaker who openly supports the National Party is derided, attacked and ostracized by those hon. gentlemen.

What did you do to Harry Lewis?

And then they dare talk about national unity. Their type of national unity is the unity of English speakers with anglicized Afrikaners who are prepared to abandon their language, their culture and traditions, and I can give a number of examples on that side of the House, so-called Afrikaners who have abandoned their language, their tradition and their culture. That is the type of Afrikaner they want to form national unity with. But ours is a much broader national unity. We have recognized and maintained the separate identity of the two language groups, but we want to come together—not in the National Party; we are not favouring national unity in the National Party. We want a united nation of South Africa, outside the party. Those hon. gentlemen want national unity within the United Party, for the sake of the English-speakers and the type of Afrikaner like the hon. member for Yeoville and the Leader of the Opposition, who has abandoned his language and has abandoned his culture and everything else belonging to the Afrikaner. That is the type of national unity they want. That is why he says that when he wants national unity he does not ask whether a man is English or Afrikaans speaking; he just wants to know whether he is a South African. That is the national unity they want in the United Party, whereas we want a united nation in South Africa, because a united nation of South Africa is what we need. We want to come together, to work together, and, if necessary, to fight together for South Africa.

I hope that the hon. the Prime Minister was listening with pride to the exposition of national unity and the attitude of the Nationalist Party towards national unity and to what I can regard as nothing but a scurrilous reflection on hon. members on this side of the House.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “scurrilous ”.

I withdraw it. I say it is a personal attack on a member of this side of the House which made me feel ashamed to be classed as a South African together with an hon. fellow-South African who can make a statement like that. He made a personal attack on a person whom he accused of being an Anglicized Afrikaner and then stands up and claims to believe in national unity. If that is the national unity for which the Prime Minister and his party stands, then what is he going to say to the McLachlans whose home language is Afrikaans; what is he going to say to the Wilkins, the Lewis’s, the Langleys? Sir, one could go on mentioning others. In other words, the Langleys, the Prof. Thoms and the McLachlans are not true South Africans because they have been untrue to their culture and their language. Is that the sort of South Africanism they advocate? The last person who should talk about national unity in the future is the hon. the Minister of Transport if that is his attitude to South Africa and to South Africanism. The hon. the Minister puts Dr. Albert Hertzog in the shade when it comes to that sort of racialistic approach towards individual South Africans and their right to speak the language of their choice.

Sir, the hon. the Minister got up here and said that there had been no swing away from the Nationalist Party.

It just happened.

Yes, it just happened but I notice a few of our friends are absent. But, of course, the hon. the Minister of Transport is always right. On the 21st April of this year, which, if I remember rightly, was a day before a certain event in South Africa, he appeared in Pietermaritzburg (City) from where they had sent out an S.O.S. because they had heard that the railwaymen were going to vote for the United Party. They sent the hon. the Minister of Transport along and he said in Maritzburg: “The message I bring to Pietermaritzburg is that in the other provinces it is going very well with the National Party ”. “Mr. Schoeman said his forecasts had been accurate in the past. He now forecast Nationalist victories in Newcastle, Vryheid, Umhlatuzana, Zululand, Klip River as well as Port Natal, Umlazi, Pietermaritzburg (City) and Pietermaritzburg (District). ” Mr. Schoeman said his forecasts had been accurate in the past. I am glad, Sir, that he referred to the past tense.

The hon. the Prime Minister in talking of the election yesterday of course missed the whole point of the Leader of the Opposition, which was that that Party was out of touch with the people; that it did not know what was going to hit it; that it did not know what was happening; and now. Sir, they try to play it down. If you want evidence to show how out of touch they are I have just quoted the hon. the Minister of Transport; but there is other evidence also. As you know, it has been ruled that we as Parliamentarians do not take bets, but it is an indication of the kindness and generosity of many of my friends that having predicted the election results on the basis of their close knowledge of the situation, they were so pleased with the results afterwards that of their own free will they came and presented me with gifts.

But, Sir, there were others who spoke big before the election. The hon. the Prime Minister will remember a deputation which came to see him. When they came back they reported on the breakfast they had had of boerewors and pap and they said that they had also had an undertaking from the Prime Minister that he would personally lead the Nationalist Party on its assault on Natal. He was coming to woe Natal and would personally lead the attack. The hon. the Prime Minister nailed his leadership to the mast of the ship which was going to capture Natal, the pirate ship that was going to sail in and capture us. But the ship hit the rocks just as it got to the Drakensberg and was shipwrecked and it was shipwrecked with the Prime Minister’s flag of leadership on it. It was the Prime Minister who personally undertook to lead the assault on Natal. We also had a stirring call from the hon. member for Klip River—the about-to-be ex-leader of the Nationalist Party in Natal —in the last issue of a Nationalist election newspaper published in Natal, the Nataller election supplement. On Friday the 17th, just before the election, so that the Prime Minister’s leadership could be upheld and justified, he said in a message to the voters of Natal—

Mr. Speaker, they did. They acted very positively. In this newspaper we have the team that the hon. the Prime Minister came to lead in Natal: We had Mr. Harry Lewis. I do not see him sitting here. We had Mr. Con Botha who was going to lift me out of Point. He got shot so full of holes that I do not think we will ever see him in an election again. My majority only went from 2,100 to over 5,000. That was the Prime Minister’s leadership! We had Mr. L. Klopper, who was going to come back from Pietermaritzburg (City). I do not see him around. We had Mr. Jan Stander, who was going to come back as the representative of Port Natal. I do not see him here. We had Mr. Val Volker, the former member for Umhlatuzana, another of our absent friends. We had Mr. Ben Pienaar of Zululand.

Where is he?

Mr. Speaker, there was no swing away from the Nationalist Party! He is also just absent; he retired. We had Mr. Gary Tracey, who helped the hon. member for South Coast to more than double his majority. We had Mr. Carl Eggers who the hon. the Minister of Transport said would win Pietermaritzburg (District). I do not see him here. And then we had the three members who came back. So we are back where we were in 1948. In 1948 there were three Nationalist Party members representing Natal. We are back there, but the next time we are going back to where we were before 1948 and there will not be any Nationalist representatives from Natal at all. And then, Sir, the hon. the Minister of Transport gets up in this House and reads us a lecture firstly to show that the election did not mean a thing, that the Nationalist Party had lost nothing, and he then tried to lecture us on a shameless betrayal of the Coloured people. He will be dealt with in the course of this debate, but I would like to ask him whether he does not consider the removal of all representation for the Coloured people, after a pledge given by a Nationalist Prime Minister, to be a shameless betrayal? And that after a colleague of his in the Cabinet had said that although they gave the pledge to the Coloured people, they did not really mean to carry it out. Sir, what is now a shameless betrayal? Who has been guilty of a shameless betrayal of the Coloured people? That is the sort of argument with which the hon. the Minister of Transport tried to cover up the total failure of the Prime Minister’s damp-squib bomb which did not go off in yesterday’s debate.

But, Sir, while we are talking of the election, I think it is fair to say that not only the Prime Minister suffered in his leadership when he undertook to lead the Nationalist Party in Natal. The Nationalist Party leaders in Natal have had a tough time lately. Take the case of one ex-Minister, Mr. Willie Maree. I think he is very happy that he was not leading the Nationalist Party in this fight. But he sits at the moment on two important government bodies. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he believes it is a good thing that an ex-Cabinet Minister sitting on a Community Development board should be the director of a company …

He is not there; you are talking nonsense.

Sir, I have the name of the company. I have seen its prospectus.

If you say that he is a member of the Community Development Board you are talking utter tripe.

Of a board under Community Development.

You are still talking utter tripe.

Does he hold no position in Community Development?

None whatsoever.

I am glad to hear that, because it is commonly known that he held a position in the Department …

He holds no position whatsoever.

May I ask the hon. the Minister then whether at any time he held any position on a board or committee of Community Development?

Yes.

May I ask the Minister when he ceased to hold any position in Community Development?

When he became a director of a property company. He resigned two months after being appointed. I appointed him, and what is wrong with that?

The point is that that same person who was connected with Community Development became a director of a company owning land which they value at R8.4 million at Richard’s Bay. I remember the hon. the Prime Minister, when questioned at a meeting, taking strong exception to it and in fact sending police to question a man who had asked about the ownership of land at Richard’s Bay.

To take a statement.

I say why question a man when it is public knowledge that prominent politicians have interests in Richard’s Bay? What I am questioning is the Prime Minister’s action in using the police to interrogate a man for asking questions about property ownership at Richard’s Bay and I am quoting an ex-leader of the Nationalist Party in Natal as a person connected with land in Richard’s Bay. That is all.

Why cannot he have it?

He has an interest in land there but why cannot people ask questions about it without being interrogated?

That is so typically United Party.

Sir, Natal has been tough on leaders of the Nationalist Party. The hon. member for Klip River has had promotion to some sort of “kaptein ”, as I believe the job is called …

You are a gossipmonger.

On a point of order Sir, is the hon. member for Potchefstroom entitled to refer to a member on this side as a “gossip-monger ”?

Yes.

Order! I want to ask the hon. member to withdraw that word. I do not know who said it.

I said it. I withdraw it.

Order! One interjection leads to another and then we get this kind of reaction I called on only one member to speak and he is the hon. member for Durban (Point). I make this appeal to both sides of this House.

Sir, this ex-leader of the Nationalist Party in Natal who is no longer in the Cabinet was one of the first to make way. Now we have had an election and the hon. the Prime Minister announced, after the election that he would have to do a bit of “opknappingswerk ”; that he would have to improve the position; there would have to be better administration and more efficiency. So he transferred the present leader of the Nationalist Party in Natal to Nongoma; he is bringing the ex-Administrator in as leader of the Nationalist Party in Natal but he is already involved in some sort of argument. I wish I could be a fly on the wall at his first Cabinet meeting, Sir, because I see that the good lady of the future leader of the Nationalists in Natal has been having a press battle with the wife of another Cabinet Minister. [Interjections.] In Natal, this province that has been wooed for votes but is a province which one lady wants to throw to the sharks.

No. Make sure of your facts.

She was quoted as having said that. The point I am driving home is the disagreement within the Nationalist Party, which has spread beyond the Cabinet itself. I am starting with one member who is not yet a Cabinet Minister and I am showing that already there is disagreement. But now let us look within the Cabinet itself. I want to start off by referring to the case of the hon. Minister of Health, who was reported to have said that South Africa was negotiating air bases with Malawi. Subsequently he denied having made that statement. This, of course, is a statement of tremendous importance. It has been denied by Malawi and also, I believe, by the hon. the Minister of Defence.

And by myself.

And by the hon. the Minister of Health and of Mines. However, a Nationalist Party newspaper, under the control of Nationalist Party Cabinet Ministers, denied the denial. It stated that it had the evidence of what the hon. the Minister had said. Is the hon. the Prime Minister going to allow one of his newspapers publicly to say that one of his Ministers is telling an untruth? Because that is what has happened. Die Beeld has publicly stated that a member of the Cabinet had told an untruth.

Where is it? Read it.

The hon. the Minister denies that he made this statement; Die Beeld says that he did make this statement and that they have a tape recording thereof.

They only said they had a tape recording …

In other words, by implication and by a clear repudiation, they said a member of the Government was not telling the truth. What, Mr. Speaker, must South Africa think of the Government when a newspaper is allowed to make that type of allegation against one of its members and get away with it? Either the newspaper is wrong and should then apologize, or the hon. the Minister is wrong and should be fired.

But this was only one of the numerous differences within the Cabinet. We also had the hon. member for Klip River stating at a meeting held in Estcourt that a Nationalist Party government might declare war and send its army and police into an independent Bantustan if it was in the interest of South Africa to do so. The ex-member for Zululand said he had an undertaking from the hon. the Minister of Defence that should there be any danger of communism or any other danger to South Africa in an independent Bantustan South Africa would send its forces in.

Where did you get that from?

It was quoted in various newspapers in Natal.

Quote it. You are just taking a chance.

I have quoted the hon. member for Klip River and I have stated what the ex-hon. member for Zululand said at a meeting. I then questioned the hon. the Minister of Defence and asked him whether he was prepared to repudiate that statement. He replied to me without repudiating the statement.

Quote what I said.

The hon. the Minister wriggled, hummed and hawed; he said we would defend ourselves but he made no clear repudiation of the statement.

Quote what I said.

I am not going to quote what the hon. the Minister said. I say that the hon. the Minister did not give a clear indication. Now we have him before Parliament and as such answerable to the people of South Africa. So, we want to know whether the independence of a so-called Bantu state is to be complete or is it going to be an independence where we will still send forces in if we do not like what is going on there? Because the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration has been reported as contradicting the hon. member for Klip River. The Minister told the same audience that South Africa would never send a force into a country unless it was necessary. “If we are attacked ”, he said, “we would have to send in our forces ”. Well, here we have one Minister saying that only if we are attacked would we send in forces; we have an hon. member who has stated that we would send in forces; we have another member who said he had received an undertaking on this. So we expect from the hon. the Minister of Defence clarification of what sort of independence this is going to be for the Bantustans. Of course, it won’t be independence as long as you are going to hold over their heads the sword of military intervention. It is, therefore, essential for South Africa and for our position in the world that the hon. the Minister as Minister of Defence should make an unequivocal statement on the Government’s attitude to this issue.

Mr. Speaker, this is the Cabinet which has now been “opgeknap ”, which has been streamlined and which is now going to give us efficiency. In 1948 we heard of a Cabinet of all the talents; in 1970 we have a Cabinet double the size but with half the talent, unless it is the talent for making a mess of the country— because for that they have a magnificent talent. We have arguments within that Cabinet—for instance, between the hon. the Minister for Bantu Administration and his Deputy, Dr. Koornhof, and the one issues a statement while the other has to repudiate it. This is the Government under which we have to enter the 1970’s. We are entering a new decade with a cabinet and a government which not only has no clear policy for South Africa but is also unable to administer and run South Africa in the interests of its people. We, on the one hand, have given South Africa a clear vision for the new decade, a clear vision of the road ahead. On the other hand we are saddled with a government which is hesitant, inefficient and without the courage and confidence to tackle the challenges of the new decade, of the new era we are moving into. On every side we find a crisis. The hon. the Minister of Transport this afternoon admitted that he had a very serious situation on the Railways on account of staff shortages—the same hon. Minister who, wearing his halo, attacked us for having been dishonourable to the Coloured but who went into the by-election at Langlaagte to offer a R60 million pay increase to railwaymen. Now he admits that despite that he still has a serious situation. I want to go further and say that there is a crisis in transport but we shall take that further during the Railway debate.

There is a similar crisis throughout the Public Service—shortages of staff virtually in every department. There is a housing crisis, a critical housing crisis. Houses are being built to move people but not to house them.

Where is there a crisis?

That hon. Minister asks “where? ”.

The best Minister you ever had.

He came to my constituency, and my opponent during the election said he had pointed out the crisis in housing to the hon. the Minister and that the Minister was coming to offer his solution to that crisis. Now the hon. the Minister asks, “Where is the crisis? ”. Obviously he went to stay with my opponent who lives in the property which he bought from Community Development.

Who is that?

My opponent bought it from Community Development.

So what?

I am saying there is a housing crisis there.

If you had the money you should have bought it.

For the Minister, of course, there is no housing crisis. But I ask him to walk down Point Road with me and to look down the alleys and in the backyards to see how people are living. Let him see how they are living and let him then talk of there being no housing crisis. I ask him to talk to any young couple who want to get married and build a home. Let him then say there is no housing crisis. I say there is such a crisis and this is the measure of the lack of knowledge on the part of the Government of the needs of South Africa.

We have a water crisis and the hon. the Minister has to apply pressure in asking donations from people to help during the Water Year. The Government has a budget and has a responsibility and yet it has to go to private enterprise, to firms, put pressure on them and say, “You should give us so much ”. If that is not indirect pressure, then I do not know what is. It is being admitted everywhere that we have a water crisis in South Africa.

We also have a serious crime situation and administratively we have a muddle almost in every department. There is, for instance, the Department of the Interior with Japanese jockeys and with all the other nonsense we have had. All that has been done is to push a Minister from one department so that he can make a mess in another department. But nothing has been solved yet. This is the sort of administration under which we are expected to enter the new decade.

Yet we have on our hands vast potential: potential in minerals, in water, in manpower, in brainpower, in leadership—everything required to make of us a great country. We have everything except the Government to inspire the progress that South Africa deserves. We have our problems; we have the problem of the Coloured people where the Government can offer no solution. The Prime Minister once again in this debate said it was a problem to be solved in future; that it was being discussed. It is a party with no policy. Its Bantu policy has fallen in total ruins, a policy which every thinking Nationalist knows does not, cannot and never will work. But they have no alternative to offer. This is what we are saddled with—a government with its policies in ruins about them. And with such a government we have to move into the 1970’s.

My leader had every right to censure the Government for having failed to give South Africa the sort of vision and the sort of leadership which we deserve, which South Africa deserves and which we on this side of the House will give South Africa as soon as we get rid of the present encumbrance on our people.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat pointed out that we were now entering a very important decade, and I agree with him. Since this is the case and since we now find ourselves at the beginning of the life of a new Parliament with a promise on the part of the Opposition that they have come to this Parliament with new fire and that they would try to furnish guidance with new enthusiasm, one finds it surprising that they have up to now in this debate come forward with such foolish things. Since yesterday we have seen one speaker after another occupy his time with making little calculations, as if they were so pleased that they had not obtained even less than 37 per cent of the votes. Now they are beginning to play around with shadow cabinets and one speaker after another is trying to make little calculations in order to indicate that they have, with the 37 per cent of the votes which they polled, been imbued with new life. I do not think we will achieve very much if we are going to make little calculations right up to the end of this debate.

I want to return to what happened here yesterday when the hon. the Prime Minister reacted to a specific remark made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Prime Minister took immediate exception to it. I would be pleased if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would give me his attention now. The Prime Minister took exception yesterday when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. as Leader of his party, deliberately and in a calculated way introduced a new element into this debate by intimating that it would be unfair that 13 per cent of the surface area of South Africa would belong to the Bantu nations. The Prime Minister did object, but one could argue that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not take note of it in this way in his argument. However, after the Prime Minister objected to it with all the responsibility at his disposal, the person whom that hon. Leader of the Opposition has appointed as his chief spokesman on planning in this country also rose to his feet and took it further. I am referring of course to the hon. member for Hillbrow. The hon. member for Hillbrow rose to his feet and raised in the idiom of the leftists and the agitators outside South Africa, as the Prime Minister described it, that extremely dangerous and emotionally-charged argument in this House when he asked: What morality is there in giving four-fifths of the black population of this country a mere 13 per cent of the surface area of the country? I now put it to the House that those two gentlemen who made those remarks discussed the matter between them. I refuse to believe that the Leader of the Opposition and that hon. member would raise that point here and proceed with the argument even after the Prime Minister had referred to it without their having reached prior agreement on it. I now put it to you that it is the policy of that party to allocate more than 13 per cent of this country to the Bantu. I think the House and the country is entitled to know what they intend doing in future. I want to point out that the way in which the point was raised was just as poisonous, just as wrong and just as culpable as it was in all the arguments which had their origin outside South Africa. And what was that? It was the impression which was given that here, within the geographical boundaries of our country, a very grave injustice was being done. Over the years, since the days when the bases of the distribution of people and land in this country were being argued, this matter, as you know, has been settled inside and outside this Parliament, first by Dr. Verwoerd, then by his successors and also by the present Minister of Bantu Administration. And what is the argument? The argument is that at the southernmost point of South Africa there are not merely areas which are at present being allocated and which are at present being purchased. Within this geographical area there are also parts which belong historically to the Bantu. They subsequently became free states, as we know, them, and they all form part of the ethnic group. The matter must therefore be viewed in this greater context and hon. members must realize that it does not merely revolve around the 13 per cent indicated in terms of legislation.

I put it to you, Sir. that with this argument an element of culpability has been dragged into politics which South Africa must be spared. I now want to proceed to the next point but I trust that the Leader of the Deposition will, when he replies, inform this House very clearly as to why he and the hon. member for Hillbrow got to their feet in this House and raised this argument and this allegation in such an emotional way. To my knowledge, this is the first time it has been raised in this House. I think it is dangerous. I think that we should proceed with caution in that connection. I also think that it is unfair. I put it to you. Sir, that it is the United Party’s intention to introduce this argument in order to try to attract new attention in South Africa with it. I put it to them, too. It is unfair to do so. They know how dangerous it is. They know who can help them—not the people in this country; they know that the only people who can help them are the agitators outside South Africa.

I want to agree with the hon. member who has just resumed his seat in regard to one point. I want to tell him that I am as aware as he is of the fact that we are standing on the threshold of the seventies. But up to now that hon. member and all the hon. members on the opposite side have not yet in this debate discussed the fundamental matters which are at issue in South African politics. Why have they avoided them? Why did they avoid them at the beginning of this decade? Surely they know that the road ahead is not going to become easier but more difficult. Surely they know that what is at issue here are not trivial matters. What is at issue is not the matters raised by the hon. member. Surely he knows that. Does he think that that is what is at issue in South African politics? No, Sir, that is not what is at issue. I shall tell you what is at issue. What is at issue is the fundamental problem in South Africa and in the world, i.e. human relations. I need not argue this matter with him. I can just say this to hon. members: If they think back on the past 25 years they will realize what was at issue in the world during that time. This was what was at issue in five continents. What was at issue? It concerns the primary and the most important question, and I do not want to elaborate on that. More has been said in this House about it than about any other matter in South Africa, i.e. human relations. What was at issue. Sir? As the hon. the Prime Minister also put it. it concerned the question: How does a plurality of peoples live together, not temporarily but permanently, and not at variance but in peace, in one country? That is what is at issue.

But give us some ideas about it then.

Yes. I am going to discuss this. All the hon. member has to do is listen. I now want to make this hypothesis: If that party had in fact been governing for the past 22 years, this matter would already have led to a revolution. It would be extremely dangerous for the survival of the Whites, in fact, for all peoples in this country, if there was even a possibility that this party could come into power. I shall tell hon. members why. In the history of the world in modern times we see that the clashes which have taken place during the past 25 years, except those behind the Iron Curtain, where what was at issue was imperialism and the engulfing of peoples, was concerned with one matter only, which is this: How does a plurality of peoples live together in peace in the same country? After the last World War this was at issue in the clash which occurred in India. What happened there, was apartheid, a confirmation of this Government’s policy. What is happening at the moment in the Middle East is not a confirmation of the standpoint of those gentlemen. It is a confirmation of the standpoint in which we believe. What is happening now and happened in the past years in Cyprus concerns the standpoint which we advocate, and not that of the United Party.

And Switzerland?

I shall come to Switzerland as well. What do hon. members think happened on the continent of Africa? Was it a confirmation of that hon. member’s standpoint? No. It was a confirmation of this Government’s standpoint. Why do hon. members think Biafra and Nigeria were until recently locked in a death struggle? It was nothing less than this question: How do several peoples live permanently together in one country in peace? That is what was at issue in South Africa, and still is. We have here the confirmation of the fact that the Government with its policy is correct, for there are only two directions in the world. There is no direction such as that of the United Party. On the one hand there is the direction of integration which has reached an impasse everywhere. There is not a single example in the entire world where that direction has been successful. Do hon. members perhaps know of one?

What is happening in Portugal, here on our borders? [Interjections.]

I shall discuss that further. There are only two directions. There is the recognition of different groups and of peoples, with their rights, ambitions and ideals. Blood has been spilled for that. That direction has failed on all continents. That direction has, however, been tried, i.e. where Whites and Blacks live together. Or what do hon. members think happened in Africa? Quite by chance I happened on a revealing article in the Daily Sketch. Here they describe what happened in America. I may just say that it is not for me to go into what the Americans are doing or are not doing. It is however interesting to know that there is no chance of peace in America. Whether they are going to succeed there I do not know. Nor is it any concern of mine. What is in fact happening is that certain voices are being raised in the U.S.A.—whether they are going to succeed we do not know. Those voices are asking: Give us a few states too which we can call our own. Here the Daily Sketch makes a very important admission. The Daily Sketch is printed in England and I understand that it is an established newspaper with a very large circulation. I want to read to hon. members what the Daily Sketch says. The article begins like this: “they tried … ” These are the Americans. This is the advice the Daily Sketch gave to the English so that they would not do what the Americans had done in America. The article begins as follows—

Thus, on one level only—

Where this manifestation is to be found in the world, there is an indication that there are either the militants on the one hand, with all their demands to drive the white man out everywhere and lay claim to everything, or there is the other side where they themselves effect automatic division, as we want to do here; but in between the two there is no United Party plan. There is not a single country in the world which supports the United Party’s standpoint. I want to go further. I challenge hon. members on the opposite side to mention one country in the world that has a pattern similar to that of the United Party. There is not one. We need not look to the outside world. The standpoint of the United Party is being rejected within South Africa by the people with whom they want to put it into effect. In South Africa there are two standpoints as well. We know that. There is the standpoint of the militants. We know who they are. Those who are quite militant and dangerous, to-day find themselves outside South Africa. There is that standpoint. Then there is the standpoint of the National Party, but there is nothing in between. There is not one important non-white party in this country which has so far stated that they support the United Party. In the Bantu areas there is not a single important authority which my colleague, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development deals with, which has stated that they want the United Party’s standpoint. He also deals with two standpoints. The greatest breakthrough of this century and this age as far as we are concerned is the breakthrough of this party to the minds of non-white people who allow us to do with them what we want to and what we are going to do with them. That is the breakthrough. The peace and prosperity prevailing here in South Africa, came about because there was a breakthrough to the minds of those people who to-day want to co-operate with the National Party in order to make a success of its policy.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a statement here and spoke about a “complete breakdown of the apartheid policy ”. It is not a “complete breakdown ” of the apartheid policy; it is a breakthrough of the apartheid policy to the minds of these people among whom this policy must be implemented. We on this side of the House have never required that it should be or claimed that it is easy to implement. We have never said that it is inexpensive to implement. We have never said that we will make easy progress with the people themselves. We did in fact say that it was almost the impossible, the superhuman which we were attempting. That we knew from the beginning, because what do we need? We need a great deal of money. We need a great deal of patience. We need a great deal of dedication. We need a great many people. We need a great deal of instruction. We are not dealing here with machines; we are dealing here with people and one must carry them along with the process. That is what we need. When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition speaks of a “total breakdown of the apartheid policy ” then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that it is not true. He knows that it is not true.

Order! The hon. the Minister is not allowed to say that he knows it is not true. The hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that. The point I wanted to make is that the opposite is true. I am quite justified in saying therefore that if the United Party had been in power there would already have been problems and difficulties of colossal magnitude. If the United Party were to come to power, we would be heading for revolution. We are making an offer and that party is making an offer, and what is their offer and what is ours? We are making the offer as it is being made to people in the rest of the world and according to the longings in the hearts of peoples, i.e. an offer which will enable them, no matter how primitive, no matter how few in number, or how simple to tread their own path in future so that they can know where they are going and also have a place where they can build their ideals. We are making them that offer. We are saying to them that we will help and lead them along that road. We will also help to foot the bill. We will try to make the people who can furnish guidance available. We are prepared to take these people along that road. But what offer is being made by members on the opposite side? The offer being made by members on the opposite side is that there will be and continue to be one undivided South Africa. This greater South Africa, they are saying to the non-Whites in this country, is your country as well, but they refuse to accept the consequences, because what does that mean? If one makes the offer that it will be one country with one community in which one devotion and one loyalty will apply, you are in fact saying to those people to whom you are making this offer that all those tokens and all those privileges which a citizen of that country will receive will inevitably accompany it. What are their privileges? If you offer them an undivided country and if you expect them to serve that country loyally, if you say to them that that country is their fatherland and that it should comprise one greater community which must live together in peace, love and loyalty, then one at least has the right to demand citizenship of that country of yours, with everything which goes hand in hand with that citizenship. What goes hand in hand with that citizenship? It follows that one will have to give them the political rights of that citizenship. It follows that one must accord them an opportunity of giving expression to the citizenship socially and economically, of working and participating at all levels of life.

And what are you giving the Coloureds?

If I have sufficient time, I shall come to that. The hon. the Leader must just give me a chance. The consequences of the offer of that party is one undivided South Africa, but within that one undivided South Africa all the people, regardless of colour, must have the fundamental right to demand the privileges and benefits of citizenship. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition calls it leadership. Whom is he leading and who has accepted his leadership? No-one. Can he mention to me a single party of a non-white ethnic group in South Africa which has accepted his leadership? Can he mention a single responsible opinion which has so far been stated thus: I am prepared to accept the United Party on its basis. They will not do so. They would be mad if they did. On the other hand, the National Party offers them what is their due and what is fundamental to the rights attached to that. What does that side of the House offer them? The United Party is bluffing itself. It is making no impression on the people with whom they want to work; it is making no impression on the world outside and it is making no impression on the political opinion of the Whites in South Africa, because they think they can at all times get away with giving a little and withholding a great deal. Who will let themselves be bluffed?

What nation will allow itself to be bluffed and will at all times be prepared to receive a little while a great deal is being withheld from them, in the political as well as in other spheres? That is why I say it is not acceptable and that is why it is also very clear. Not only are the non-Whites of this country not prepared to accept it, they have rejected it up to now, but the Whites also reject it, and that White political world opinion which also has an influence on South Africa and on what we are doing here, also rejects it, because in the world outside there are also two opinions. There is on the one hand the opinion of the militants, and we know what those consequences and what those demands are, on the other hand, there is the opinion as we state it. I put it to you. Sir, that what has been successful since the year 1945 has only been the policy of apartheid of the National Party in South Africa. We are sorry that it is not officially accepted anywhere, but it is still the only policy which has ever succeeded in practice. That is why I maintain that what will be of fundamental importance in the seventies is not to talk a lot of nonsense but to know what is becoming of the people and what is fundamental for relations between people in this country, what road they are following to the year 2000 and what is going to happen in this decade to which the hon. member who has just resumed his seat referred. We can discuss these relations between the Whites and the non-Whites of this country. We can talk about how we are living together. There are many other important relations as well.

That is why I repeat that if that party had been in power it would already have been saddled with the problem of a revolution, because it would have reminded the people of everything which is fundamental. It would not have been able to resist the demands. If that party should come to power to-morrow, we expect them at least to govern as they have opposed if it wants to be honest towards South Africa and the people of South Africa, both Whites and non-Whites. If it is not prepared to govern as it has opposed it is dishonest in all aspects of the opposition standpoint it presents here. If it were to govern as it has opposed, the first demand which will be made of it will be the demand of fairplay, because if is impossible to think that one can withhold citizenship from a person, offer little and withhold a great deal. It is impossible to expect that if that party should come to power and the people should be afforded an opportunity of making demands on it, the first demand which they would make of them would not be a demand for equitable relations among people according to their expectations. That is why I say, should they come into power to-morrow—and thank the Lord that that is not possible—the demand will be on record the day after that in the place of what they now want to reject they will have to create a new South Africa in the seventies. In that new South Africa things will take their course according to relations. It will be of no avail then coming forward with foolish talk of referendums. No, we are dealing here with people and their numbers are increasing by millions every year. We cannot keep them back with something like a referendum if one is withholding something fundamental from them. In what country in the world has that succeeded? To my knowledge it has not succeeded anywhere in the history of the world. While hon. members on that side of the House are telling the people outside that they have returned with new courage and with new fire, even though they drew only 37 per cent of the total number of votes, I hope that they will inform South Africa what relations between Whites and Blacks in this country will prevail which will have an honest basis and on which the security and prosperity of South Africa may justifiably be based.

Mr. Speaker, we have had from the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, one of the Ministers of this Government, a speech which in many respects I hope will not set the standard for debate in this House. I hope, for example, that we are not going to be reduced in this House, the highest legislature in the land, to making allegations or statements such as were made this afternoon by the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, namely that if we on this side of the House, the United Party, come into power, this will bring about a revolution in South Africa.

It will.

What a scandalous statement to make. The hon. the Minister of Water Affairs by way of interjection, repeats his statement.

Order! The hon. member should contain himself.

Mr. Speaker, I will abide by your ruling, but I do believe that this is not the way in which the two main political parties in this country should be conducting a debate. What did the speech of the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs amount to? It was a great deal of gesticulation and big words forcefully delivered. What does it amount to? It amounted firstly to trying to prove to this House what the Nationalist Government has been trying to do year in and year out and has not succeeded in persuading the electorate about, namely that the policy advocated by us on this side of the House is not feasible in the present context of South African affairs. They continually tell the House and the voters of South Africa that there are only two courses: integration or separation, and they go on to say “as they on that side of the House propose ”. This was the main argument of the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs this afternoon. This was what all these big words and this great longwinded speech amounted to. Can the hon. the Minister tell us where under the Nationalist Government after 22 years in power, there is separation? I will tell him where there is separation. There is separation in those areas where there is no development. Where there is development in this country, there is economic interdependence between the white man and the non-White. Surely the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs will admit that this is the foundation for development in this country. There is no separation in the sense in which he was using it. Therefore, how can he say that there are only two courses left open to us in South Africa?

That hon. member will never understand in any case.

Mr. Speaker, I understood very well. It is the old Nationalist argument that there are only these two courses open. Then the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs criticized the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for challenging the Government to deny that their apartheid policy, their policy of separate development call it what you will, has failed. Despite all their efforts it has failed. What has the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs done? He has not met that challenge in any way. All he has done is to try to pooh-pooh the policy of us on this side of the House and to say the only alternative is apartheid without explaining. I challenge somebody on that side of the House to get up in this debate and to tell us where this Nationalist Government is leading the country. There were several aspects of the Government’s separate development policy that were challenged in the recent election. There were aspects of the policy that were criticized. Questions were asked about it. To this day we have not had any answers. We have had no answers from the hon. the Prime Minister.

I believe that yesterday was a historical day in this House. It was historical for the obvious reason that the announcement was made that our scientists had discovered an improved method for dealing with uranium which would make it cheaper to produce atomic power. But I believe that history will prove that yesterday in Parliament was historical for two other reasons. Firstly I believe that the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday proved beyond all doubt to any person who previously had any doubt that the hon. the Prime Minister is not fitted either intellectually or through his leadership qualities to lead this country into the important decade of the seventies. In contrast, I believe, historians looking back on the debate yesterday, will look at the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and will realize by contrast that here we have the future leader of South Africa, the future Prime Minister, the man capable of dealing with the problems which will face South Africa in this important decade and the man who is prepared and able to put forward reasonable solutions which will meet these problems. What did we find from the hon. the Prime Minister? He had a great build-up from the Nationalist press about this bombshell that he was supposed to have delivered in this House. He was going to make an important statement. It was suggested that that statement had to do with race relations in South Africa, the future direction of separate development and so forth. Surely, this is the least that this House and this country, the voters of South Africa, could have expected from the hon. the Prime Minister. At the start of a new parliament after a general election which he had won, at the start of a new decade, surely this House and the voters of South Africa could expect that the hon. the Prime Minister, getting up in this debate, would have given the House his philosophy, would have told the House where he was leading the country, particularly on the question of race relations which remains the most important problem in this country. And what did we hear from him on the subject? Very little indeed.

A lot.

Nothing new and no philosophy on government whatsoever. But let us look at the other problems of South Africa, the problems concerning the ordinary man in the street. The ordinary man in the street is to-day …

… has never been better off.

… faced with rising cost of living, problems of taxation, the burden of, particularly, sales taxes and the difficulties of getting proper housing at a reasonable price, despite what the hon. the Minister of Community Development has to say. This is an indication of how out of touch this Government is when the hon. the Minister of Community Development can make an interjection to the effect that all is well on the housing front in this country.

I said they have better housing conditions than they ever had before.

Did we hear from the hon. the Prime Minister what solutions he has to the other problems facing South Africa and what his plans are in regard to them? What is perhaps the most important problem facing this country to-day other than race relations? I suggest that it is the labour shortage, the manpower problem. Did the hon. the Prime Minister deal with this in any way? From his speech one would think that this was not a problem at all. And yet speaker after speaker, industrialist after industrialist, and economist after economist in the last few months has been drawing attention to this as one of the gravest problems facing South Africa to-day. Yet the hon. the Prime Minister made no reference to it. But what is more alarming for the country is that the hon. the Minister of Transport, who is second in command to the Prime Minister in order of precedence in the Cabinet, also made a long speech dealing with labour. And did he deal with the labour problem? No, he spent his time criticizing our policy. We are not the Government. We are not the ones in a position to put this matter right, just yet. We will be because the electorate is beginning to realize that if they leave the problems of South Africa to this Government indefinitely, there will be no solution.

I want to deal in some detail with this question of manpower shortage. I hope that some member on that side of the House, and particularly the vociferous Minister of Community Development, might tell the country and this House what the Nationalist Government’s plans are to solve this problem. Mr. Speaker, do you realize that while the hon. the Prime Minister was making his speech in the House yesterday—or may be it was during the morning before the hon. the Prime Minister delivered his speech—a delegation from the Association of Chambers of Commerce in South Africa was meeting the Deputy Minister of Finance? They had hoped to meet the hon. the Minister of Finance, but apparently he was ill. They therefore met his Deputy instead. They were meeting him in order to draw to the Government’s attention the seriousness of this problem. According to the report in this morning’s Cape Times, this is what they told the hon. the Deputy Minister—

I should like to emphasize this. They pointed out that the present business mood was not a robust one. This is a polite way of saying that the economy is slowing down. This is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition told the Prime Minister yesterday. They went on to say—

They asked, and apparently pleaded, that something be done about this in the Budget. This took place yesterday. Now, what is this manpower shortage really? According to one of the economists of Sanlam there will be a shortage of 65,000 white workers by 1973. That is only three years off. There will be a shortage of 65,000 white workers despite immigration. He points out that this is more than 4 per cent of the total labour demand. In so far as professional and technical workers are concerned, he estimates that the shortage will be 23,000. which is 11 per cent of the total demand. Under these circumstances one would have expected the hon. the Prime Minister to have dealt with this serious matter in his speech.

But, Mr. Speaker, there is even more evidence, recent evidence. A few days ago an important survey of investment intentions, 1970-’71, made by the Bureau for Economic Research appeared. One would have thought that the hon. the Prime Minister would at least have referred to this important document. He, however, made no mention of it.

But why should he? [Interjections.]

These interjections prove once again how very much out of touch this Government and this party is with realities in South Africa, so much so that it is now becoming alarming to think that they can be so out of touch and yet the future of South Africa is in their hands for at least another five years. We hope that the public will ask for their resignation much sooner than that. For the benefit of the hon. member for Brakpan, who asked me why the hon. the Prime Minister should have referred to this document, this is what this document says. It was a survey made amongst certain business houses and on page 16 there is a summary of the survey results. I quote—

Now, let us have a look at their own assessment, the assessment made by those responsible for the survey, which is based on the information they obtained from the survey. They referred to various aspects of the survey and then they say, and I quote from page 22—

Then I would like to quote the next paragraph and perhaps then hon. members on that side of the House will realize why this survey is so significant. I hope they will also then realize why this House was entitled to expect from the hon. the Prime Minister to show in which direction he is leading this country. I would like to know this because I would suggest to this House that there are only two ways in which our economy can go. It cannot remain at the same level for a very long time. Nothing remains static for long. It can only go up and if it does not go up, it will go down. From statements made by the hon. the Prime Minister after the last election, it appears that his Government and he himself are prepared to see the economy running down rather than to tackle realistically the labour problem in the only way in which it ought to be tackled. The country is entitled to know to what extent the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government are prepared to allow the economy to run down. This is the reason why, amongst other things, the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday was so disappointing. This is what the persons who produced this survey pointed out. I quote from page 23—

The hon. the Minister of Water Affairs went to great pains to defend this this afternoon. I quote further—

That is their own policy. I quote further—

What is wrong with that?

Perhaps, if the hon. member for Brakpan were listening, he would have realized when I started that I had made it clear that I was referring to this with approval. There is nothing wrong with that at all. On the contrary, this is an economic fact of life in South Africa and I would like to know from the hon. member for Brakpan or from some member on the Government side what the Government intends to do about this.

It is our object.

What is your object?

A high rate of growth.

The hon. member for Brakpan has made a very interesting remark and I am not going to let him get away with it. He says that what I have just read from this pamphlet is the object of the Nationalist Government. Is that correct?

This passage you were reading just now?

Yes. Well, then I challenge him or any member on that side of the House to say how they intend to achieve that object and at the same time maintain the clamps on labour which exist at present. I would like to quote another passage and to ask the hon. member for Brakpan whether or not he agrees with it, since he is so co-operative this afternoon. Perhaps I should deal with another passage first. This passage is from a source which, I am sure, appeals to the hon. members on that side of the House. This passage is from the June, 1970, edition of Volkshandel. I think the hon. member for Brakpan will agree that this is almost an unimpeachable source as far as the Nationalist Party is concerned. The title of this editorial is “Eiesoortige ontwikkeling en die arbeidstekort. ” I quote—

Then follows the question I would like hon. members opposite to answer—

The editor then goes on to point out that the shortage of manpower is resulting in a slowing-down of the growth rate. He then deals with the Bantu and the part that the Bantu could play but is not being allowed to play in the amelioration of the labour shortage. Perhaps the hon. member for Brakpan, or the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, or the hon. the Minister himself can tell us in this debate whether there has been any change in thinking in the Nationalist Party regarding the part that the Bantu should be allowed to play in resolving the problem of labour shortage which there is in this country. Or is it the philosophy of this Government that we should be prepared to accept a slowing down in the economic growth? I believe that the attitude which we in this country, and particularly which any responsible government. should adopt towards the economy of South Africa has been well set out by … (Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I thought that the hon. member for Musgrave would have returned with a golden tan from the Mediterranean Sea and would have climbed into this debate bursting with energy as a result of the dolce vita—this means “good life ” —which he enjoyed in Italy. The speech which the hon. member just made is one of the most pathetic examples of his debating technique thus far. I feel very sorry for the hon. member, because his speech was clearly very much in line with what the United Party dished up to us here. This motion of censure was announced with a great fanfare in the United Party Press. Days and months before the time we read every day about the degree of vigour and fire with which they would conduct this debate, and the hon. member for Musgrave has just given us a demonstration of the energetic and fiery kind of debate they are conducting here. I feel very sorry for the hon. member, because his speech was actually in the spirit of the example set him by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Durban (Point) is now falling into my soup. All my colleagues were unfortunately not as privileged as I was. In my constituency both the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Durban (Point) addressed meetings. As a result of that the National Party majority increased considerably. I am sorry that I could not persuade the hon. member for Yeoville to hold a meeting there as well, because then our majority would have increased by a further 500 votes. I shall come back to the hon. member for Durban (Point) in a moment.

The hon. member for Musgrave takes it upon himself to say that the Prime Minister is not intellectually equipped to lead the country in this decade. Where does the hon. member get the conceit and the presumption to express an opinion of that kind here? After the poor example the hon. member set us here, using three-quarters of his time to quote from two documents, and very badly at that, is he the person to express an opinion about the intellectual capabilities of the hon. the Prime Minister? The hon. member referred to a “bombshell ”. Where has there been a greater “bombshell ” announced than in the United Party motion of censure? Sir, a motion of censure; not a motion of no confidence. In their Press this motion of censure enjoyed greater publicity than any previous motion of its kind. One understands the United Party’s problem. The recent election was conducted with all the means at their disposal. When I say all the means, I mean exactly what I say. The hon. member for Durban (Point) knows exactly what I am speaking about.

Qualify that.

I shall do so with pleasure. This election was conducted with more political distortion, political scandal and political impropriety than any previous election. The hon. member was one of the biggest grievance-agitators. In fact, when one looks at the hon. member he looks like a whole grievance commission himself. The hon. member for Durban (Point) travelled through this country with scandal stories, and he excelled himself. In saying this one says a mouthful. The hon. member for Durban (Point) went around in search of stories. In my own constituency I had examples of the depths to which he could sink. Even I was surprised at what the hon. member could do there. I did not think that he would quite be able to manage it, but I think that he result of the election there, where the hon. member held meetings, speaks volumes for the value the voters attached to the stories he bartered.

Were they true or not?

The United Party … [Interjections.]

No, answer me.

If I am invited to react to the hon. member, let me tell him that he did not even know all the facts about one of his informants who stood behind the door. It is a pity that the hon. member did not first obtain more particulars about his informants before he gossiped about other people.

It is gratifying for me also to have the privilege of addressing you while you are occupying the Chair at present. I am grateful for the particular privilege which has befallen me. A battle was fought here by the United Party against the National Party, and a debate was launched to take that battle further. Now we must determine for ourselves that the most important elements are that we are to be faced with in this country in the future. It was clearly apparent, from the brilliant exposition given by the hon. the Prime Minister, how important this side of the House regards relations among people and among nations in South Africa. In reducing all the important problems—and there are many—with which this country is faced, to the most important feature, one is left with human relationships and everything arising from this. A pattern for the future has been laid before us by the United Party, and there has also been one laid before us by the National Party. In the speeches by United Party members yesterday I looked in vain for the image they were presenting for the Whites in the future of South Africa. What does the United Party’s policy entail for the Whites in South Africa in the future? The first and most important aspect is that it entails partnership in administration for all other elements in the country. For all other national and colour groups, their policy entails sharing he powers of government over the Whites in this Parliament. In this election they consistently evaded that point. From platform to platform attempts were made to get them to discuss their policy at this level, thereby to give the voters of the country a clear image of the future. They evaded the issue, because what does their policy embrace in this connection? The United Party’s policy is based on giving the non-Whites a say in the powers of government over the Whites. What is more, with reference to his by now notorious television appearance, the hon. member for Yeoville declared in this House that he believed that Bantu would eventually represent Bantu in this House. Mr. Speaker, whenever we put this question to them in the election, they evaded it. In fact, they are now still carefully evading it, because the gist of that statement, that prophetic vision of the hon. member for Yeoville that we are going to introduce the non-Whites into this Parliament to rule over one mixed fatherland, is what is being presented to the Whites. But what is being presented to the non-Whites? What is being presented to the Bantu in this Parliament? I want to speak about that in particular. An arbitrary number— because there is no basis for determination— of Bantu representatives are being presented to the Bantu, representatives who, according to the hon. member for Yeoville, could eventually be Bantu. That number of Bantu must take their seats in this Parliament and obtain their right of say. But, Sir, has the lesson of Africa slipped by hon. members opposite? Has the lesson of Africa on the working of democracy passed them by? Only quite recently we obtained a statement from a neighbouring state to the effect that the Westminster type of democracy does not function successfully in Africa? Quite recently we saw what happened in a neighbouring state when democratic operations were suspended. The Prime Minister said it was because democracy in its Westminster form could not be applied in Africa. We are in the process of developing a pattern of military governments in Africa. In various African states coups d’état are being carried out. In 1966 there were already quite a number of states in Africa with military governments. The Congo has general Mobutu: Dahomé has General Soglo; the Central African Republic has a colonel; Upper Volta has a lieutenant-colonel: Algeria has Colonel Baumedienne; Egypt first had General Naguib, and now it has Colonel Nasser; the Sudan has a general; Nigeria has a general. Nigeria has been presented as the successful democracy in Africa. Nigeria was praised as being the one land in Africa where the Western form of democracy was applied successfully. In Nigeria we had the greatest bloodbath in Africa’s immediate history. The Reason for this is that the Westminster type of democracy, as it is called by Chief Jonathan of Lesotho, makes no impression on the hearts of the inhabitants of Africa, the Bantu. Throughout the centuries the Bantu have had other traditions and other forms of Government. Throughout the centuries the African forms of government have been patriarchal, with a line from the head of the family to the head of the tribe to the king or paramount chief, as the case may be. Throughout history this form of government was familiar to the Bantu in Africa. Throughout the years opposition took on a totally different form in Africa. Opposition was regarded as high treason, as something detrimental to the country. To the African consciousness opposition is in an attempt to take over the government in all sorts of undesirable ways.

We once more have examples of what happens in Africa when an Opposition makes attempts at taking over a government and how they set to work trying to do so. In the Congo we had the example of Lumumba, who is dead. In Kenya we had the example of an unpopular political personality, Tom Mboya. In Nigeria Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa paid the price for democracy in Africa. In Ghana Nkrumah was lucky that he was not in the country, otherwise he would have gone the same way. Sir, in Africa the concept is that the government in power is governing strongly. When attempts are made to take over the government, it goes hand in hand with assassination or a coup d’état. In other words, the whole concept of opposition in Africa is a totally different concept to what we in Western democracy have also built up with difficulty through the years.

Now this hon. Opposition wants to bring a number of people here, be they Bantu or White, to represent the Bantu, and to place them as a permanent minority group in this House. They are therefore going to give them the status of opposition members, regardless of what government is in power. They will have the status of a minority within this House. They are therefore going to attach to them the image which Africa attaches to an opposition, because this group which is to come here, would, according to the United Party, obviously never become a majority group either. In other words, the Bantu are going to be represented here by people who will be seen essentially as a group of opposition members, with the whole concept of what opposition means in Africa. They will, in other words, be a group of people who will always remain an opposition and who will be weaklings in the eyes of the Bantu, because the Bantu regard an opposition as weaklings and often, as in our case as well, with very good reason. The Bantu representatives coming here will therefore be regarded over the years by the Bantu as a small group of opposition members who are unable to achieve anything, people who therefore represent no one and who cannot speak on anyone’s behalf. Wherever opposition has been successful in Africa, it has eventually come to power in one of the ways I have mentioned. Interestingly enough, when that opposition comes into power, whether by assassination or by means of a coup d’état, it is held in high regard, because to have been able to come to power under those circumstances requires perseverance, cunning and good organization. Throughout the years the opposition which eventually takes over the government has been accepted as a good and just government, because it took a great deal to get here. But the United Party wants to condemn a number of people here to the status of opposition, to the status of a despised minority group, for all time. That is what they want to do. Sir, the frustration which is going to result from that, the contempt for their own representatives, will mean that those people are going to be a totally useless link with their own people for all time. What the United Party therefore wants to do with its non-white representatives which it wants to introduce here, and more specifically with the Bantu, is to give them a status which is disparaged and despised by their own people, a status which would have no meaning whatsoever for those people as contacts.

But they are going to obtain greater status in their own communal councils in exchange for what you are now speaking about.

I am busy speaking about the eight representatives which hon. members want to bring into this House. The United Party is therefore going to deprive these representatives of all status in respect of their own people. They are going to deprive them of all respect on the part of their own people. As a contact point with the Bantu they will therefore never be worth anything. They are therefore condemning them to an inferior status. Along those lines they achieve nothing. But, on the other hand, it is an attempt to pacify the outside word; it is an attempt at making a concession to the outside world. What are they going to achieve by this? It has been said repeatedly in this House, and proved, that a concession of that nature is altogether unacceptable to the world and to the critics of South Africa. Sir, some of our neighbouring states have gone very much further. Rhodesia has gone very much further along the road of non-white representation in their Parliament, and is the world satisfied with them? The greatest international boycott that has ever been launched against a country, and the greatest attempt at destruction without recourse to war is being launched against Rhodesia. And Rhodesia has gone much further than they are offering to go at present. As a means towards purchasing the world’s goodwill this is therefore a stillborn failure from the start. They have no hope of success along those lines. What are they then trying to achieve? This was summed up very well by one of the previous hon. speakers on this side, the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs. They are trying to give the minimum and to withhold the maximum. They are trying along these lines to affect a compromise and to present this to the voters, so as to get the voters onto their side. They are trying to bluff the non-Whites and the Bantu by giving them something which is never going to have any value or meaning for them anyway. That is why they received no single measure of positive support for the United Party in this election, and that is why they had to subsist on the grievances which they and their allies stirred up; hence the meagre tokens of support which they are now magnifying out of all proportion. There is no positive element inherent in the United Party’s policy in this regard. Sir, against this range the National Party’s policy.

As far as the Whites in South Africa are concerned, this time we have the most historic of sittings, because this is the first Parliament containing only Whites, representing only White interests. This sitting of this Parliament is an historic one because we are entering a totally new era in connection with the representation of Whites in White South Africa. But we want to offer the Bantu what he knows. The National Party would like to give him something which can grow from the unknown to the known. The National Party offers the Bantu what he has been familiar with through the centuries, what has been known to Africa, what is expected today as good Government in Africa. Out of that there is a gradual building towards democracy; with elements that are solid; and to that is added the new elements of democracy.

Mere words.

Yes, these may be mere words, but that hon. member’s nick-name is Windbuks (airgun), and in any case I cannot produce as much hot air as he can. There is a certain firm manufacturing arms in the U.S.A.. Some of their arms were successful, but their airguns are obviously highly unsuccessful. I say that the National Party is building from familiar elements, with the addition of the unknown forms of administration, for the Bantu and his future. Rhodesia has also applied the same system, and with very great success. I just want to read a single statement which came from Mr. Ian Smith—

What happened in Africa was that where the familiar was eliminated and replaced by unknown elements of democracy, chaos reigned, and Mr. Ian Smith says they had to pay a heavy price to return to the traditional tribal customs of Africa. What we need in South Africa is a consciousness in the Bantu population of their tribal context, a consciousness of the road they have travelled in reaching their present position, a consciousness of the value their systems of government have had for them in the past. From that must come development such as that which has taken place and succeeded in the Transkei, with the addition of Western democratic elements to the principles which have been familiar to them through the years. This is the road the National Party is offering. This is the policy in respect of Bantu representation in South Africa. We have one piece of evidence after another to the effect that this system works. We find the evidence throughout Africa that that system works, but the tragedy of Africa is that arbitry boundaries have been drawn through it by colonial powers, in the past century, by virtue of occupation, by virtue of the European wars which were conducted and whereby land was won or lost in Africa. Boundaries were drawn across tribal boundaries. Chaos was created as far as the division into tribes in Africa is concerned.

Today the inhabitants of Africa want to go back to what they know. Today they want to build up their peoples and their tribes in Africa once more, because from that they can build for the future. But this United Party policy specifically wants to deprive Africa of those things it desires for itself, those things which the Bantu in Africa knows and wants, and which he wants to develop. The United Party wants to afford the Bantu a misshapen representation in this Parliament, for which the Bantu can entertain no respect. Through the years a certain degree of respect has developed for good administration. I want to tell you that the Bantu population in South Africa today has respect for a strong and vigorous Government which enforces its will when necessary. In his heart the Bantu believes that you must rule with justice, but also with harsh measures. This is the language they have known all the years; this is the language which they believe should also be used in South Africa. In that connection I want to say that, as far as this Government’s policy towards the Whites is concerned, this status, which we have now obtained, will be retained for all times, whatever the measures demanded to maintain it. But the Bantu is being given what is his own, what he knows. From that he develops; from that democracy grows. It took our own forebears many years to achieve what we have built up in this Parliament of which we are proud. We hope to be able to give the Bantu what he knows, so that he may also develop his own form of democracy from that. We hope and believe that peace among the various nations will develop in South Africa from that. We believe that proper relationships will develop from that, relationships which will safeguard the future of South Africa. But that party opposite wants to incorporate frustration into their parliamentary system. They want to incorporate in the representatives the contempt of those being represented. In that way they cannot do the Bantu any service. It will be seen that only the road being followed by the National Party will be the road towards peace in Africa.

The hon. member for Middelburg started off by making a personal attack on the hon. member for Musgrave. He then set out on the impossible task of minimizing the United Party’s progress and its victory against the Nationalist Party. He also accused the United Party of using unfair tactics during the course of the election campaign. This, of course, is quite surprising because none of us has a short memory; we all remember very well reading about the truly disgraceful tactics adopted by the Nationalist Party at meetings of the Herstigte Party during the election campaign. Sir, I can say that I am honestly surprised to hear this type of insinuation coming from that side of the House. The hon. member then went on to congratulate the hon. the Prime Minister on a brilliant reply to the motion of censure moved by my hon. Leader. I do not want to be unkind; I want to rest by saying that I have heard the hon. the Prime Minister make better speeches than he did yesterday.

The hon. member for Musgrave mentioned here that Monday the 20th July was a very historic occasion. I want to say that for me too this was a historic occasion because for the first time in the history of this House there was not a single member here elected to represent the sixteen million non-Whites in South Africa. Sir, why were they not here? They were not here because they were systematically and in a calculated way removed by the Nationalist Party. The hon. member for Witbank chose this particular day of all days to compare the morality of the non-White policy of the United Party with that of the Nationalist Party. Sir, what morality is there in removing the right of the Bantu people of South Africa to be represented here and to give them in return a slogan? because this is all that separate development means. We know that separate development is a physical and financial impossibility in South Africa.

Take the Coloured people. We heard the hon. the Prime Minister say in this House that he had no solution for the Coloured problem; that this should be left to posterity; that it should be left to our children to take care of. Here we have the Coloured community who have been given nothing at all; there is no promise of a homeland for them. Where does morality start and where does it end? Sir, to a minor degree, where is the morality of the Government’s policy in the case of the growing Indian population? Where must these people go? Have they been promised a homeland? The hon. member for Witbank chose a very unfortunate time to introduce the question of morality in this House.

We heard from the hon. the Prime Minister that he was very pleased indeed to have such a measure of support from the English-speaking people of South Africa. This is rather surprising because after the débacle of Natal I was very surprised to hear that there was in fact any English-speaking support left for the Nationalist Party. When I came to this House in 1966 I looked across the floor and I saw that there were two representatives of the English-speaking people sitting on that side of the House. I have come back now and it is a question of “then there was one—Frankie ”. Sir, it has been proved, and I think proved conclusively, that there is no home in the Nationalist Party for an English-speaking person in South Africa.

That is rubbish.

If they want to confirm this, I suggest to hon. members opposite that they have a long, quiet talk with Mr. Blythe Thompson and ask him how happy he was in the Nationalist Party. He was so happy that he had to break way and form a new English-speaking Nationalist Party.

Sir, after having listened very carefully to the debate so far, I must come to the conclusion that this debate, if it has done one thing, has served to highlight the fact that the Government’s whole approach to national policy matters is as vague and as hide-bound today is it was 22 years ago.

That is why we have done so well.

The Government’s whole approach, for instance, to the question of using the available manpower in South Africa is confused. There is no firm policy and decisions are based on the determination to safeguard the rights of the white worker at any cost. What the Government does not seem to understand is that by adopting this patronizing attitude towards the white worker in South Africa, it is in fact doing him a disservice because this patronizing attitude could quite easily lead the white worker to believe that because of Nationalist ideology and promises certain work will be reserved for him merely because of the pigmentation of his skin. I want to say that the white worker of South Africa does not want this. He believes that he can stand on his own two feet, and I suggest that the only policy here is the policy of the United Party, and that is the rate for the job.

Then, Sir, we have the lack of a sound wage policy in the border industries. The lack of such a policy shows quite clearly that the Government has two standards, because it is perfectly obvious that there are thousands of Bantu today working in the border industries, doing skilled and semi-skilled work, at rates of pay far lower then those paid to white workers in the old established areas, and the danger to the white worker because of this policy is too obvious for me to stress here. Because the solution of our manpower and labour problem is basic to the future welfare, development and security of South Africa, I believe that the greatest challenge facing South Africa today is the challenge of finding a formula that will ensure the correct and constructive use of South Africa’s total population. Sir, I say this advisedly because we have reached the stage where the availability of skilled manpower and the way in which we use that manpower, is going to be the most important single factor in determining whether or not South Africa reaches its economic objectives and whether in fact we are going to maintain a satisfactory growth rate. Sir, I know—and I am prepared to admit this—that our very real and complex labour and manpower problem will not be easy to solve. It will not be easy to solve because the Government has allowed these problems to escalate out of all proportion. I believe too, Sir, that the Government is not going to be able to meet this challenge unless there is an immediate end to the perpetual conflict between the demands of political ideology on the one hand and the practical and essential requirements of the South African economy on the other. Surely the time has come where, in the interests of South Africa, there should be a thorough and far-ranging enquiry into employment doctrines and practices in South Africa, because what we need today more than anything else is a straightforward, common-sense labour policy that will safeguard the future of the white worker, but will also be fair to the mass of non-white employees who are today being very seriously prejudiced because of Government blundering and undecidedness. This Nationalist Party Government has, over the past 22 years, for some reason which is very difficult to comprehend, gone out of its way to saddle the South African economy with an accumulation of purely negative, frustrating measures which cannot do South Africa any good.

What is needed today, as a matter of urgency, is a drastic reformulation of Government policy to provide for the education and the intelligent use of our large non-white labour potential. It is impossible—and I say this advisedly, Sir— to open a newspaper today without finding in that paper comments from our top economists and industrialists in which they express dismay and alarm at the critical shortage of skilled manpower in South Africa. They tell us, quite correctly, that unless we do something about this shortage, the whole basis of economic competition in South Africa will be upset. They warn us that unless we make more intelligent use of our non-white labour there will be consequences for South Africa which will go far beyond the mere slowing down of our growth rate. In other words, what the top economists and industrialists are trying to spell out to the Government is that the time has come for it to face up to the facts of life in regard to our serious manpower and labour problems. They are asking the Government to face up to the reality of the situation, which is of course that we are not going to resolve our labour problems by bringing in 20,000 immigrants a year and that it is not feasible to trim our growth rate to fit our very meagre white labour potential. They are telling the Government that the time is overdue for it to apply itself to the building up of a sound labour force which is well educated, well schooled, but drawn from all the races in South Africa. One wonders whether, in the light of all these warnings and of all the apparent danger signals, the Government will now be prepared to adopt a more enlightened and intelligent approach to the use of non-white labour in South Africa, or whether the Government’s obsession with ideologies will again win the day, allowing the gulf which already exists between the shortage of skilled white manpower and the surplus of non-white manpower to grow. That this gulf is growing is there for everyone to see. One only has to glance at figures supplied by the Economic Advisory Board. These figures show that even with a net inflow of 20,000 immigrants a year there will still be a shortage of skilled white manpower in South Africa of 65,000 by 1973. The surplus of non-white labour would have grown to no less than 98,000.

One appreciates of course that, for the Nationalist Party Government, the chickens have truly come home to roost. On the one hand, they have this obligation to their own supporters to carry out a policy of separate development, but instead they find themselves drifting between segregation and integration. They find themselves in this position because cold hard facts will not be denied. These facts show that the South African economy is, and will always be, dependent on non-white labour. But, instead of the Government bowing to the inevitably and allowing industry to develop logically in the areas of big markets, which of course are the areas of the big cities, the Government tries to force industries to the border areas in a desperate attempt to give some meaning and plausibility to separate development. I believe that the time is coming when the Government will have to make more use of non-white labour. I think the Government is beginning to realize this, and that there is nothing they can do about it. I want to submit that this can be done without affecting the future security of a single white worker in South Africa. If they cannot carry this out, I want to suggest that we in the United Party will show them how to do it. We have had to sit in this House year after year and watch our manpower and labour problems grow. We have on many occasions offered the Government good advice in a good spirit. If acted upon, this advice would have helped them to resolve many of the problems with which we are faced today. Here I want to mention in particular the brilliant private member’s Bill of the hon. member for Hillbrow. What do we find, Sir? The Bill was discussed and the Nationalist Party voted against it.

In order to justify their border areas development policy, we are always being told by the Nationalist Party that Rosslyn provides positive proof of the success of border area development. Sir, Rosslyn does nothing of the sort. If anything it serves to emphasize what the United Party has always maintained, namely that the place for industrial development is in the areas of big cities where white markets are readily available. I want to admit that there is basically nothing wrong in encouraging the development of border industries, provided that the prosperity and the development of big towns and cities is encouraged and stimulated at the same time. This is exactly what we do under the policy of the United Party. We are prepared to encourage industries to develop in any area that offers business advantages. I want to say here that the Government has created the very undesirable situation where industrialists in established areas who apply for Bantu labour are made to feel that they are in the area only on sufferance, at the pleasure and whim of the hon. the Minister, and that sooner or later they will have to move to a border area. Is this fair? Is it fair to place our industrialists in the invidious position of deciding whether to go to a border area when they either do not want to go there or for technical reasons cannot go there? I say that this is an entirely wrong way of developing industry in South Africa. We know, too, and this is true and I think the hon. the Minister knows it, that the artificially created shortage of Bantu labour in South Africa is already showing its effect on our economy, because there are complaints from industrialists who have had to cut the production of certain items because there is not enough Bantu labour available to staff their factories. Others again have all the facilities and are willing and eager to start new enterprises, but find that they cannot do this for the same reason. Surely the time has come for the Government in the interests of South Africa to review its whole position in regard to manpower and labour in South Africa. They must discard this terrible fear that they have of the non-White. We have shown, and we are prepared to show, that we can give every person in South Africa the opportunity without the one affecting the other. I find it very hard to believe that this Government is prepared to risk a slowdown in the economy in order to chase the impossible ideal of the complete separation of the races. Surely it must be responsible enough to realize the very serious implications that this kind of attitude holds out for the future of South Africa, their South Africa and ours. There is no doubt that unless we do something, and do it quickly, we are heading for a completely impossible position.

Mr. Speaker, I want to give you one example. I want to give the example of the vitally important motor industry in South Africa. We are told that at the moment the figure for artisan staff in this industry stands at 26,000. We are told, too, that if it develops at its normal rate, this figure will stand at 42,000 by the year 1988. I am also told that in order barely to cope with the vehicle population increase, we will need at least 100,000 artisans in the motor industry by 1988. It is perfectly obvious that in order to get this number we are going to have to train many more thousands of apprentices. These apprentices, whether the Government likes it or not, will have to come from all the races in South Africa, and I will tell the House why I say this. It is because the white youth of South Africa is not interested in becoming a motor technician and therefore is not offering himself for training in this particular industry. What are we going to do? Are we going to slow down the motor trade in South Africa? Does the Government realize the drastic consequences that this will have for the economy of South Africa? I have given one example here, but this example can be applied to almost every sector of our economy. I believe that the Government will be deluding itself very badly indeed if it is naive enough to believe that because it has been given a mandate by the South African electorate to govern the country again, this means that they can carry on with their completely unrealistic labour policy. I believe that the people of South Africa to-day are not prepared to back the slogan of a poorer, as long as it is a White, South Africa. They are not prepared to back it because they know that South Africa cannot allow itself to become poor, because if we do we will not survive. I believe that, above all, the people of South Africa are ready to accept the fact that in order to have this prosperity which is so vital to our economic progress and our security, we will have to make better use of the total labour supply in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Houghton has found a new stable-companion tonight, but I doubt whether she will want him with her because he is not politically honest enough to say what their policy is, i.e. that they stand for the total abolition of the colour bar and that they want total integration here in South Africa. That is virtually all the hon. member advocated. I am surprised that he still had enough gumption to use the word “morality ” here this afternoon. After the hon. the Leader of the House had told them what “morality ” is and where they fell short of the mark, he still came forward here this afternoon with the story of morality. After the hon. the Minister of Transport had spoken he put this question to them very emphatically: Tell us how much land you intend giving the Bantu here in South Africa? Since that question was put to them three members on that side of the House have spoken, but they continue to remain as silent as the grave. They are the people who tell us that we are doing the Bantu an injustice here and that there is no morality in the majority of the population here in South Africa having the least land. He talks about morality, but where is the morality in the fact that they want to give the Coloureds only 6 representatives here? Why do they not consequently give them representation on an equal basis in proportion to their numbers? Where is the morality in that? We are honest and we tell them that we are not going to allow them into the White Parliament here. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) told us that the only difference between Whites and non-Whites was the “black pigmestation ” of the latter.

I did not say that. You were not listening very carefully.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did say it quite emphatically. I listened to it very carefully. He said that the only difference there was the difference in colour between Whites and non-Whites. Now I am reading here from page 7 of their huckstering booklet—

I now turn over the page and at the top of page 8 I read—

It meets these problems with a policy which—

1. (a) guarantees the employment of Whites at real wages not lower than those they earn at present. The guarantee should last for at least 10 years in those industries where non-Whites are beginning to do White jobs.

Mr. Speaker, what morality can be found in that? On the one page they talk about the protection of the Whites and on the other page they say that the only difference between the Whites and the non-Whites is the “black pigmentation ”. Then they say that Whites and non-Whites should do the same work. Can one look upon such ambiguity as morality? But that is the kind of election we had to fight. We had to fight an election against the most unsavoury scandalmongering and the most misleading propaganda on their part. [Interjections.] Never before has a party descended to the depths to which the United Party descended during the recent election in their propaganda and scandalmongering. The United Party presented itself as the alternative Government. They even went so far as to compile a shadow Cabinet. I find it interesting that the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg (District), Port Natal and Sea Point have been entirely omitted from this shadow Cabinet. However, all that I see in that shadow Cabinet is that it will throw a dark shadow over South Africa—perhaps I mean this in the literary sense of the word— if they should come into power one day. However, it will never happen. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) cannot simply continue making interjections. He must give the hon. member who is speaking a chance to make his speech.

Mr. Speaker, it is for that reason that he was left out of the shadow Cabinet. His own Leader has become tired of him. He will make no further progress whatsoever in that party.

Mr. Speaker, during the recent election the United Party tried to take in the voters in every sphere. They presented themselves as the alternative Government, but the goods they wanted to dispose of, the policy which they were offering, were deliberately concealed from the voters. They were afraid to inform the voters of South Africa in regard to their true race federation plan and all it entails. They were too afraid to inform the voters of South Africa as to what their policy made provision for because they were too afraid to say that that policy of theirs made provision for the ultimate representation of Bantu by Bantu in this Parliament.

What about that booklet of the United Party?

That is in fact the heart of the matter. I experienced an incident in my constituency of Boksburg where one of their canvassers told me in the street that under the United Party Government no non-White would ever sit in this Parliament. However, when I took out this booklet and showed him what was written there, he told me that he had never been aware of it. This is how they concealed their policy from their own canvassers. The only way one could get hold of this booklet was to buy it at their offices. They are afraid to send out their propaganda as we did and offer it to the voters free of charge. They did not dare do so. How many of their supporters went to buy this yellow booklet in their offices? Last year at their own congress one of their delegates who appeared there was a certain Mr. Cross of Kimberley; this is what he told them—

Not even their own congress members were fully aware of what this vicious race federation plan of theirs entailed. They did not want to inform the people fully what it entails. In the Star of 16th October, the following report on the speech made by another delegate, Mr. Oberholzer, an M.P.C. serving on their chief executive in the Transvaal, appeared.

In sharp contrast Mr. Oberholzer said the United Party would release the African giant, cut his chains, make of him an ally and ask him to walk with the White man.

That is what he said: “cut the chains of the Black giant ”; set him lose; give him equal rights; let him sit here together with the Whites in Parliament; get rid of that separation in the social and political spheres. Now I am asking the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District what this means. I know why he is shaking his head like that, and I can hear it from where I am standing. It is because in the same report it is stated that “Mr. Webber said that he supported everything that Mr. Oberholzer had said ”. It is a pity the hon. member for Houghton is not here, otherwise she would have found another stable-companion now, but I do not think she will want him. In this way they shied away from all the aspects of their policy. They speak about the “rate for the job ”. I shall come to that later. They deliberately omitted to inform the voters what that “rate for the job ” entailed. They did not tell the voters that it means that the Bantu would be able to go and work where they pleased. This guarantee of theirs is not worth the paper it is written on. If they were to come to power and there was to be a recession three to five years later, what would become of that guarantee of theirs? But I shall refer to this again later.

I have never yet come across a political party which envinced so little responsibility as this United Party. Just think of all those empty promises they made to the electorate. They promised every public servant, every worker and provincial official an increase in salary, for according to them these people are being underpaid. At the same time there is also the —I can almost say total abolition of taxes. This is the jolly party; come let us drink and be merry because tomorrow we will not be there. Everything there is must be squandered to-day. It is with promises of that kind that they may perhaps have misled certain people. It amazes me that reproaches should have been levelled at the hon. the Minister of Transport regarding the announcement of salary increases which he made shortly prior to the Langlaagte by-election. But it is the same people who reproached this Government with not having given its people increases. When should the increases then be announced? The hon. the Minister was decent enough not to announce that increase before the general election. He waited until after the election. If he had delayed that announcement until after the by-election at Langlaagte, their cry would have been that those people had to have a raise and that it would not be given to them. While we get down to actual facts, while we see our problems in the correct perspective, they come forward with all those empty election promises of theirs entailing salary increases and a decrease in or total abolition of certain taxes.