With your leave, Sir, I should like to make a personal statement. During the course of the debate yesterday afternoon I said that the hon. member for Paarl, who was the chairman of a commission sitting in Pretoria, had adjourned the commission while he came to a meeting which was being held in Paarl and was being addressed by Dr. Albert Hertzog. After the adjournment last night the hon. member came to me and stated that that was not so, that that was not the position. He said he had not adjourned the meeting of the commission. Sir, I want to say at once that naturally I accept his word unreservedly and I would like to express my regret and apologize to him for any reflection that may have been cast upon him by the mistake I made yesterday afternoon.

One thing has become quite clear in this debate since this motion of censure was introduced by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a few days ago. It is quite clear that there is a difference between the policies of these two parties, an irreconcilable difference concerning the concept of the future of our beloved country. I think it is necessary for the people outside to analyse the speeches made by the Opposition and to compare them with speeches made on this side of the House by our hon. the Prime Minister, as well as other Cabinet Ministers and speakers. What the last election proved, was that the Opposition was using a subterfuge by trying to pretend to the electorate that this side of the House was actually using and copying their policy. Sir, I say unequivocally that there is an unbridgeable chasm between the policy of the National Party and that of the United Party. It should be realized that this chasm which exists between the two parties is altogether unbridgeable. In order to prove this statement, I want to furnish irrefutable evidence of the actions of the Opposition in the past and of the actions of our own party. Sir, politically and economically speaking, our policies are completely different. Politically speaking, we can rightly and proudly say that the past two decades were important years in the history of this country as far as the development of citizenship was concerned. Sir, citizenship is not merely a document or a piece of paper. Citizenship is a link of loyalty with that which is your own. Citizenship is something which should be developed with devotion, sincerity and affection. But what were the actions of the Opposition during the past 20 years? In the political sphere, the Opposition opposed every single piece of legislation dealing with political development tabled in this House. Our thoughts go back to the days when we were struggling to have our own flag, citizenship and Republic. All those aspects which were of such great importance to give shape to our own identity, were opposed by the Opposition. As far as the economy was concerned, it was said by the Opposition that South Africa had no future economically and that South Africa as a country would be bankrupt after becoming a Republic, while we have now heard the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as well as other speakers on that side of the House say that our economic growth in South Africa has not been up to expectations. That is their major point of attack, namely that our economic growth rate in the Republic of South Africa does not keep up with the growth rate of the other countries in the world. That is one of the statements they make. In the second place, they launched a gossip campaign against Cabinet Ministers. Sir, let us analyse our economic growth rate during the past years. A comparison was made in this House between South Africa and Japan by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He said that Japan could maintain a growth rate of 10 per cent per year. I do not know who his economic adviser is. He was followed by the hon. member for Parktown, and the hon. member for Hillbrow also said that we should be able to maintain a growth rate of 10 per cent in South Africa. But what are the facts? Japan did, in fact, have a growth rate of 10 per cent, but between 1958 and 1968 the rate of inflation in that country was 4.7 per cent, compared with South Africa’s rate of inflation of 2.2 per cent. I can still recall their launching a campaign here in 1966 on inflation and how the workers were being affected by it. That was their major argument; they now suggest that our growth rate should be doubled. From the nature of the case, it would result in a very high rate of inflation. And who are the people who are most severely hit by inflation? The people who are hit most severely by inflation are the workers of South Africa, but that side of the House has never cared for the workers in this country. Sir, if we were to maintain a growth rate such as that, it would result in inflation which would hit the workers of South Africa very hard. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Orange Grove is out of touch with the workers of South Africa.

I have a great deal of sympathy with them.

Yes, when you need their votes.

I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, if he was sincere in his plea for a higher growth rate, should have paid tribute to the white worker in South Africa for his productivity, his efficiency and the services he is rendering towards the development of the Republic. But he said nothing of that kind. No, they had the big money barons in mind. It was also said that we should have a growth rate of 10 per cent. Sir, what was the underlying reason for that statement? The underlying reason was to try to make economic integration in South Africa a reality, to step over the colour-bar and, in doing that, destroy development along individual lines. That was the attitude of the Opposition throughout. That is what I regard as being so unfair. The labour shortage in South Africa is not the only cause why we should not maintain a real rate of growth exceeding 5.5 per cent. There are several other reasons why we should not risk a growth rate exceeding the one laid down, namely an average of 5.5 per cent. One of the most important reasons is. the balance of payments. Let us consider their criticism. The hon. member for Parktown had a great deal to say about our poor balance of payments. It is a source of concern, but if we were to proceed to develop South Africa at a faster tempo than the present one, the capital goods we would have to purchase from overseas countries would make our balance of payments even poorer than what it is at present.

What was also unfair of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was, to compare Japan with South Africa. I have the greatest respect for Japan’s productivity. I think we are agreed on that point, but I think it is unfair to compare a Western country with an Eastern country. Their whole national concept, their entire way of life and their entire approach differ from ours. We cannot under any circumstances make a comparison as regards the economic development between an Eastern country and a Western country. Why was a comparison not made between South Africa and other Western countries? If this is done, we will find that the following real growth rate applied in the following countries from 1963 to 1968: West Germany—4.3 per cent; France—5.2 per cent; Italy—4.6 per cent; the Netherlands— 6.9 per cent; England—2.9 per cent; Canada— 6 per cent; the U.S.A. 5.2 per cent; Australia— 5.2 per cent and South Africa—5.9 per cent. South Africa is third on the list. In other words, we have a sound growth rate in South Africa. Our gross domestic product would have been much higher were it not for the fact that one of our commodities earning one-third of our revenue from overseas countries, had to be sold at a fixed price overseas—I am, of course, speaking of gold. If that had not been the case, our real growth rate in South Africa would have been much higher than 5.5 per cent. Furthermore, as a result of the enrichment of our uranium, our iron and platinum mining, our real growth rate is going to be increased considerably. What does the Opposition have in mind? They want to cause economic chaos in South Africa on an economic basis. They then want to exploit that economic chaos.

Sir, let us consider the services which are being provided by the State. When considering the services which are being provided to-day, we realize that it requires a major effort on the part of the Government Departments to maintain this tempo. Government services are being provided at a tempo which has never been achieved in the past. We hear many complaints about telephone services. Every time the hon. member for Orange Grove opens his mouth, he speaks about a telephone. The enormous expansion taking place in South Africa is causing these shortages. These shortages are then exploited by hon. members opposite. The State is then accused of inefficiency. This is unfair. The suggestion that our labour shortage is the cause of all our problems, is an unfair one. Let us consider the economic development programme for the Republic of South Africa. If we want to maintain a growth rate of 6 per cent, in other words, a growth rate of only ½ per cent higher than the present one, we find that the following applies. This is clearly stipulated (translation)—

No mention of a labour shortage is made in this paragraph. It is stated that we are not using our non-White labour in South Africa. Hon. members opposite are constantly making this statement. What is the real state of affairs? I quote further (translation)—

What are you quoting from?

It is a pity the hon. member for Green Point does not do his homework now and again, because if he does, he would not talk such nonsense in this House. I am quoting from the “Economic Development Programme ”. That hon. member would be well advised to read it and learn something. Mr. Speaker, that is the trouble with the hon. Opposition. If they did their homework they would not make these wild statements in this House to the effect that we in South Africa could maintain a growth rate of 10 per cent. This growth rate of 5.7 per cent during the past five years is a feather in the cap of this Government, the private sector and the business people in South Africa, and it is being disparaged by the Opposition, who do not even take the trouble to read the “Economic Development Programme ”. Furthermore, it is being offered free of charge to every member of this Assembly. I want to say it is to be regretted that we are dealing in this Assembly with an official Opposition who want to create chaos out of economic prosperity and stability. We are dealing with a multi-national country in South Africa. Their contribution to political development as far as the Whites were concerned has been quite negligible. Likewise, their contribution to the political development of other nations in our country has been quite negligible. Even up till to-day they are adopting a negative attitude concerning the development of the homelands. Their entire approach and concept are in conflict with what is said from this side of the House. We also find that the Physical Planning Act is being opposed tooth and nail. This is a scandalous thing to do. If the Official Opposition would assist us …

Speak louder.

Mr. Speaker, it is not my fault if that hon. member is a blockhead. If the Official Opposition would assist us by making their contribution towards the implementation of the Physical Planning Act in order to afford the Bantu peoples the opportunity to find avenues of employment in their own areas, it would be an enormous contribution. But the hon. member for Hillbrow does not want that. He wants to revert to the days of Sophiatown. He wants to revert to the days of squatters’ townships on the Witwatersrand. That was the state of affairs which prevailed during the war years. The hon. Opposition is putting economic interests first. In the interests of the Republic of South Africa it should be stated clearly and unequivocally that there should be a distinct connection between political development and economic prosperity. Economic stability and political stability are essential for the development of a multi-racial country. The tragedy of it is that those hon. members opposite have eyes for nothing else but the accepted fact that we are a multi-national country, at different levels of evolution, and that it should be our duty and calling to develop these homelands.

The hon. member for South Coast told us with great flourish yesterday about his sound knowledge of the Zulus, as he had done in the past. He said he knew the soul and the spirit of the Zulus. But I want to tell the hon. member for South Coast that I know the Tswanas. I would have been ashamed of myself if I had acted the way the hon. member for South Coast acted here yesterday by trying to create problems for the Zulu people. He tried to get the Press to make an issue of the idea that the Zulu people would be dissatisfied with their political set-up right from the start. This is unfair. Why then are the Tswanas thankful for this development and for the fact that they are going to get their own Parliament? I had the privilege to be able to attend, with the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration, a meeting at which one of their chiefs asked that the policy concerning physical planning and the development of border industries be implemented, activated and expedited in order to get his people to return to their homeland. The meeting was also attended by thousands of Bantu from the urban complexes. But now the hon. member for South Coast comes along and acts like a prophet of doom. He is now the prophet of doom for the Zulu nation in their own homeland in the same way that he was the prophet of doom of a White Republic. This is unfair towards the Zulu people. The Zulu have their links with this Government. The Zulu people were quite satisfied to accept their own territorial authority.

The time has come for the hon. the Opposition to come to its senses and accept the fact that they have a responsible duty to fulfil. They should act as a mature Opposition should and not pursue a policy which is detrimental to the interests of the Republic of South Africa. We are entering a new decade, the decade of the seventies. I am convinced that the days of slogans are something of the past and that this new decade will be one of human relations and not only human relations but also relations between nations. In a multi-national country such as South Africa priority will have to be given to the politics of relationships. The hon. the Prime Minister has set a fine example in this regard. He has set out on a course which is worth following.

When?

The hon. member for East London (City) asks: When? Let us compare the speech made by the Leader of that hon. member with the one made by the hon. the Prime Minister in this debate. The hon. the Prime Minister stated our policy to the point and with honest intentions. He stated our policy clearly and unequivocally. I challenge hon. members on that side of the House to show me where the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made any mention whatsoever of political development and expansion in South Africa. We had nothing of that kind. It is the responsibility of the Official Opposition in this Assembly not to continue with the negative concept they have maintained in this House in the past. It is the responsibility of the Press in South Africa to bring more and more to the attention of the people outside those aspects which are discussed in this House. If they were to do that and refrain from publishing sensational news items—and I am speaking of all the press groups in South Africa now—South Africa would come to realize that it was a calling to develop this multi-national country into something wonderful.

Mr. Speaker, for days now we have heard of the wonderful speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister and of the hollowness of the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member for Rustenburg has just made the allegation again that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said nothing constructive in connection with the economic and political development of this country. He also repeated once more that the hon. the Prime Minister had made such a wonderful speech. After all the trumpet blasts by the Nationalist newspapers, the servants of that party, about the speech the Prime Minister would make, we expected something big. But never in my life have I heard such a hollow and worthless speech. You know. Mr. Speaker, after all the expectations there were, and because the situation was blown up to such an extent during the 14 days preceding the opening day of this sitting, I thought that the hon. the Prime Minister would make policy statements, i.e. strong and dynamic statements. And do you know what the only strong element in his speech was? The announcement he made about the wonderful scientists we have in our country. We know we have wonderful scientists. They are our friends. We know their achievements from our association with them through the years. We have always had scientists and technicians who have made wonderful discoveries. And that, then, was the remarkable and dynamic policy statement the Prime Minister would make. In my opinion there was only one speech on that side of the House that came in any way near to being a dynamic speech. That was the speech made by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. It-is a speech he should have made under the Vote. It does not belong in a motion of censure at all. He came along with new things he wanted to do. Again there was, of course, the old story of a nation consisting of many peoples, which I shall deal with later.

The hon. member for Rustenburg said that there was an unbridgeable chasm between the members of that party and this side of the House. He is right. There is an unbridgeable chasm because, as far as national policy is concerned, there is so great a difference between the two parties that it just isn’t true. We do not want to accept that this is a multinational country. As far as we are concerned it is a multi-racial country. We cannot accept that this country of ours be broken up, as the hon. member said yesterday on behalf of South West Africa, into 20 peoples with 20 separate governments and 20 disintegration processes, numbering one million per unit. This is unknown in the history of the world. No such thing exists.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I am not answering questions.

What is the difference between a multi-racial and a multi-national country?

If that hon. member, who is now asking questions so eagerly, would just keep quiet I would perhaps get a chance to speak to him at a later stage. This phantom, this mirage or cul-de-sac, of a community in South Africa consisting of 20 nations. the major portion living within the white Republic, and a smaller percentage in their own areas allocated to them, is an absurdity. It is a mirage and a phantom. It is a cul-de-sac. We all know it. The voters know it and that is why they are heading where they are heading. Speaking of voters, use is being made of the strangest argument I have ever heard. It is so full of humour that it just isn’t true. The argument is that a party which has nine representatives less in this House has not become weaker, and that a party that has gained nine representatives has not become stronger. It makes no difference to me how you juggle with figures in that connection. That essential difference, the unbridgeable difference the hon. member for Rustenburg spoke about, is surely unbridgeable. We believe that we are competent to be guardians, and as such to act on behalf of the whole of South Africa. [Interjections.] I did not interrupt the hon. member for Rustenburg when he made his speech. Now he must listen. We on this side of the House believe that we are competent to act as guardians for the whole Republic of South Africa. The hon. member for Rustenburg does not believe that his side of the House is competent to do that. He no longer believes in the integrity of the Whites and in their ability to do it. That is why he wants to break up the South African community into several national groups without regard to how many are living within the borders of the Republic. They disregard that figure.

The hon. member went further and said that this side of the House did not want to make any constructive contribution towards helping the Government. But my hon. Leader did nothing else when he spoke of the ways in which he wanted to help the Government, subject to the Government eliminating certain points of friction. It is no use continuing to talk about a manpower shortage if we know that such a shortage only exists with the Whites. There are surely about 20 million people all told in the country. My Leader indicated methods whereby the non-Whites could be gradually brought in to supplement our labour forces, thereby relieving the labour shortage. The hon. member spoke of other countries, for example, Australia. Does the hon. member not know that in the post-war years Australia doubled its white population? Does he not know of the inflation they had as a result of the fact that they brought in a tremendous number of immigrants? Now he wants to compare our economy with theirs. Does the hon. member have an idea of where our economy could have been to-day if we had utilized all the labour forces at our disposal? No, Mr. Speaker, he has no idea about that; he simply talks at random. He says our economy is still sound. Of course it is, because South Africa is one of the richest countries in the world in respect of raw materials. There is surely no doubt about that. Apart from oil what do we not have? No, Mr. Speaker, ours is the country with the richest raw material sources in the world, and this is a country with a large population. Hon. members opposite speak only of the 3.6 million Whites, or some such figure; the other population groups do not exist for them as a part of our population. They are not there to help the economy along. But our economy to-day is surely based largely on non-White labour. Surely every one in this House knows it. How do you now want to drive those people back to other areas without doing damage to the economy? And yet this is what is taking place; our economic growth is already declining. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration speaks of a multi-national South Africa, and so in passing he speaks only of the Bantu, as if the Coloureds are not a people as well in multi-national South Africa, if that is then what they want to call it. He simply passes so lightly over the 2 million Coloureds in South Africa. The hon. the Minister of Water Affairs went even further. At the beginning of his speech he promised that at a later stage he would come back to the question of the Coloureds, but he did not do so, although he still had enough time left over. Where do the Coloureds fit in? The hon. the Minister never came round to that. The Minister of Bantu Administration spoke of a multinational area and about every nation having its own area. Do the Coloureds then create such a dilemma that neither the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration, the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, or the Prime Minister wants to make any mention of the almost 2 million people living here with us and for whom an individual country cannot be created? We do not want to recognize them as a people, and the means they are designing to give the Coloureds authority are the same means this party is suggesting for all race groups in the country. And now hon. members opposite come along and ask if the Bantu would ever remain satisfied with what we are offering them. We are asked that question every day. And what of the Coloureds? Are the Coloureds going to be satisfied with what the Government offers them? Hon. members opposite boast about the Representative Council that was given to the Coloureds and of the authority the Coloureds will obtain. They boast about what they accomplish for them, but this is the same as what we also want to accomplish for the other population groups. Why this discrimination between the Coloureds and the Bantu? Why are the Coloureds delegated to an inferior position as against the Bantu and the other race groups in this country? I shall continue to refer to them as “race groups ” because they are no peoples. Does the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration want to tell me that the large concentration of Bantu in our country are not developing a common language and common interests, and that they are not in the process of becoming a Bantu people, just as the South African people is composed of various groups —such as Germans, English, French and Hollanders? Thus we became a people but they do not want to recognize the same process in respect of the Bantu.

The hon. member for Rustenburg said furthermore that there were only two aspects in which the United Party made a contribution to the debate: Firstly, criticism of the economic situation of the country and, secondly, criticism of the actions of Ministers. I now want to ask in all reasonableness whether hon. members opposite expected us to sit absolutely still in connection with the peculiar actions of so many Ministers? Did the hon. member for Rustenburg expect us to sit still when the hon. the Minister of Health and the former Minister of the Interior, or any Minister who has already been relieved of his post, did what they did, in fact, do? Did he think that we would not have revealed what they did? Is it then not in the country’s interest that the Opposition should call attention to that? Was it not in the country’s interests for the Opposition to have pointed out that the former Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had got out of hand? [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. member for Rustenburg that when there is something constructive forthcoming on the part of the Government for the improvement of the country’s economy, on the basis of the utilization of all the manpower in the country, and for the protection of the interests of the Whites, they will find this side of the House only too willing.

As with Iscor.

But while you continue along this cul-de-sac of separation of the nations, breaking down of the economy and impoverishment of this country, not only for the Bantu, but also for the Whites, you must not ask for the support of this side of the House.

I should like to come back to certain remarks by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration, and I want to deal with an area with which I am better acquainted, the Transkei-Ciskei area. Sir, with that display window —because that is surely the Government’s display window; the Transkei and the Ciskei are surely the Government’s display window because they are first on the list; the one has partial self-government and the other has a territorial authority—I would have expected the hon. the Minister to have influenced the Cabinet towards the realization that it is worthwhile to give proof of the Government’s initiative and interest. I do not want to criticize Iscor’s move to Newcastle, and even less do I want to criticize the development at Saldanha Bay, but I would have thought that on Government initiative the greatest possible effort would have been made in trying to prove that a Bantustan could become self-supporting, that sufficient labour could be provided for the Bantu in that area. But no. On the Railways we have many concessions as far as border industries are concerned, and there is a great deal of pressure from the Government on industry to go there. But there has not been a single attempt by the Government thus far to establish a Government-initiated industry there which would indicate to the rest of the world that the Government has confidence in that area, because the Government itself was bringing an industry there which could absorb thousands of Bantu and therefore it would be worthwhile for industrialists to go there.

In this connection I should like to go further and to tell you what is happening there. Perhaps all the hon. members are not familiar with the situation. The hon. the Minister and the Deputy Minister will know what I am speaking about and they may challenge me at any time to prove my figures. I regarded it as worthwhile recently to carry out investigations in several of the urban areas being established in the Ciskei; I should like to deal with them one by one. Firstly, I want to deal with the resettlement camp or township which is now called Dimbuza. Let me rather come back to my notes.

Rather speak about tourism.

It is a resettlement camp, and I spoke about it last year, but what I did not speak about was the treatment the people received there. It is ten or twelve miles north of King William’s Town and one thousand houses have already been established there with a population of about ten thousand people, and it is planned to establish two thousand houses with a population of 20 thousand. The people come from different areas, such as Middelburg and Burgersdorp. I should like to sketch the position there, and then I want to continue by dealing with five of these urban areas in the Ciskei, where large concentrations of people are herded together. At this stage it does not even look as if the available manpower is being used in the border industries being established there. At these resettlement camps, such as Dimbuza, housing is provided and the people are given rations. They are brought from other areas and housed there. The present position is as follows, and I want to ask this House and every right-minded person, who has a heart for his fellow man, to think about that. At Dimbuza as well as at Sada rations are meted out to these people on the basis of 20 lbs. mealiemeal, 8 lbs. mealies, 5 lbs. beans, 1 lb. fat and ½ lb. salt. These are the rations for an adult. The rations for a child under 12 are 14, 4 and 2. In other words there are 33 lbs. of food per month for adults, as against the 20 lbs. of food for a growing child. Whether one can live on that without going hungry I pass over in silence, but I want to go much further than this.

Those people entering that area are registered; a household as such as registered, and the official concerned thinks he knows how many there are in the family. I went there and went about with the officials concerned —and there were three of them, not only one. I asked the official whether he had control over the population in Dimbuza, whether he knew how many people there were, what their rations were, and whether they could live on those rations, and he said yes. I asked whether I could make inquiries in respect of one family, and we went to a house; registered in that house were eight persons, two adults and six children. But do you know how many people there were in that house? There were 17. In front of the Whites I asked them where the balance of their food came from. They said they begged. Sir, not only do they beg; they help themselves in the best way they can. That is the situation. I said this last year, and I want to emphasize it again, that the time has now come for even the Prime Minister to pay a visit to some of these camps to see what is going on, to see if the treatment there is humane, and to see what the Department of Bantu Administration is doing there. In the Ciskei township a free house is supplied; the people simply come and live there, and there is a concentration of people far in excess of what the officials or the Minister would ever admit. They come from all sides. I have now dealt with one camp, and this is a resettlement camp. Now I want to go on to deal with a well-controlled camp with a settled population which was established long ago next to the Good Hope Textile factory. That was the first camp there, and it was a necessary step.

What camp are you speaking of?

I am speaking of the urban areas established in that particular area. This is all within the Mdantsane area. The township Mdantsane is not the whole Mdantsane area. I spoke of Zwelitsha, which is within that area. Now I want to come to Mdantsane itself. The official population is about 80.000, but unofficially it is anything up to 150,000. It is half completed, with 10,000 houses. It must get 28,000 houses, according to the planning. In Duncanville, just outside East London, there are a further 54,000 people who must be transferred there. I repeat what I said last year, because I want to bring to the attention of this House, the Deputy Minister and the Minister that these matters must be investigated. There is a population of 200,000 people in the townships on the borders of the white area. Since when has that area, and our projected industries, ever needed that kind of population? They are supplied here from the Western Cape and they come from Duncanville near East London and from all sides. Sir, do you know that there is not a single agriculturist along that area who does not want to get rid of his farm? I do not want to mention this as the chief motive. Someone will always be against those townships, and someone’s ground will always border on the Bantu areas. It is just unfortunate that the cards fell that way, but in this execution of a policy which we cannot understand, it is serious. We cannot understand why there must be such a concentration of people in the white areas. The only reason I can give for it is that we have here an ex-teacher who then became Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. I think there is only one thing he knows less about than Bantu Administration and that is Development. Mr. Speaker, I can go further and refer to the urban area they want to lay out at Gulu, an urban area planned for 40,000 people.

Where?

The place is now still called Gulu; it does not even have a name yet. On farm 135 they want to establish just as big a concentration of people. What now happens is that a concentration of Bantu— largely a rural population—living on the platteland throughout the Ciskei, is now being brought together in these areas next to the Whites. Thus one finds, for example, a planned concentration of 40,000 Bantu just outside a pineapple factory, while the pineapple farmers only need 2,500 labourers. Sir, how can a pineapple farmer or a cattle farmer continue with his farming if there are 40,000 Bantu virtually sitting on his doorstep? Is it still possible for him to farm? One asks oneself whether the Cabinet, or the hon. the Prime Minister, knows what is going on? A large portion of the 300,000 people, now being concentrated in this manner, were satisfied inhabitants of the Ciskei, struggling along in their own way with their few animals and doing a bit of farming. They are now being pushed into these areas next to the Whites—and then this Government calls it a policy! The hon. member for Rusten-berg was right; there is an unbridgeable chasm between the Nationalist Party and the United Party policies as far as race relations in the country, the development of the Republic of South Africa and the political development of South Africa are concerned. The United Party’s standpoint is that South Africa is one country. Hon. members opposite accuse us, in the first place, of advocating white dominance; on the other hand they imply that we advocate a policy of integration. But surely a policy of white dominance cannot be reconciled with an integration policy. You cannot carry out a policy of white dominance and at the same time advocate integration. The fact is that the United Party stands for one undivided Republic of South Africa. We as Whites see our way clear to controlling the situation. They may remain guardians over the years; they can do the same training, and better. They can better look after the development of the reserves or the Bantustans—call them what you will—subject to the condition that they shall never become independent sovereign Bantustans which would endanger the Whites. We do not believe in this conglomeration of states in any case.

Sir, in Die Burger of 5th May I read the following (translation)—

Sir, I want to furnish the House with additional information, as far as considerations of security will allow, in regard to the major announcement made here by the hon. the Prime Minister. It is my pleasure to be able to announce that the State President summoned Dr. Roux and Dr. Grant, together with their wives, the day after the announcement and conveyed to them his personal congratulations and asked that this be conveyed as well to every member of the team which had helped to bring about this major breakthrough.

Uranium occurs in nature as a mixture of two isotopes. Natural uranium consists of 99.3 per cent of the U-238 isotope and .7 per cent of the U-235 isotope. Only the U-235 isotope is fissionable so that a chain reaction can only be maintained by the fission of the U-235 isotope. Although it is possible to unleash and to maintain a chain reaction in a nuclear reactor with the U-235 isotope in the natural combination, the chain reaction can be maintained with a far smaller volume of uranium if the uranium has been enriched in respect of the U-235 isotope. Uranium enrichment therefore means that the U-235 content is increased in respect of the U-238 content. Since there is so little difference in the chemical and physical properties of the two isotopes, enrichment of the U-235 content of uranium is a very difficult and very expensive process. In general the basic process must be constantly repeated, because only a very small change in composition is obtained on each occasion. What makes the enrichment process even more difficult is the fact that uranium is usually used in its gaseous form, i.e. uranium hexafluoride, which is an extremely noxious and corrosive gas.

The development of the South African process which was undertaken and carried out exclusively by South African scientists and technicians followed a very interesting, a very romantic, course, and I should like to point out here very briefly a few of the high-water marks.

In the early sixties it became apparent that uranium in its enriched form was destined to play a very important role in world nuclear energy programmes. South Africa as one of the three major uranium producing countries of the world was obliged to take cognisance of this and the Atomic Energy Board gave this matter of uranium enrichment consideration. During 1961 the principle of a new process was proposed and because it showed promise, theoretical and experimental work on a very small scale was commenced.

By the beginning of 1963 the first results had already indicated that a measure of optimism in regard to the process, as well as further expansion of the experimental programme, was justified. Consequently, on 4th April, 1963, a discussion was arranged between the then Prime Minister, the late Dr. Verwoerd, the Minister of Finance (the late Dr. Dönges) and the Minister of Mines, the present Minister of Finance, on the one hand and the Deputy Chairman of the Board, Dr. T. E. W. Schumann, and the director of the Atomic Energy Board, Dr. A. J. A. Roux, on the other. It was brought to the attention of the Prime Minister that the research programme which had been approved for the Atomic Energy Board did not include research into the enrichment of uranium, with the result that there were no funds available for such a project. At this meeting it was decided that the State would finance the project from its inception and that funds would be made available for the equipping of a proper laboratory as well as for a reasonable research effort over the next three years. It is important to emphasize that the project has therefore been financed by the State from its inception.

With the funds which were then made available it was, inter alia, possible to erect a laboratory at Pelindaba which was occupied as early as January, 1964. At the end of 1964 the Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, and the then Minister of Mines, Mr. Haak, paid a visit to the laboratory, and since further promising progress had been made in the meantime, it was decided that the research should continue at least until the end of the Board’s second five-year programme, i.e. April, 1969. At the beginning of 1966 the development of the process had reached the stage where economic exploitation thereof could be envisaged and the present chairman of the Board, Dr. A. J. A. Roux recommended, inter alia, in a report to the Minister of Mines in 1966, that a commission of experts independent of the Atomic Energy Board should be appointed to express an impartial and objective opinion on the process and the work which had been done. I appointed such a commission, consisting of persons of the highest standing in scientific and economic activities of our country, at the beginning of 1968. The members of the commission are all South African who have already distinguished themselves in various spheres and in whose judgment the Government and I myself have every confidence.

In its report which was published in mid-1968 the commission recommended most strongly that the research and development work on the process be continued unabated in order to improve its effectiveness even further and that in the meantime the erection of a pilot plant should be proceeded with. The purpose of the pilot plant, which was also to be financed exclusively from State funds, is to supply an enriched uranium for the immediate needs of the country and to enable the country to establish, more reliably, what the design and costs criteria of large-scale plants based on the process are. In July, 1968 the present Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and I paid a visit to Pelindaba and were able to convince ourselves of the exceptional progress which had been made. As announced by the Prime Minister it was consequently decided to give effect to both recommendations of the commission of experts and since then the commission has been expanded (at present it consists of seven members) and converted into a committee which is giving effect to the project and reporting directly to me and to the Government. I felt that it was incumbent upon me to furnish the House with this information at this stage.

Several matters have been raised to which I should like to reply. The first to which I want to reply is a matter which the hon. member for Durban (North) has been touching upon for a long time, i.e. the matter of Mr. Marendaz.

Let me inform the hon. member and the House that I furnished advice and assistance to Mr. Marendaz as a voter, because he was at the time living in my constituency. Subsequently, I assisted him on behalf of the late Dr. Verwoerd, because that part of the constituency then fell under his constituency. Dr. Verwoerd was consistently aware of what happened between Mr. Marendaz and myself.

The hon. member for Durban (North) raised quite a number of legal aspects, legal procedures and arguments in regard to the prosecution of Captain Marendaz. Now I want to say this to the hon. member: I have little knowledge of these aspects. I have no knowledge whatsoever of the details thereof. Secondly, I did not make any inquiries, nor am I interested in that matter, because I am not going to express any opinion on legal aspects. It is in any case the prosecution of another person. I think that litigation is still in progress. This Parliament is not the place to discuss such matters which affect another person.

What I am in fact going to do is quite simple and is without doubt the function of Parliament. That is to deal with what the hon. member raised by way of questions and insinuations, because he inevitably raised doubts with regard to my integrity and honesty. Let me furnish this House with the following information in regard to the civil case—because I was concerned in that. I was served with a summons in the civil case. That is correct. Secondly, I entered a defence. In the first place I must say that I was not the only defendant, but that the State was also a defendant. Fourthly, I must say that the State settled this matter, in my absence. I was at the time ambassador in London, and I had nothing whatsoever to do with the settlement. As far as these doubts about my integrity and honesty are concerned, I want to say this to the hon. member and to the House: As far as I am concerned, there was in this entire matter no irregularity, no corruption or anything which could have affected my position in this House or in this Cabinet. Nothing of that nature has ever been brought to my attention. The hon. member must accept that. I also want to say to him that there is nothing which I wrote—for, after all, my letters are all published in the Sunday Times—which cannot bear the light of day. In addition I want to say that for what has already been published, I accept full responsibility, and do so honourably, for what is wrong with it? If they are still in possession of other letters, they must please publish them. I am not afraid of that.

I now want to issue a challenge to the hon. member. My word of honour, my name and my honesty is at stake now, for I have now given him the assurance in this House that throughout this period there was nothing irregular on my part. Now I want to challenge him. If he wants to raise this matter again in this House or outside he must bring me proof of his charge. This must not be by way of questions, as was the case yesterday. It must not be by way of insinuations. He must bring the proof. He knows how to set about things then according to the procedure in this House or outside.

Sir, what we witnessed yesterday however exposed as never before the tactics of that side throughout the election. And by whom was that done, Sir? By an hon. member who denied in this House that he had said anything, and yesterday when it was proved that he had in fact said it, he remained silent. Throughout the election those were the tactics of that side, and they had no consideration for anything or anybody. There were whispering campaigns. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition attacked my colleague, the Minister of Community Development, in public. Now he has nothing to say. He created the impression that Ministers were making money in all kinds of ways, Sir, and then they were supported by the newspapers. There was talk of corruption, favouritism and moneymaking and in addition there was reprehensible indulgence in personalities, even to the person of the Prime Minister. What that hon. member did was nothing else but a continuation. Sir, South Africa has done nothing to deserve such an Opposition. Let us face facts squarely. With all this scandalmongering, do you know what the main feature of this election was? With all this scandalmongering not a single offence, not a single case of favouritism or corruption or any minor little matter, was proved. If there has ever been a government and a party which has come out of an election unsullied, then it is this side of the House. [Interjections.] That party does not have a policy. They have a slogan now, and it is emanating from the Leader of the Opposition. It is: Play the man and not the ball. That is the United Party we have to deal with to-day.

I now want to say to the hon. member for Durban (North) that he owes me an apology. As a member of this House I expect an apology from him. Sir, it was the most outrageous and scandalous thing I have ever experienced in the 17 years I have been in this House, i.e. when the hon. member yesterday discussed the matter of Marendaz and myself and the former Minister of Justice, the present Prime Minister, for inter alia—I may not use the word “dirty ”— he dragged in Profumo. The Profumo affair was concerned with three things, i.e. immorality. the safety of the country and the security of the State, and a lie which had been told in the British House of Commons. Not one of these three elements was involved in this matter. Why then did the hon. member raise the matter? He owes me an apology in regard to this matter, and I shall leave it at that.

There was a second matter which was raised by that hon. member and this matter was also raised by other hon. members. It is concerned with a report which appeared on 20th March in Die Beeld. The big front page headline read as follows: “South African Base in the North ”. A question mark was appended to this. This report was written with reference to two speeches which I had allegedly made, and a so-called interview which was no interview. The only words which I used, and which I never denied, were the following:

That is all I said. That one could say of Jan Smuts Airport and of any other airport. But Die Beeld had the headline: “S.A. Base in the North”. I just want to mention a few examples. Die Beeld also reported: “The South African Air Force will be able to use the new international airport at Lilongwe in Malawi”. Other words which they used were: “Furthest jumping-off place in the North”. “Veil lifted on our air force and Malawi’s new airport”; “He said it was generally known that South Africa has military ties with Malawi”; and “To be able to use Lilongwe will be much more effective than other jumping-off places”. Another newspaper took it over in this way: “The South African Air Force has the new international airport at Lilongwe in Malawi at its disposal in the struggle against terrorists, says Dr. C. de Wet, Minister of Mines”.

I issued a statement immediately and said the following therein—

There is one point Die Beeld must clarify to us. If it is not their own speculation, why did they write on the front page “S.A. Base in the North?” with a question mark? What does the question mark mean?

Why did you make the original statement to Die Beeld?

I am coming to that. Why is the hon. member so interested in this?

In the statement I went on to say:

At Allenridge in the Free State I also discussed this matter. One can make a slip of the tongue and talk about the South African Air Force instead of the South African Airways. The hon. member for Odendaalsrus attended the meeting and he assures me that I did not make a slip of the tongue. I spoke throughout of the Airways. What is wrong with our helping Malawi, which is a friendly state, to build an airport when we have all these problems of flying round the bulge of Africa, while such an airport could perhaps be of value to our Airways for then we would be able to have more direct flights.

In addition Die Beeld stated that an interview had been conducted with me on the show-grounds at the Rand Easter Show. That is not true. What happened was that on that Thursday I was walking along there with the Minister of Agriculture. He did not hear the conversation. We walked no further than 25 paces, but while we were walking along, one of the reporters of Die Beeld came along to question me about this matter. Inter alia, I then told him two things. I told him that I had said nothing new and I emphasized that the fact that I had mentioned that we had a military attaché in Malawi was nothing now. Many people had mentioned it already, and surely that does not mean military ties with Malawi. That was the entire gist of that query. It was not an interview. Now I am saying in advance that if it is alleged that anything more than this transpired in that interview then it is untrue.

In addition I have here a complete tape-recording of the speech I made and from which this sentence was taken. I am placing it at the disposal of anyone in South Africa to play it back and to hear what I said. I am making it available to any open-minded person, Die Beeld included. Then he can judge. Now I want to address a request to Die Beeld. I am not angry at these people. My request is this: If they cannot on this tape-recording or on their own tape-recording find other words than these and if they cannot explain to me why there was a question mark behind this headline on the front page, they must apologize. They telephoned the Minister of Defence, Mr. P. W. Botha, and put this question to him. If they had any doubts, and used the question mark for that reason, why did they not telephone and ask me? Surely it was not difficult. If they cannot find that I had used other words, then they must accept the responsibility of it having been their speculation and then they must at least express their regret for having caused the National Party and myself this unpleasantness. I think it is only fair to ask this. I leave it at that.

Why were you then relieved of your Planning post?

Order!

That hon. member makes frequent references to the ex-Minister of Planning. If I have ever been thankful to the Prime Minister, then it is for having relieved me of work, not necessarily of the Department of Planning, because that is a pleasant department. No man can cope with four portfolios, as I had to do. It is a falsehood the U.P. is hawking about. They know very well it is not true. I was relieved of this portfolio and it was given to my colleague and very good friend, who is the latest addition to the Cabinet. This is supposed to be such an important event. Surely it is a false impression they are presenting to South Africa. The Department of Planning has never been administered by anyone but the most junior member of the Cabinet. It was given to Mr. Haak in 1964 immediately after he was admitted to the Cabinet. It was given to me in 1966 when I was the most junior member of the Cabinet, and it has now been given to my friend and colleague who was also recently admitted to the Cabinet. Those are the kind of stories the United Party spreads.

There is another matter I want to come to, i.e. the uproar—even the hon. the Leader of the Opposition issued a statement in this regard—about what I laid at the door of Mr. Oppenheimer as industrialist.

Very naughty.

Yes, but not in the sense in which the hon. member means it. The impression was also created that there is ill-feeling between Mr. Oppenheimer and myself. We are old colleagues and there is no ill-feeling, but we do differ when it comes to the policy of South Africa. I was addressing him in his capacity as an industrialist. Let me say at once that I am not apologizing for anything I said to him in this connection. I stand by every word. I am tendering no apology whatsoever for it. If we are able to find ways and means, and it is not easy, of implementing what I mentioned, then it will be for the good of South Africa. Neither do I want to alter in any way what I have to say.

Mr. Speaker, I now want to point out to you the distorted image which was presented of this matter. In the first instance it was said that I had infringed on his rights as citizen. I have here 17 pages of everything I said at various meetings in verbatim form.

I am sorry for your audience.

South Africa is worth more than that. I did not have half as much to say as that hon. member had to say in this election. It was said that I had infringed upon his rights as citizen, for he was also at a meeting. I stated emphatically that he should make it very clear to us where he stood, not in relation to his support of a political party. “That is his proper right as citizen.” But South Africa is not told this. It was also given in writing to the newspapers. Secondly, I had allegedly said that he had contravened the law. On three occasions I said the following:

On another occasion I said: “There will be no suspicion that he is contravening a law of the country.” On another occasion I said: “This has nothing to do with the contravention of a law of the country (as I have in fact already said) but merely with the implementation of the policy, whether he agrees with it or not.” Then, it was said recently and particularly by the Leader of the Opposition, that I now want to discriminate as Minister against this individual, and that I was allegedly acting unfairly. What are the facts of the matter? It has all been said and is all in writing, but it has not been published. The Rand Daily Mail and all those kindred spirits of the liberal English-language Press in South Africa do not want to tell the world what it is one said. They select only what they want.

Like Die Beeld.

I am not talking about your verkramptes now; I am talking about our National Party people. I said: “This standpoint of mine is not based on any desire to discriminate, but merely to keep careful watch over the interests of our fatherland.” And in addition I said:

On another occasion I said the following in this connection:

That is Mr. Oppenheimer—

I am putting the question to any member in this House or of the public whether they read anything about this in the newspapers? The Press had it in writing and I repeated it every evening at every meeting. But it was all avoided in order to create a false impression. I am tendering no apology for any of the matters I have referred to here.

But then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition came and took up the cudgels here for Mr. Oppenheimer. One of the big statements he made was that he and Mr. Oppenheimer differed politically but that I had acted incorrectly in this matter and that he stood by Mr. Oppenheimer. But surely that is not true.

I do not stand by Mr. Oppenheimer; I stand by South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I am now raising this point because I want to stand by South Africa.

What was your threat against Mr. Oppenheimer?

I shall give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this entire copy of my speech. I take exception to this: On the one hand I was not indicating policy, I was in fact indicating how I would deal with the matter administratively on behalf of South Africa. Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition came along and stated that he and Mr. Oppenheimer differed from each other. Surely that is not true. They do in fact differ in other respects, but not in this respect. What is his policy? His policy is that the Blacks should stream to our cities. But it goes even much further than that. The second standpoint of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is that not only should those Blacks come, but they should also bring along their wives and children. His third standpoint is that those men, their wives and their children should be granted the right to own property in white areas. That is the basic difference between that party and us. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has such a lot to say now. Let me put a question to him. Under his policy can a Black be a member of this House? Under the government of that party Blacks will be sitting in this House sooner than under the government of this party. They want to give the non-Whites 16 seats, four to the Coloureds, two to the Indians and eight to the Bantu. That leaves 150 seats. If in this election we had obtained 80 seats and they 70 out of the 150, who would have been governing this country. Then they would have been governing the country with those 16 non-Whites. I just want to remind hon. members that in 1939 we were plunged into a war with a meagre majority of 13, three less than 16.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with attention and interest to the speech of the hon. the Minister of Mines and of Health, particularly that part of it which purported to be a reply to the speech which was made by the hon. member for Durban (North). Firstly there was the Marendaz affair. As one who has been associated with the law for some years, I must say I found his initial statement astonishing that anybody could have settled on his behalf a civil action in the Supreme Court without having received any instructions from the hon. the Minister. Apart from that curious aspect, the hon. gentleman has replied to none of the material allegations made by the hon. member for Durban (North). What was the principal ground of his contention in regard to the Marendaz affair? It arose around this point, namely was the hon. the Minister a director of that company or was he not? This is the one question which the hon. the Minister has not answered. He could tell us now.

But you have my letter in the Sunday Times.

The second point is that somebody must have laid information with the Police or with the State Prosecutor that the information supplied by Marendaz, namely that the hon. the Minister was a director, was false. The hon. the Minister of Mines was asked by the hon. member for Durban (North): Who had made that information available to the Police? All the facts lead one to the inference that it was the hon. the Minister who laid that information. The hon. the Minister has not enlightened us on this point. However, if that is so, it cannot lie together with the letter of the hon. the Minister in which he resigned as a director of that company. On these two crucial points, which make the whole gravamen of the charge against him by the hon. member for Durban (North), the hon. the Minister, to this moment, remains silent. In those circumstances he cannot complain if others draw the inferences which, prima facie, are to be drawn from those statements.

Now I come to the question of Die Beeld. The hon. the Minister has said quite categorically that he did not say what Die Beeld alleges he said. It is not for us to judge, but I must say, prima facie, there seems to be some basis—and I put it no higher than that— to say that what Die Beeld inferred the hon. the Minister said from his statements, was a legitimate inference. I say it is not for us to judge. If the hon. gentleman is sure of his grounds—and he has been very emphatic in this House that he is sure—then he has a very substantial action for damages against Die Beeld.

Even if I had, I would not take that action.

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. the Minister has not taken this opportunity to clear his name publicly already. However, there is still time for him to do it. There is still time for him to do two things, namely to lay a complaint with the Press Council, and to take action in the Supreme Court against Die Beeld for a very substantial sum of damages. Not only will he clear his name impartially through the courts, but he will benefit himself by a substantial sum as well. I challenge the hon. the Minister to lay a complaint before the Press Council and to justify his good name in the courts of this country.

So you are worried about my good name? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, there is a third aspect to this matter as well. That is the question of the hon. gentleman’s comments in relation to Mr. Oppenheimer. He was asked on a number of occasions whilst he was on his feet by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to tell us again what he had said in respect of Mr. Oppenheimer. But he refuses to do this because were he to do this, we could judge for ourselves whether the strictures that have been made against him were valid or not. So far as one can recall, what were the comments by the hon. the Minister against Mr. Oppenheimer? He singled out Mr. Oppenheimer by name for special attention under the administration of the Physical Planning Act because of Mr. Oppenheimer’s alleged political views.

No.

That was the gravamen of it.

That is completely wrong.

Then why did the hon. the Minister not tell us what he said in that regard? The hon. gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot remain silent and refuse to answer the charges which are made against him and then accuse us of putting the position wrongly when we draw the only inferences which are to be drawn against him. All I can say is that the position stands as before and that nothing has been cleared up of the charges which have been laid against the hon. the Minister.

As hon. members are aware, I have spent the last four years elsewhere than in this House. For that reason, if for no other, I have paid considerable attention to the speeches which have been made in this debate; the speeches by the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister for Water Affairs in particular. I believe those two touched on the fundamental issue in our politics, which is the position of the non-White in the South African scene.

Before I come to deal with that aspect of affairs, I should like to comment on the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the House, who I see is about to leave the Chamber. I should like to deal with some of the remarks which fell from him. We have in this country two official languages, Afrikaans and English. Our people stem from two broad cultural streams, the English culture and the Afrikaans culture. There is in addition to that a growing third cultural stream, a South African culture, which has common elements from both sides. Now, if one goes out from the standpoint of an equal respect for both languages and both cultures, it matters not in the slightest which language or culture is more evident in one’s make-up. It matters not the slightest if one goes out from the point of view of an equal respect for each. And if one is fortunate enough to be familiar with both cultures, and conversant with both languages, I should have thought that one approached the South African ideal and should be the subject of universal praise.

Hear, hear!

But what is the point of view of the hon. the Minister of Transport, who I see is now back in the House? In the hon. the gentleman’s view, judging by the speech he made earlier in this debate, anyone who in this way attains a broad South Africanism which supersedes his language of origin, be it English or Afrikaans, stands to be derided in the coarsest terms. The Minister’s strictures must apply equally to the English-speaking person who gives up his exclusively English language and culture and embraces a broad South Africanism. It must apply equally to that person, because if it were not, then the hon. the Minister would be guilty of remarks grossly insulting to the English-speaking community of South Africa. I have long thought that the Nationalist Party paid merely lip service to the ideal of developing a broad South Africanism, embracing the best from both English and Afrikaans cultures. We have had in this debate from the hon. the Leader of the House, concrete evidence that that is in fact so, namely that the National Party from the mouth of one of its leaders is against the establishment here of a broad South Africanism which supersedes the exclusiveness of both the English and the Afrikaans language and culture.

One of the most interesting comments I have read for a long time appeared in a leading article in Die Burger. I have only the report in this morning’s Cape Times, but I believe it to be an accurate translation. It reads—

This is Die Burger. I repeat—

Now, Sir, is it not astonishing? I think we might ask ourselves the question: Why after 23 years of Nationalist rule is there this disbelief that what is said can or will be done …

Credibility gap?

… even amongst the supporters of the Government themselves? There is nothing wrong with the goal itself. An exclusively white state, if attainable under reasonable conditions, would, I believe, be almost universally accepted. But one must look at the policy from the beginning. It grows out of a philosophy which believes in the danger of numbers. It is a philosophy which says that as long as you have a majority of Bantu in a white state, you are bound to be engulfed. Hence the necessity in that thinking of getting rid, from your white state, of the majority of Bantu, which in turn led to the idea of setting up a number of black nation states. From the physical point of view there are certain basic essentials for the success of such a policy in respect of each Bantu nation. Firstly, there must be the existence of an area of land which is capable of forming the basis of a state. Secondly, there must be the physical presence on that land for the greater part of their lives of the majority of the Bantu. Thirdly, there must be an economy in that land area which can support the majority of Bantu living there. Fourthly, there must be an acceptance by the Bantu themselves that all their interests, material, social, spiritual and political are in reality centred in that land area. Fifthly, there must be an ability by the white state to survive and prosper without the bulk of its present Bantu labour. I believe those are the five basic essentials—there may be others—for the success of the policy which is enunciated by hon. gentlemen opposite. I think we could profitably examine each of those essentials to see to what extent it has been achieved or is achievable in the present context of South Africa.

Firstly, there is the question of a land area which can support a state. I accept immediately that the Transkei, in this regard only, is an exception. There was land area there before the policy was enunciated. But let us look at the largest of the non-white groups, the Zulus, some 3½ million of them. Let us see whether they have a land area which can possibly form a state, because, if you cannot deal with that problem in Natal, then you cannot deal with it anywhere else in South Africa.

The hon. member for South Coast showed a map here yesterday which excited a certain amount of derision from hon. gentlemen opposite. But what is the effect of it? The effect of it is best illustrated by a simple trip from the capital of Zululand, which is Eshowe, to Durban, a distance of 100 miles. It takes an hour and a half by motor-car. What does one find? In that short distance one travels in and out, crossing between the black and the white areas, some 10 or 14 times. And when we questioned the hon. gentlemen opposite as to the future basis of the black Zulu state, they said: But, you all know the scheduled Native areas. They are already defined. Are we then to understand that when independence comes about for that state, there will be a passport control officer and that one will have to produce a passport 10 or 14 times within a distance of 100 miles? The notion is utterly absurd. One has merely to state it to appreciate the absurdity. How can that problem be overcome, the very basic problem for the establishment of a Zulu state? It can be done simply by acquiring the white land in between those Native areas so that you can have the beginnings of a viable state.

The hon. the Minister of Water Affairs took us to task because we mentioned that the Bantu under these circumstances would be occupying 13 per cent of the land. He suggested that we would be giving information which may be made use of by those hostile to us. But, Sir, the hon. gentleman is living in a cloud if he believes that. We do not have to tell the Zulu people for example that the system will not work, unless there is a large-scale re-allocation of land. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and I were both present at the opening of the Zulu Territorial Authority. And what was the very first point that the new Prime Minister of the Zulus made, the very first one of many? He said that in order that this thing be made to work, in order that it be given any sense at all, “you must give us a whole lot more land”. And, of course, that is precisely so. It is one of the dangers inherent in the whole concept.

Then there is the second point, namely the physical presence on that land of the greater majority of the Bantu for the greater part of their lives. At the present time they are not there. They are in the white areas. Once again, what did the new Prime Minister of the Zulus say as the second point of his speech at the opening of the new Territorial Authority? He said to the hon. the Minister: In effect one lot of the officials of your department are telling the Zulus who live in towns and on the white farms to get out of the white areas and to go back to the reserves. The other section of the same department again, are telling the chiefs that they may not allocate any more kraal sites in the reserves, because they are overcrowded. He then asked what on earth are they to do, because the Government says that the Bantu must go back to the reserves in order to make the policy work, but when they get there they are told that they may not be given kraal sites because the reserves are already overcrowded.

By the same Department.

Yes.

Let us take up the third point, namely the economy in these land areas which can support the majority of the Bantu living there. At the present time there is no economy in any of the Native reserves which can be described by that name. It does not exist. Under the present dispensation, what likelihood is there that a viable economy will ever be attainable in those areas? All we have at the present time is border industry, which does not advance the thesis of separate development, because they are industries in the white areas. They are merely employing black labour, which is contrary to the whole exercise. They are the antithesis of the establishment of separate areas for Bantu. They do not help it one iota. If one is honest with oneself, the only way a viable economy can be set up in the Native areas is to take over holus-bolus large chunks of existing white industrial areas and incorporate them into the Bantu areas. Otherwise there is not the slightest prospect of this ever getting off the ground.

The third point I mentioned was that the Bantu must recognize and accept that all his interests lie in the Bantu areas. What are these interests at the present time? Firstly, administration, which is at present exercised by the Bantu Affairs Commissioners who live in nine out of ten cases in a town in the white areas and who administer them from there. Therefore, his first interest is firmly established in the white areas of South Africa. Secondly, let us take the place where he works. In nine out of ten cases the place where he works is also in the white areas of South Africa. Thirdly, he buys his needs at the shops which are in nine out of ten cases situated in the white areas. Finally, his other interest is his home, which in many cases is, admittedly, situated in the reserves. However, if one sees a place like Soweto it again is in a white area. Under the present dispensation there is no prospect at the moment and there is no prospect for the foreseeable future, of anchoring in the minds of the Bantu the fact that his interests are in the reserves and not in the white areas of South Africa. The notional idea of tying him and his vote by means of the legislation of the hon. the Minister to the reserves does not mean a thing, because a vote is useful and has a grip on an individual only if it can be exercised in respect of the area where the person has his being.

The final point is that the white economy must be able to survive and prosper without the bulk of its Bantu labour. At the present time the whole of this debate has demonstrated that that simply cannot be done. If one looks at these essentials for both the present and for the future there is, one can say it deservedly, not the slightest prospect of all of them being fulfilled. The hon. the Minister gave us a list of what he said were the achievements of separate development up till now. I made a note of them. There was the building of the Bantu Authorities. That, in the present context and without these criteria, is no more than the establishment of local authorities to administer areas of Bantu occupation within a white state. It is no more than that. He has said that the Bantu universities have been established. He gave this as an example to show that separate development is succeeding, but I know only one of them, and that is the Bantu university for the Zulus. And where is it situated? Not in the middle of a homeland, but on the periphery of a homeland with its centre in Empangeni, which is a white town in a white area.

Then he named influx control. The best proof you could possibly have of the failure of separate development is the vast machinery of influx control. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated quite categorically in a speech in the United Nations, and which he was good enough to send me, that the whole aim of separate development was to do away with discrimination. In other words, it was designed to get rid from our society those against whom one has to discriminate, namely the Bantu. Every further act of what is known as petty apartheid is further proof, not of the success of the policy of separate development, but of its abject failure. The greatest of these is influx control. The hon. the Minister also spoke about the clearing up of black spots. I agree that that is in accordance with the policy. Finally, he spoke about the building of an infrastructure in the homelands, which is no more than local development.

I think I have examined all the necessary criteria so far as the practical application of the policy is concerned. I think one can say quite categorically that there is no prospect of this policy succeeding. I think it has failed even as a philosophy if one accepts the basic Nationalist thinking, which is that there is danger in numbers. Let us for a moment assume that every Bantu is removed from the white areas of South Africa and that every man-jack of them has been got rid of and has been placed in an independent state. Hon. gentlemen opposite will then say that the policy has succeeded because we would then have a white majority here. But for how long? Already there are about 2½ million Coloureds and Asiatics in South Africa. I wonder if hon. members opposite have ever considered the birth rate of those two communities in relation to that of the white community. I wonder how many of them are prepared to say that in two or three generations time, having rid ourselves of every Bantu in South Africa, the white people will still be a numerical majority in white South Africa. If I read the figures correctly and draw the right conclusions, by that time the majority in white South Africa will be Asiatic and Coloured. On the philosophy of hon. gentlemen opposite that inevitably means, in their view, a Coloured and Asiatic majority and government. What then is the object of the whole exercise? How is this wonderful policy of separate development going to keep the white man in power for ever? It seems to me that not only has the policy failed in its practical application, but that it has even failed as a theoretical exercise here in South Africa.

I believe that we ought not in these days of the no-confidence debate have been debating whether or not South Africa is to be partitioned, separate states or one state. That ought not to be the debate, because that is only useful and fruitful if it can be shown that partition, as an alternative, can succeed. However, it cannot be shown, so why are we wasting time on it? The debate ought to be, and it would be useful if we were debating, how best to ensure white leadership in South Africa within one state and at the same time give a fair deal to the non-Europeans. That would be a useful exercise. There is some prospect of that succeeding. If one looks at the various factors which I have enumerated through the eyes of separate development they become nonsensical. But if you look at them through the eyes of a federal state, one state in which there are a variety of identifiable communities with a large measure of self-government within that state, then these factors do not become nonsensical as they will fall into place as realities which can be dealt with and which can be contained.

With the United Party’s policy of thinking along federal lines and along the lines of accepting the reality that we are going to remain one state, and along the lines of devolving powers in accordance with the development of the numerous communities, and accepting the fact that the areas set aside for occupation by Bantu people make it impossible to create independent states but at the same time accepting that those areas, scattered as they may be, could well be the basis of federal entities within one state, I believe we can make progress in South Africa.

It seems to me, Sir, that it is greatly to be regretted that we should in this debate spend so much time in dealing with the policy about which Die Burger itself admits and, I will refer once again to the leading article, that “there are people here and abroad (they would not refer to this, unless they were material in their numbers) who do not believe that what is said can be done or will be done in South Africa by this Government”.

Mr. Speaker, with what I have to say I shall probably come back to some of the matters raised by the hon. member. I just want to tell him initially that, if the Government’s policy has been as hopeless a failure as he claims, it is strange that the Republic of South Africa stand out to-day as one of the most stable countries of the world, and that, as far as race and population relationships are concerned, and apart from our stability, there is less trouble in our population relationships in the Republic of South Africa than in any other country which can be compared with us in this regard. The hon. member must therefore go and think about that.

The Leader of the Opposition created two impressions which, to my way of thinking, are dangerous in present-day circumstances. In the motion he moved here he in the first place approached South Africa’s position and the situation in this House very negatively. His entire motion is negative in character, which testifies to the Opposition’s lack of a proper vision for the future. Secondly, he stated that South Africa’s security and prosperity had to be built on two elementary pillars, i.e. economic and military strength. The Prime Minister rightly told him that both may be true, but that these two things were not enough, as there were many other factors which had to contribute towards ensuring this country’s prosperity and stability.

In my opinion the Leader of the Opposition and his party have thus far shown a total lack of understanding and appreciation of the problems which serve as a background and in the face of which any government in South Africa to-day, and in other civilized countries, have to maintain orderly government. I am not saying this out of venom. It is a lack which exists throughout the Western world today. In most countries of the world there is a lack of understanding of the real issues involved in the struggle being waged in the times in which we are living. The Western world, or the free world, to put it more broadly, must wake up to one great truth—and if the Leader of the Opposition would wake up to it he would be doing South Africa a service—i.e. that we are being threatened by the global and overall strategy under the leadership of aggressive communism. This is not a commonplace statement to make; it is a truth that is not yet believed. There is an overall strategy that has been let loose on the Western world and the free world as such. This overall strategy, under the leadership of aggressive communism, be it Russia, China, Cuba or Algeria, is aimed at Africa as well. A military authority of note recently summed it up as follows—

This is a truth the hon. members opposite should appreciate.

Who said that?

I think it was Prof. Marshall who wrote this in one of his articles. This is a truth we must wake up to, i.e. that what is involved here is not the restoration, preservation or obtaining of elementary rights. Behind the great pressure of the Afro-Asian campaign there is a deeper force, and that is the overall strategy which has been let loose upon the Western world by the forces of communism. And the negative attitude adopted by the Opposition here to-day, is not to South Africa’s benefit. Whether they know it or not, and whether they intend to do so or not, they are playing into the hands of these forces.

It is not primarily a matter of apartheid or parallel development. The struggle against South Africa is not primarily concerned with that, because in Rhodesia it is not a matter of apartheid, neither is it in the Portuguese areas north of our borders. Apartheid does not exist there. The Rhodesian policy is much closer to the policy of my hon. friend over there, the member for Houghton, and further removed from the proposals made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The Portuguese policy is one of assimilation. This is not a struggle about apartheid. It is a communistic onslaught under the cloak of religion or freedom, or whatever, and it is directed against stability, security and progress. This is what we must understand when dealing with these matters; this is what we must understand before introducing negative motions of this nature here. The threat of which I spoke applies to virtually every sphere of life. There the hon. the Prime Minister was right when he told the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that it did not apply only to economic and military strength. It applies to all spheres. This threat facing us is a total threat, an overall strategy. Sir, it is operative in the economic sphere. It manifests itself in the form of incitement to boycotts and illegal strikes. It manifests itself in the sowing of confusion in government ranks, such as by means of student unrest, etc. It manifests itself, consciously or unconsciously, in the news media of the world. It manifests itself through subversion, infiltration and the sowing of disorder, and in terrorism in its various forms. In the case of Southern Africa it is terrorism on land, and in the case of other countries it is terrorism in the air. The military and economic fronts are but two of the ways in which that onslaught is being made on the Western world, but there are numerous others. To-day virtually every sphere of life is a part of that overall strategy and that total onslaught on the free world and the people of the West.

We must develop an awareness of danger. I am not speaking of panic; I am not asking for panic, because panic and fear are twin brothers. I am not speaking of panic or excessive fear, but I am speaking of an awareness of danger which must develop, and which is thus far totally absent in the actions of the hon. members of the Opposition. They have no awareness of danger. What they are in fact holding up to South Africa is a country of comfort and ease without any sacrifice or exertion.

You are dreaming again.

No, I am not dreaming. This is inherent in the Opposition’s approach to our problems. We must have an awareness of danger. I have said that this danger manifests itself in all spheres, and I want to make special reference to one.

To-day terrorism is being planned and carried out on a large scale, and sometimes on a lesser scale, on the borders of our northern neighbours, and it is directed against South Africa. But this does not exclude the possibility that terrorism may come from sources other than those on land. It is part of the long-term planning of aggressive communism that terrorism will eventually manifest itself and make its onslaught on the sea and in the air as well. We have information that preparations are being made in that direction. It is the tragedy of Western man to-day that the Western world has not yet really awakened to these dangers, because if the Western world were to say: No, so far and no further, an end could be made to these things before it was too late.

The unconventional onslaught will increase until bases are in readiness for a conventional onslaught. The subversion, the sowing of confusion, the creation of disorder, will increase until the death blow can be struck by conventional forces. This is the essence of the struggle we are involved in. The forces of communism have time. This was said by the greatest leader of Russia: We have time; we shall take our time in subduing the West in each of these spheres. The best proof that the accusation made by the Opposition, together with our enemies, to the effect that the Republic of South Africa under this Government is responsible for all these tensions, is untrue, you find right here next to us.

Here on our borders we have three young, independent states, all three of them virtually unarmed, and not one of these three independent black states is in danger of its life or is threatened as a result of the actions of the Republic of South Africa. On the contrary, they have peaceful relations with the Republic of South Africa. Therefore these cannot be tensions created by this Government, or by the Republic of South Africa under the leadership of this Government. The tensions are brought in from outside as a result of a diabolical, overall world strategy.

The question is: What action must we take against it? In the first place, if you want to fight an overall strategy, if you want to reply to a total, overall onslaught, there must be an opposing will. That opposing will must be just as total on your side in order to offer resistance, but this is where the Opposition are leaving South Africa in the lurch. They are undermining the will of South Africa. I do not say that they are doing this consciously, but I say that they are undermining the total strategic will of South Africa in many places, because they act negatively and try to place obstacles and difficulties in the Government’s way as far as possible.

The first way in which you can build up that will is by creating better white relationships. I am sorry that the hon. member for Zululand is not present at the moment. He delivered an eulogy here on better relations between Whites. He reproached the hon. the Minister of Transport for his attitude. But I do not want to speak about this matter to-day in a spirit of accusation. I do, however, want to ask this question. Is it not true that if you look at white relationships in South Africa, you find that both political parties profess to our wanting better white relationships? Both of us want bilingualism, in a spirit of South Africa first. Both acknowledge that it is good that political support should be found across the language boundary. I am one of those who believe that in this new decade in which this new Republic of ours must be reared, we should not repeat the prejudices and the struggles of the past. But this afternoon I want to ask this question. Is it not the Afrikaans-speaking South African who has to find time and again in shops and offices that his language is not respected? Sir, I can give you numerous instances which I cannot defend. When I speak to my fellow Afrikaner and say that we must seek closer relations with each other and bring about better understanding for the sake of the opposing will we must create, I invariably bump my head against instances where the Afrikaans language and culture suffer as a result of the unwillingness of people to accommodate them. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition could do South Africa a favour. To-morrow evening, when he replies to this debate, he can stand up and say: I ask, together with the Government, that everyone serving the public, whether in a business or an office or wherever, should be able to do so in both Afrikaans and English. If the Leader of the Opposition does not want to do this, he will prove to me that he is afraid of certain elements in this country.

I have asked him so many times to do it.

We must obtain clarity about that. In this country the political future of South Africa cannot be settled without the will of the Afrikaans-speaking people, and they will only become favourably disposed towards greater co-operation if they receive proof that their language and cultural rights are not being trodden underfoot.

The second principle on which that strategic, that opposing will must be built, is that of obtaining the correct policy regarding the relations between Whites and non-Whites, between the white and non-white peoples of this country; and the basic problem I have with the United Party is that they say that separate development is failing. They maintain that the concept of granting each people the opportunity, according to its spiritual assets and its urge to freedom, to develop according to its own pattern, has failed. But what is their solution? They want to use the white man to place a permanent damper, in and through this Parliament, on the ideals and the natural aspirations of millions of people, and with that they think they will satisfy the world. But in so doing they will not help to build an opposing will. Do you know, Sir, what they will do? They will play directly into the hands of the communist onslaught. One cannot prevent that from happening. The only way one can try to build up a strong will is to make all the black peoples in Southern Africa feel that while we claim the right to be ourselves in this country, we also want to grant them the same rights, as they develop the necessary sense of responsibility, to develop and realize their own urge to freedom. This is the second basic principle of this opposing will. But there is another basic principle—and here too I find a total lack on the part of the Opposition in this debate. Their approach is that the Government should be attacked on every possible grievance that can be cultivated in the country, whether about wages, houses or social conditions. I do not want to suggest that there should be no criticism.

That is your attitude.

No, of course not. That is not my attitude, but what I do lay at the Opposition’s door is the exploitation of people’s ignorance and the creation of an attitude that you should get more for less work. Sir, I say here to-day that if we do not get a different approach in this country to the concepts of labour and production and to the concept that our country is engaged in a struggle for its very life, and if we do not realize that we should not talk so much about the manpower shortage, but that each of us should exert himself in order to help South Africa through this struggle—if we do not display that spirit, we shall not win this struggle.

Then I come to the fourth principle, and here I come to our news media. I am not saying this in a spirit of reproach, but I am telling you that communism, in its overall onslaught on the people of the West, is also using the news media of the world, sometimes consciously and sometimes unconsciously. Sir, in Cape Town this week we had another example of an attempt being made to disturb good relations between South Africa and one of our countries of origin as a result of a diabolical move by a ferreter who did not spread the news in South Africa in the first place, but who saw to it that it was sent overseas and then returned to South Africa from there. I am referring to the visit of the Dutch ships. There we had a clear example in the past few days of how an attempt was made to bedevil good relations and to isolate South Africa. Sir, I want to make an appeal to our news media to-day. We must try not to blow up every incident to a national disaster. We must try to realize that we are involved in a total struggle in which we must bring to bear our united will.

Mr. Speaker, if we accept these principles, then I believe South Africa will develop to greater economic strength. If we realize that there is danger, then I believe we shall be capable of greater things, and this will enable us to meet our military commitments. In this connection I want to say at the very outset: South Africa must not be regarded as a country with an insatiable hunger for arms. In the past few years we have spent less than 3 per cent per year of our gross national product on the Defence Force and on defence—less than 3 per cent—and we do not intend to exceed the 3 per cent. In other words, the proof is there that we are applying limited funds towards the maintenance of our defence, and the impression which is created in the world that South Africa has an insatiable hunger for arms, must come to an end. We do not have R300 million, R500 million or R600 million just to buy wherever a market opens up, and we do not want those arms either. South Africa is only interested in maintaining its own defence, to defend its freedom, its sovereignty and its self-respect against those who want to assault it, and in the second place we want to be self-respectingly in a position to maintain our place on the most important sea route of the world. In this connection it is interesting to read what the Russian naval chief said recently—

That was expressly stated by the Russian naval chief and, Sir, it is manifested in their presence in the Mediterranean. It is manifested in their attempts to reopen the Suez Canal for their own purposes; it is manifested in their interest in the sea route round the Cape and their presence in the Indian Ocean. They know that whoever controls naval power controls the waterways of the world, and whoever controls the waterways can smother the world when it suits him. Sir, there we want to play a part. We want to play a part, in the first place, to be able to defend our own freedom. sovereignty and self-respect. In the second place, for the sake of world peace, we want to play a part by being able to take an honourable place along with the Western world on this most important sea route of the world.

In this connection I want to say, with the permission of my colleague the Minister of Foreign Affairs, that a totally wrong impression was created recently. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs did not go to London to buy arms, and I say this with his knowledge and approval. He paid a goodwill visit to London, and on a goodwill visit various subjects are discussed, but he did not go with the object of buying arms, and the impression being created that we want to buy arms on a large scale all over the place cannot be justified in the light of the policy which I have just outlined. What is more, Mr. Speaker, we have in recent years, as a result of attacks and boycotts against us, made a great deal of progress in becoming self-sufficient in this field. To-day we have 170 principal contractors and a large number of sub-contractors, totalling about 1,000, who supply our own needs. The major portion of our conventional ammunition and other armaments for all three branches of the Defence Force is manufactured locally. The present production programme makes provision for about 100 different types which we can manufacture ourselves. Sir, a great deal of know-how has been built up in South Africa in recent years, and long-term planning has strongly influenced manufacturing potential. The Munitions Board applies a strict policy of quality and cost control. We welcome know-how from overseas, but in those cases where know-how comes to South Africa from overseas to produce munitions here for local use and, if need be, for export —because we have munitions to export—we say that we welcome it, but that we want control of their manufacture here in South Africa. Sir, the story that South Africa needs arms to suppress other people is devoid of all truth.

In conclusion, just this: We are prepared to play our part in connection with the Simons-town Agreement. We are glad that there are signs of a better relationship with South Africa. We shall do our share as long as it accords with our national self-respect, and we shall meet our obligations in order to protect what is of such importance to the free world and to world peace.

We have just now heard from the hon. the Minister of Defence what the aim of the Government is with regard to defence, what he has achieved and what the Government is attempting to achieve. May I say at the outset, Sir, that we on this side of the House feel just as strongly as the Government does that we should be in a position to defend our sovereignty, our independence and also that we should be in a position to play our part, with the Western world, in defending democratic rights as we know them. We will also stand by any agreement which the Government has made with regard to defence with other countries and we sincerely hope that with the change of Government in Britain we will be better equipped to play our part and that our allies will be better prepared and more willing to play a full part with us. Sir. the Minister has told us that we are manufacturing our own arms to a certain extent and naturally we are proud of that. We are a very capable nation, and I would remind the House and the country that in 1939 when we found ourselves in a war and our allies, the only ally we had at that time being Great Britain, were short of equipment and the means to make war, we in South Africa put our shoulders to the wheel and, as is common knowledge, we surprised the whole world by what we were able to do. We started making shells and guns of all descriptions. I say therefore that we are a nation with ability, as we have just recently proved again. Our scientists have proved what they are able to do. We are therefore a nation to be reckoned with and we do not necessarily have to go cap in hand to others to get the means to defend ourselves.

Sir, the Minister started off his speech by saying that we were one of the most stable countries in the world and that that was proof of the sanity of our form of government. I would like to say that the fact that we do have stability in this country is proof that you can have stability and peace in a multi-racial State, because after all we are a multi-racial State; the separation which the Government envisages has not been brought about and we have many races living together here in one State, as the Minister has pointed out. Sir, I submit that it is because the Government’s policy is not being applied, that it is because of the exemptions on which the Government relies in applying its policy, that we are able to live in this condition. The hon. the Minister says that the Opposition shows a lack of appreciation of the dangers that threaten us, the dangers of Communism. He also suggested that the Western democracies showed a lack of appreciation of these dangers. Sir, I cannot agree with him at all. He is certainly quite wrong as far as this Opposition is concerned when he says that there is a lack of appreciation of the dangers which face us. We are well aware of these dangers although we do not go shouting about them everywhere; there is not the occasion for us to do so, but we appreciate the dangers of Communism as much as the Government does, just as in 1939 we appreciated the dangers of Nazism, which was also a threat to democracy. I do not think that the Minister is quite fair to the countries which we hope will be our allies, the Western countries, when he says that they also fail to appreciate these dangers. After all, Sir, America is fighting an active war against Communism. We know that she has been having a lot of trouble because of this war, but the fact remains that she has gone on fighting; so I do not think it is fair to say that they do not appreciate the dangers. I also think that the Prime Minister assumes too much when he says that he was able to bring to the notice of the countries which he visited the dangers threatening the sea routes around South Africa. I think they are well aware of the position. They have all the information; they have as good a secret service as we have. I do not see how we can have better information than all those countries put together about the dangers which threaten us.

Have another guess.

I submit therefore that the danger is appreciated. What did the Minister then suggest to overcome this threat of Communism? He suggested that we should give to every race group or nation in this country the right to enjoy to the full the rights which the Whites enjoy. Now, that is a very good sentiment but let me say to the Minister that in fighting Communism we must bear in mind the words of Lord Halley when he said that if they ask for bread we should not give them the vote. And this is what the Government is inclined to do—to give the non-White political progress rather than material progress. Now let me ask the hon. the Minister, because he was at one stage very much involved, what the Government is doing for the Coloured and the Indian in terms of the policy he says should be applied? What are we doing for the Coloureds and the Indians?

They advanced more under this Government than under any previous government.

I am talking about the ultimate. The Minister said that in the ultimate we are asking no more for ourselves than what we are prepared to give to the other groups. Well, we have not been able yet to get it out of anybody opposite what the ultimate for the Coloureds and Indians is. What is it? The Minister of Water Affairs made a good speech yesterday but it fell down in the end on account of his refusal to tell us what future lay ahead for the Coloureds and the Indians. He dealt with the Bantu, and when we asked him, what about the Coloured?, he said he would deal with them when he had time. But he never got to it because he did not have time. Apparently, nobody has time when it comes to this question. This is one of our points of criticism, our biggest criticism, against the Government’s policy. It is no good having a policy which can only be applied to the Bantu; it must be a policy which can be applied to the other groups as well. Die Beeld published a population projection either earlier this year or at the end of last year. According to that, by the year 2000 there will be 8 million Coloureds as against 6½ million Whites. So, we must bear in mind that by the year 2000 there will, if that projection is correct, be more Coloureds in this country than Whites. And what is their future to be? It is on this question that we want a definite statement from the Government some time or other.

The Minister also said we must resist, that we must appreciate the danger and be prepared to make greater effort. I say a country cannot be strong militarily unless it is strong economically and it cannot be strong economically unless all its people are producing to their maximum capacity—all of its people and not only a portion of them. And this is where this Government makes a mistake—it is not prepared to use the ability of all its peoples to the maximum.

The hon. the Minister also appealed for national unity, for unity between English and Afrikaans speaking. His criticism of the United Party was that he was not served in Afrikaans when he went into a shop. [Interjections.] That was his complaint, i.e. that Afrikaans-speaking people were not served in their own language in shops.

You missed the point.

What then was his point? He said he wanted to be served in his own language.

He mentioned the fact

Yes, and I am mentioning the fact that he mentioned it. Surely, that is all I am supposed to do.

I appealed to the Leader of the Opposition to support me in this appeal.

Yes, in your appeal that you should be served in your own language. As far as the necessity of becoming bilingual is concerned, our party definite approves of it. We say that everybody should as far as possible be bilingual. With that we agree. But we say, at the same time, that the Government too should show more respect towards the English-speaking section. Just look at the committees and the commissions that are appointed. How many English-speaking people are appointed to serve on them? The Government cannot pretend that, with our economy the state it is in and with the industrial development taking place, there are no English-speaking people fit to serve on commissions. Look at the attitude adopted by Mr. Hans Abraham the other day. By the way, the hon. member for Klip River, I notice, is being referred to by the Sunday Times as “a poor man’s Hans Abraham”, but I hope he will behave better than Mr. Hans Abraham. He went into a hotel and asked to be served in his own language. The receptionist explained that she could not speak Afrikaans because she had only just come into the country.

I know all the facts of this case and you are wrong in your interpretation.

All we have had is the report in the paper and Mr. Hans Abraham has not denied it although he is usually not very slow in going to the Press. But I will not go on with this.

I, like the Minister, should like to talk about our ability to defend ourselves and about what is necessary to maintain stability in this country. We say we want a contented people, not only contented Whites—we want contented Blacks as well. This Government’s policy falls down because it is merely an ideal which cannot be applied. This is where the query comes from. People do not trust the Government; they do not believe the Government intends carrying out the policy, according to Die Burger and other newspapers, because they do not see it being applied. The trouble is that this policy is quite impractical. What it should lead to eventually is that all the Blacks will be in the black areas, or should be there, with the Whites having and managing their own state, and so with the Coloureds and the Indians. As far as Coloureds and Indians are concerned, we can get nothing out of the Government about what is to happen to them. So let us forget about them for the moment and let us deal with the Bantu. Why can the Government’s policy not be applied to the Bantu? It cannot be applied because the Bantu cannot be housed in the reserves; they cannot be accommodated there, and it is useless talking about putting them there. Why cannot they be put there?—because no preparation is being made to accommodate them there. It is all right for the Minister to get up and tell us of his achievements and of what he is doing now. We must remember that this Government has now been in power for 22 years. According to a report in Dagbreek this policy was formulated when the Sauer Committee submitted its report and that was before the 1948 election. Now let me ask a simple question of the hon. the Deputy Minister, because the Minister is not here now. The idea is to send the Bantu back to the reserves when they are not employed in the White areas. Now I would like to ask him, what happens to an old aged person who can no longer work in an urban area and has to go back to the Transkei for instance? Where must he live? There is no provision for a single old aged person in the Transkei. I raised this question some years ago but nothing has been done since. Now. however, a certain philanthropist, Mr. Murray, left money for a service of this nature to be supplied in the Transkei. The Transkei Government has now handed over the money to the Council of Churches and they are to build an old age home in Umtata. It is a shocking thing that we should rely on a philanthropist to make provision for old aged people in the Transkei.

Moreover, there has been no worthwhile development in the Transkei and people there cannot be employed. As the hon. member for Zululand put it, the Transkei is an area which might become a state on its own but it cannot, and much less can the others. We in the United Party have doubt about the sincerity of the Government in this regard—not of course the sincerity of men like Mr. De Wet Nel and Dr. Verwoerd, who were great idealists and spoke accordingly. We doubt the sincerity of members of the Government in wanting to carry out the policy. They pay lip service to it because they do not have any other answer, and this cannot go on. Too much criticism is now coming from their own people. Dagbreek expressed its concern and in last Sunday’s issue there was an article by Mr. Richards in which he said they were expecting a “groot plan” from the Prime Minister, something of the nature of what Dr. Verwoerd did when he announced the homelands plan. But what did they get? Meanwhile we are being told by the Minister that development is there; only we should open our yes and look; that we do not want to see and therefore we do not know what is happening. But let me read what Mr. Schalk Pienaar, editor of Die Beeld, has to say about this. Incidentally, he also deals with the “arbeidstekort op alle vlakke” and says—

I am sorry the hon. Minister of Economic Development is not here to hear this. But let me get back to the Government’s colour policy. In this connection Mr. Schalk Pienaar goes on to say—

This is what we have been saying all along. Mr. Pienaar goes on—

I hope Ministers will listen to this. He goes on—

He is not the only person who feels they are losing the support of the youth. It was quite obvious at the last election that the United Party and Progressives got more support from the youth and their organizations than the Nationalists [Interjections.] Before hon. members start to shout too loud let me remind them of an interview given by Mrs. Waring to Dagbreek about three weeks ago. She put up a wail and asked, “Waar is die jeug?”. She said they had lost “die jeug” because they did not have a dynamic policy. Mrs. Waring, it must be remembered, is not a person of no account. After all, she is a Minister’s wife; Frankie Waring is her husband. The terms of my leader’s motion of censure is that the Government has failed to take notice of the dissatisfaction of the public and condemns its inability to govern. That is what we say—it is not able to govern; it is losing the confidence of the people. It may be taking the old generation along with them but the young people are not supporting them anymore. That is what should cause them concern.

The Minister told us that in order to get the Bantu back to the reserves he has introduced the agency plan. This scheme is not something new; he mentioned it a few years ago. But let his Deputy, who has not yet spoken, get up and tell us what industries have been started, in this Transkei on an agency basis. I mention the Transkei again because it is the biggest reserve in the country, and yet it does not have one border industry. There is no border industry serving the Transkeian Bantu. They either have to have their industries inside their borders or they have to go outside to work. Now the Minister speaks of an agency basis. We know that the Government tried to start a business of its own through its own development corporation. They started a meat factory. In 2½ years they lost R¼ million. Now they have handed the factory over to a private concern. The private concern did not start that factory. They took it over. I asked then whether there is any other business which is being run on an agency basis in the Transkei. As far as the agency basis is concerned, Sir, the Minister realizes that he is having trouble with his economists and with intellectuals and the church. It is all very well to attack us on the question of our attitude towards migratory labour, but there is no other body or institution which supports migratory labour. Only this Government does so, but now they are trying to run away from it. Now we have had another suggestion from the Minister. He is now thinking of having aeroplanes to take Bantu who work in White areas to their homelands over week-ends. If there are to be industries in the reserves on an agency basis, we are going to have white people being employed in the black areas. That is what Dr. Verwoerd did not want. That is what he said he was not going to have. Now I see that the Minister has suggested that we might fly the white workers in the black areas home to their white areas over the weekends as well. The Nationalists themselves are so worried about this question of black labour that yesterday we had an appeal from the hon. member for Algoa in this regard. He has found that the industries in his constituency cannot get black labour, so he has now asked the Minister to consider flying labour from the black areas down to Port Elizabeth, and to take them home over the week-end. Is this going to be a popular appeal now? Flying black labour from one place to another is going to provide cheap labour.

I feel sorry for the Prime Minister. He was let down before the election by his Ministers. He was let down before the election by his organizers, who made an absolute fool of him when he gave an interview to Die Beeld just before the election. Now, after the election, he has been let down by his Ministers. He is now being let down by his press as well, because his press is no longer servile. They are now coming out and they are giving us the facts. The Prime Minister, in replying to my Leader on Monday, quoted from a speech I made in the no-confidence debate at the beginning of the year. He said that I had said that the point of no return would be reached “indien die Verenigde Party nie aan bewind kom nie”. In other words, if we did not win this election, the point of no return will have been reached. I did not say that. What I said was this: Once the Government has given independence to a black state, the point of no return will be reached, because we would then not be able to take that independence back. At the time I was saying that we did not know what type of Government would take over in such an independent state. I want to know from the Prime Minister what his attitude is to the granting of self-government to the reserves. If they find that things are not going the way they want them to go, will they take away self-government from these reserves, or will they interfere with them? Will they interfere with the election of their Ministers or the people who have to run those reserves? That is what we want to know from them. When do we reach the point of no return?

I want to know from the Minister too—and he must answer this—what he is going to do about their claims for more land. Chief Buthelezi has asked for land. He is not the only one. A man who is claiming more land and who has done so frequently is Chief Kaizer Matanzima. It is no good telling us that the boundaries are laid down. The boundaries are not laid down. The Minister knows what happened at Mdantsane. We took a white area and made it into a scheduled area. This was done again this year when boundaries were altered in Natal. The Minister will know about that. The reserve has now been placed on our border with Mozambique. The people in these white areas are getting worried. The people of Port St. Johns have written to the Prime Minister again, asking for a definite assurance. The Chief Minister of the Transkei, just before the election, was reported, when addressing his congress, to be asking for the districts of Elliot, Maclear, Matatiele, Kokstad, Mt. Currie and Port St. Johns to be zoned. I happened to be having a meeting in Elliot that night. Imagine the consternation amongst the Nationalists. A denial was broadcast over the radio that night at seven o’clock that he had made such a request. I was surprised, because he had been talking this way. Then I saw in the paper the next day that he had not asked for an immediate zoning of these areas. Naturally he could not. He would be foolish to ask for that. What he did was to ask for these areas to be included in the Transkei. Subsequently he has made a similar appeal in an interview with a reporter from the Daily News. The time has come when the Minister must tell us where the boundaries of these reserves are going to be. One cannot expect the people living in those areas to feel safe when there are continual claims for more land from a person whom the Government is trying to appease. The Government is trying to keep the peace with Chief Kaizer Matanzima, and any of the other Chief Ministers, who are now taking over the Government in their areas, because they have to try to live amicably with these people. I want to know from the Minister when he will tell us where the definite boundaries are going to be. This question is now becoming important in Zululand, because the chief who is taking over there wants to know whether he is going to get more land. He cannot live on the land he has now. As the hon. member for Zululand pointed out, he cannot administer the territory as a self-governing state with white patches all over the place.

What is your party’s answer to this?

They will give them the whole of South Africa.

No, that is just ridiculous. We are not giving the whole of South Africa away. While we are talking about the whole of South Africa, I should like to remind hon. members that the Government has no policy for the Indians and the Coloureds. I have already dealt with this matter. Where their policy falls down in regard to the Bantu, is that it fails to deal with Africans living in the urban areas who, as Die Burger says, will be permanent occupants there. The hon. the Chief Whip on the other side will have to appreciate that there will always be more Africans living in the so-called white areas than there will be Whites in those areas. The position is going to get worse and worse. The Africans will live there, not only because there is no room for them in the reserves, but also because they are needed there. Their labour is required there to keep our economy going. What the Government fails to appreciate, and is causing concern to the thinkers on the Nationalist side—I am speaking of the papers and the intellectuals, not the members in this House—is the following question: What happens to the urban Africans who will never live in the reserves? What is to happen to these people? That is what is worrying the intellectual Nationalists.

Mr. Speaker, since we are in this session confronted by an Opposition which is again beginning to have dreams and visions and again wants to put up a spirited struggle after the past election, I think we can but welcome this new courage from a Parliamentary point of view. It is just a pity that as regards these visions which are being seen, we have so far in this debate gained so little clarity about the visions seen by the United Party, but I shall come to that in the course of my speech.

There are a few faces that have disappeared from our field of vision in this House.

Obviously we are sorry about a few faces that are not here. We are sorry about a few of our useful members who have left this House temporarily. On the whole, this much-vaunted progress made by the United Party is of very great advantage to the National Party. As a result of the many years of listlessness and impotence in the United Party, many Nationalists began to think that the United Party was dead. I want to say to the credit of the United Party that although as an active and inspiring party they are dead, the United Party philosophy which holds them together as a party is definitely not dead. This I readily give them credit for, but what is that philosophy that holds the United Party together? What is that philosophy that stirred people out of a state of inaction on 22nd April to go to the polls to vote for the United Party and against the National Party? Alas, a conglomeration of a number of negative and conflicting emotions and ideas which wants to pose in the guise of the great champion of human rights and human dignity, but an emotional condition which in its deepest essence is nothing but an anti-Afrikaner attitude coupled with a liberalistic view on matters of colour. In 1966, when Dr. Verwoerd was at the height of his power and influence, many of these anti-Afrikaans-minded people did not take trouble to come forward. But with the onslaught made on the National Party by Dr. Hertzog and company, these people who had lost courage and become inactive took heart again and emerged from their resting places. In addition, the United Party was considerably strengthened in its revival by the association which the Hertzog group created by its anti-English utterances, an association which was unfortunately projected on the United Party in this election. At this stage the United Party started noticing this reaction among its own people who were lingering in their resting places and were stirred up by its dutiful English Press. The United Party started noticing some movement among those hibernators, with the result that it started lauding its chances to such an extent.

In this debate the United Party has taken considerable delight in quoting speeches which had allegedly been made by this side, in order to show that we had expected this or that and that eventually nothing happened. I think it was the hon. member for Durban (Point) who asked very dramatically: Where is the hon. member for Maitland and the hon. member for Umhlatuzana? I should very much like to have the hon. member’s assistance in this performance. I cannot deliver it so dramatically, but I am nevertheless forcing myself to give it. After the United Party had noticed this, they themselves had extremely interesting expectations. I want to read from one of their sources of information, the Cape Times, of 5th March, 1970. It started off in a very modest way. The Cape Times said: “Five seats might fall to U.P. in Nat split”. This was said as a result of the break-away of the Hertzog group. As a result of this, they very modestly expected to win only five seats. When the position had changed somewhat and they had receive more information from their United Party organizers, we read this in the Sunday Express of 8th March: “United Party expects to win 13 Nat seats, H.N.P. 8”. It was not merely a reporter who said that. It emanated from an authoritative source. It came from one of their leading figures. I read further: “Maj. J. D. Opperman, the United Party’s Transvaal Provincial Secretary, told me that 9 of the 13 seats the party was confident of winning back were in the Transvaal”. Then they mentioned a number of seats, among others Germiston (District) and Springs. I would very much have liked the dramatic member for Durban (Point) to have used this information and to have asked: “Where is the hon. member for Germiston (District)? Where is the hon. member for Springs among the United Party now? Where is the U.P. member for Queenstown?”

But the optimism did not end there. The optimism then grew. As the time drew nearer and they estimated their chances to be better and better as a result of the “Nat split”, the advent of the Hertzog group, their hopes also rose, and in the Sunday Express of 22nd March we then saw the following headline: “U.P.hope to win back 18 seats”. Now it was no longer the mere five seats with which the Cape Times had started off. They would now win as many as 18 seats. Nor was this the view of some uninformed man they had asked in the street. I read further:

These are authoritative people, the people who have a finger on the organizational pulse. The authoritative people in the United Party said this—

It is not merely a case of idle expectations—

A large number of seats are mentioned again. Swellendam. for example. Where is the member for Swellendam over there? Now I can ask the hon. member for Durban (Point) in the same naive way: Where is the member for Kimberley (North) on that side?

To the credit of the United Party it can be said that in these predictions of theirs they may have received assistance from a source on which they will perhaps not be able to rely again next time. I want to mention another matter here which deserves credit. I want to pay tribute to and express my appreciation towards the considerable group of English-speaking people who, in spite of all this anti-Afrikaans propaganda from the United Party and the English Press, nevertheless voted for the National Party in the past election. The analysis to which the Prime Minister referred to and which boils down to the fact that 140,000 non-Afrikaans-speaking people voted for the National Party is significant. This means that approximately the same percentage of non-Afrikaans-speaking people voted for us in this election as in 1966. Yesterday the hon. member for Johannesburg (North), who is not here at the moment, was very upset at the thought that one single English-speaking person could ever vote for the National Party. I just want to tell that hon. member that just as the United Party has the Dave Marais’s, Etienne Malans and Marais Steyns, we have our Carrs and Lewises.

Where are they?

They are not here to-day, but they will return to this House.

They also said that they would win Caledon.

Yes, Caledon is also one of the seats which they were going to win. Where is Caledon’s representative sitting now? If the National Party had not received the votes of these 140,000 non-Afrikaans-speaking people in this election, a number which is virtually equal to that in the previous election, the National Party could not have drawn 820,000 votes in the seats which it contested as against the 561,000 votes of the United Party. According to the population census it would simply not have been possible, because a virtually equal percentage of Afrikaans-speaking people, like the gentlemen I have mentioned, voted for the United Party.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Can the hon. the Minister tell me whether those percentages of English-and Afrikaans-speaking people are based on the census statistics?

Yes, the census statistics were used as the basis for this. After all, one must have a basis for the numbers of the different language groups. On that basis the figures were projected on the 1966 election and on the recent election as well. This figure of 140,000 represents non-Afrikaans-speaking people. I do not imply that they are all of English descent, but they are non-Afrikaans-speaking people.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a further question?

No, I have several other matters to raise and my time is limited. As far as the question of the election is concerned, I think it brings one to the realization that in essence the political division in this country is still mainly on the basis of language. This we, as practical people must accept. Although the political division between the National Party and the United Party is still based mainly on language, this realization is, however, of such a nature that it cannot cause us of the National Party to turn our backs on the English-speaking people in South Africa.

If the National Party did that, we would also be turning our backs not only on those tens of thousands of non-Afrikaans-speaking people, but also on those tens of thousands of people of English origin who voted for the National Party in this election, as they did in the previous one. And even worse than that, if we did that, we would be turning our backs on our own principles as enunciated by every former Nationalist Prime Minister in this country. Only people who want to thrive on some kind of incitement would want to follow a different course in this regard. We of the National Party realize that we as Afrikaans-and English-speaking people in this country have a common task to fulfil. We shall fulfil that task. Therefore the National Party will continue holding its doors open to those English-speaking people who want to support the policy and the principles of the National Party because they regard them as the best for South Africa and also as the best for themselves. How readily English-speaking people are going to make use of this, I leave at that.

The past election brought another very important matter to the fore. It drew the lines of difference in principle between the National Party and the United Party much more clearly than was done for a very long time. As far as the future is concerned, we have now fortunately reached the stage again where the basic point of difference in the politics of this country, namely nationalism versus antinationalism, has been brought to the fore clearly. To put it differently, the anti-nationalist forces which were mustered against nationalism in this country came to the fore more clearly during the past election than was perhaps the case in recent years. Added to these anti-nationalist forces which were mustered against nationalism, there were the sentiment and the desire which are represented by a large section of the United Party, which are in fact to have a mixed society. This is borne out by the way in which they continue attacking this Government on every statutory and administrative measure aimed at bringing about separation.

To my mind this crystallization of the antinationalist forces mustered against the forces of nationalism can only benefit the National Party in the future. I think that those among us who thought that the United Party was dead, that the idea of the United Party was dead, have come to the realization that although the United Party, as an inspiring party, may be dead, the United Party philosophy is not dead. It was merely slumbering. This merely makes the task of the National Party more difficult. The English Press are conducting a campaign of incitement in this country and they are inciting English-speaking people against everything which is Afrikaans and Nationalist. In spite of this fact, the National Party must put the case for nationalism. Irritating though it may be, the National Party will never reach a stage where it will feel that it may leave English-speaking South Africa to itself, because that will not be in accordance with our practical outlook or with our principles.

I hope the United Party will reveal the hope which it has now created, in other fields as well in future. I hope that this new courage with which the United Party has been inspired, will be revealed by them in a very important way, namely to map out and to outline clearly the consequences of the United Party’s policy in every field in this country in the future. From a political point of view I therefore welcome this new courage of the United Party. I hope it will result in these two opposed directions of nationalism versus antinationalism being mapped out very clearly both inside and outside this House, together with their significance and eventual outcome. Now I want to tell the United Party that they may certainly continue telling the people that Bantu homelands and the eventual independence which they will receive, are dangerous to South Africa. It is the United Party’s right to say this. But at the same time, when the United Party wants to exercise that right and tell the people how dangerous the National Party’s policy is in regard to Bantu homelands which will eventually become independent, they or I or we must also tell the people exactly what the United Party’s own policy for South Africa embraces. Over against that policy the meaning of the federation plan for South Africa must also be explained, a federation plan which will make this Parliament the only parliament for the one multiracial society in South Africa. It is a plan which will eventually have the result that we who are sitting here to-day, will be a minority in this House and it will eventually mean our departure from this House. Therefore I say the time has arrived that we must not only present our principles and directions clearly, but that each party must also explain the consequences of its direction to the electorate in South Africa.

I also want to say a word in connection with the swing which the United Party claims took place to their side. There was no swing to the United Party. Of the percentage of votes cast in the election, as quoted by the Prime Minister, the United Party received 37.5. This is precisely the same percentage as they received in the 1966 election.

I want to hasten and discuss the question of the attack made in connection with labour. In this debate we again heard a great deal about the manpower shortage. One thing was strikingly clear to me again, namely that this panic talk about manpower has only one object, and that is to have work reservation abolished in all its forms. The chief shadow Minister of Labour, Mr. Marais Steyn, and Dr. Jacobs, who is also some sort of assistant shadow, spoke about this matter. After they had spoken, nobody had any idea what they envisaged. Not one of them penetrated to any real question. This gave me an impression of what a shadow minister in the United Party actually means. You must speak in such shadowy terms that you cast shadows on your policy and especially on its consequences. The fact that South Africa to-day is economically one of the strongest countries in the world, that we have unparalleled labour peace, surely does not testify to a crisis or a “collapse”, to which I will refer shortly. But what seems strange is not that there are shortages of labour in a developing country such as South Africa—indeed, there are labour shortages in every developing country in the world—but that industrialists and businessmen get rich as a result of the phenomenal development in this country and then, regardless of the effect on our social pattern, want us to give them unlimited supplies of non-White labour. In that desire they are acting very strangely. They think we should supply labour “on call”. After all, when you establish a factory, you must know whether you have capital and whether water and transport are available. But, oh no, this does not apply to these gentlemen when they want to establish a factory or expand. They accept that they will have to overcome difficulties in those respects. But when it comes to labour, they imagine that they can have labour “on call”. That attitude suits the political purpose of the United Party perfectly. Yes, it suits their purpose, because as a result of all these complaints about the shortage of labour they can plead for the labour policy to be abandoned.

Therefore I think the time has arrived for us in this House and in South Africa to take much more careful note of what the consequences, the abandonment of the present labour policy would have for South Africa and the white worker. We will have to concern ourselves with the consequences for South Africa and the effect on the white worker, should this labour policy in South Africa be abandoned. The National Party Government’s attitude is one of controlled employment. We are not against the employment of non-Whites, but believe that it should take place in a controlled way. We are in favour of the development of more and better employment opportunities for the non-Whites. But we state very clearly that it will not happen at the expense of the employment position of the Whites. Where there are not enough Whites, arrangements are made, in consultation with the white workers and their trade unions, for the employment of non-Whites in specific types of work. It is this attitude of the Government which gives us that feeling of security and is responsible for the labour peace and progress in this country. But the United Party is not satisfied with this. What do they want South Africa to do? In February this year, I asked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in this House whether he would abolish work reservation. He then said that it should be abolished. In their pamphlet entitled “You want it, we have it”, there is not one single assurance that the white workers will be afforded statutory protection. Just imagine that the mineworkers, one of the most important groups in the country, for whom the maintenance of the industrial colour bar is one of the most important matters in their whole attitude, are not given one single assurance in this regard in this book. What these people see their way clear to guarantee is that the Whites, who would compete with non-Whites in the same sphere of employment, would not receive lower wages. This is what the United Party guarantees and, what is more, it will only be for a period of at least 10 years.

What is happening on the Railways?

No, unfortunately I cannot reply to questions now. My time is limited. Any knowledgeable person knows that this ten-year guarantee of the United Party means absolutely nothing, because the moment this United Party policy is applied, the Whites will leave those spheres of employment. Before that ten-year period has passed, therefore, there will be no more Whites in most of those spheres of employment. I say in most spheres of employment, not in all spheres of employment. There are spheres of skilled employment which the Whites will not easily leave. And here I have in mind a sphere of employment such as the mining industry. The mineworker will not leave that sphere of employment voluntarily. Therefore I say that the consequences of this policy of the United Party must be examined very carefully. This policy of theirs gives no white worker the assurance that if non-Whites compete with them, the Whites will not have to work under non-Whites. That assurance is given nowhere. If this is the intention of the United Party, I want them to tell us in this House and in this debate or in this Session that they undertake to have no white worker working under a non-white. After giving that assurance, they must include it in their booklet “You want it, we have it”. But they will not do this. We know them. They will continue disguising their integration aims with a lot of meaningless guarantees and a tremendous agitation about so-called manpower shortages. The most recent of these came from one of their newspapers. This is what helped them to draw the people from the caverns and the holes in order to vote for them. The headline reads: “Collapse warning on labour crisis”. This comes from a mouthpiece of those hon. members, namely the Rand Daily Mail. This is the type of article which is published daily in order to feed them and to keep them where they are. Without the support of these newspapers the United Party would not be what it is. Now these mouthpieces which feed the United Party say the following—

But the following is very significant. It was said by Mr. Strachan, one of the bigwigs, who is used as one of their mouthpieces. Referring to his own sphere of work, he said—

I should like the United Party to tell us in this debate, or in the debate on the Labour Vote, firstly, how it intends applying its policy of admitting non-Whites to spheres of employment which have traditionally been white and, secondly, how it intends breaking down this “white resistance”. I think the United Party, which sees itself as an alternative government owes it to the workers of this country to tell them exactly what the consequences of its policy are.

In the coming years many basic and fundamental choices will be made in this field. Our people will have to decide. They will either have to follow the road of the National Party, which affords the white worker statutory protection and employs the non-White in a controlled way, or the road of the United Party and be swallowed by mixed working conditions in which Whites will inevitably have to work under non-White supervision in a factory. This is the choice which lies before us. This choice will have to be made. It is an inevitable choice which will have to be thrashed out in this Parliament and outside. The time is past that people such as the hon. member for Yeoville and the United Party can bluff this country and its workers any longer about the consequences of its political and labour policy. The time that workers can be bluffed is past. This party is prepared to be judged by its aims and the consequences thereof. But in future that party will be judged to a greater extent than in the past by the consequences of its policy. The struggle that lies ahead will be decided on this basis. This will happen because it is the attitude of the National Party that we must afford this protection and that we must not damage the human dignity of our Whites. This is where we take into account our available manpower and this is why the National Party says that as little as we can allow uncontrolled non-White employment, as little do we want an uncontrolled growth rate in this country which will eventually destroy our social pattern. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, a few days before the election I read in one of the Nationalist newspapers a prediction of what was going to happen. Among other things, it was predicted that Von Brandis would be taken by the Nationalist Party and also that Orange Grove was a very unsafe seat for the United Party. It will therefore be appreciated how surprised I am at actually being back here this afternoon.

However, I should like to reply to a few remarks made by the hon. the Minister of Labour. The hon. the Minister told us that our policy in respect of the workers in South Africa is a complete bluff. Does the hon. the Minister stand by that? Let me tell him that if there has ever been a complete bluff, it is the labour policy of the Government. Job reservation is one of the fundamental points of their policy. By means of that the workers of South Africa are to be protected against competition from the non-Whites, not so? Earlier this year I put a question to the hon. the Minister here in the House of Assembly; he will remember it. With all the bragging about job reservation, I asked him how many white workers in South Africa were really covered by job reservation. His reply was that he did not know. He could not say. I have his reply and I can read it to him if he wants to hear it. I want to tell him that it is less than 10 per cent.

Statutorily it is only 2 per cent.

Statutorily it is only 2 per cent. I wanted to come down from 10 per cent to 9 per cent to 5 per cent to 3 per cent and now it is only 2 per cent. Only 2 per cent of the white workers are statutorily covered by job reservation, and then that side of the House has the audacity to go to the country and to the workers and to say that they are protecting them by job reservation, while 98 per cent of the workers are not covered by job reservation.

But they are administratively …

Then the hon. the Minister speaks about the labour policy which we have been attacking. He said that the United Party was unfair in its attacks on the labour policy. Let us rather have an impartial opinion on that labour policy. Let us look at the report of the Bureau for Economic Research. Let us look at the more than 600 replies which they received from industries and businesses in the country. Let me just read a few of these which have not been read before. The industries in South Africa replied to the questions asked by the Bureau for Economic Research of the University of Stellenbosch. What did they say? I quote—

The Government’s labour policy is condemned as a bottle-neck in industry by hundreds of these big companies. What does the wholesale trade say? [Interjections.] Does he admit that the Government’s labour policy is a bottle-neck?

It is a control measure applied by us in order to maintain our social pattern.

This is a fine way of admitting it. It is a bottle-neck and here we have the admission. The hon. the Minister says it is part of the policy for regulating the pattern of race relations in this country, but has the hon. the Minister read what the Bureau for Economic Research said in that connection, i.e. that precisely by a better labour policy and by greater growth in South Africa, the policy of the Government …

Where does it say that?

Very well, let me reply to the new Minister of Planning. It says so on page 23. Has the hon. the Minister got it? I read on page 23—

That is the Bureau for Economic Research of the University of Stellenbosch—

The policy is held back by the fact that the labour policy of the Government and the Physical Planning Act are restricting that rate of growth. Here it says so. Must I read to the hon. the Minister what the wholesale trade says? “It is significant that 85 per cent of the collaborators in the wholesale trade regard the Government’s labour policy as a bottle-neck.” The retail trade also regards the Government’s labour policy as an obstacle. This is not being said by me; this is said by the industries themselves. The conclusion to be drawn from this is that their policy is collapsing, as this Bureau itself says.

Can you carry out your policy to its logical conclusion?

The hon. the Minister told us that he was disappointed at the course taken by the debate on this side of the House and that he had had great expectation. I now come to the next point.

Are you now going to satisfy my great expectations?

One usually has great expectations of a Government which is in power. One expects major points of policy. I see the hon. the Minister of Post and Telegraphs is looking at me; he need not be concerned; I am not going to talk about television. That will come later. I am speaking of the great expectations of Die Beeld of 12th July; the great expectations which that large Sunday newspaper cherished of that side of the House. The political correspondent of Die Beeld wrote (translation)—

What did the hon. the Minister of Labour say this afternoon that could capture the imagination of any of us or any of his followers?

Is the maintenance of racial and industrial peace not worth anything to you?

Of course it is, because it is based on an Act which was put into operation by the predecessor of the United Party, the South African Party.

Without the maintenance of peace there can be no great things. Just remember that.

I reply by reading what Die Beeld said (translation)—

Was any programme of action launched by the hon. the Minister of Defence? Was one launched by the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development? Where is the programme that was to have fired the imagination? There is less fire in it than in a six-penny candle which one can buy at a bazaar. They say that the man in whose hands the matter primarily rests is the hon. the Prime Minister. Something is resting in the case of the hon. the Prime Minister, because he is not here. I still want to refer to the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister before coming to my own. The hon. the Minister accused us of inciting anti-Afrikaans feelings. He said we were to blame for the fact that so few English-speaking persons voted for them. I think that is sheer nonsense. Once again I do not want to use my own words. Let me take a serious young man as an example. He is a young man who believed in the Nationalist Party and tried to co-operate with them. He was even a candidate of theirs and a man of note in their party in Natal. His name is Blyth Thompson. That sincere young man tried to co-operate with the Nationalist Party as an English-speaking person.

What do you know about it?

I do not know much about it, and that hon. member does not know much about him either; the man who knows is Blyth Thompson himself. He knew so much about it that he decided it was impossible to co-operate with the Nationalist Party. Consequently he formed his own party.

He is not in the United Party either.

No, he is not in the United Party; to tell the truth, he still believes in the greater part of the policy of that side of the House, despite the fact that he finds himself unacceptable to them. Here I have the election pamphlet which he issued in his constituency. He wrote—

These are not my words, but the words of an English-speaking person who was disappointed and disillusioned by that party.

The hon. the Prime Minister put forward another argument. He said that in the last election there had been no swing towards the United Party. The hon. the Prime Minister said there had been no swing, but I shall not even mention the nine new members, of whom we are so proud. He said that we had received 37.5 per cent of the votes in the previous election and 37.5 per cent in this election. I do not believe too much in the hon. the Prime Minister as a mathematician, but I am thinking of what he said to my colleague the hon. member for Yeoville. He said that if in elections one judged by numbers one had to look at the number of votes cast, and that that was the only way in which one could judge. However, one counts not only votes, but also unopposed constituencies. The unopposed constituencies won by the United Party are not included in that 37.5 per cent. We have here the hon. members for Transkei, Pinelands, and also Durban (Central), with 20,000 votes which the hon. the Prime Minister did not count. The Nationalist Party, however, inflated its percentage on that basis. In the past they had had a large number of unopposed seats, and those votes were not counted in the 58 per cent which the hon. the Prime Minister mentioned. But this time there was a Herstigte Nasionale Party which opposed them. At every place where a Herstigte Nasionale Party candidate opposed them, votes were cast for the Nationalist Party. These votes were counted and were included by the hon. the Prime Minister. It is inflation in comparison with the previous election. If the Nationalist Party had contested the same number of seats and the United Party had contested the same number, they would have seen how completely ludicrous the idea is that there was no swing to the United Party. However, Langlaagte proved it.

Did you win the election?

We are certainly on the way to doing so.

I want to leave the hon. the Prime Minister at that, and I want to begin by raising a matter which I think was raised in all seriousness by certain members on the opposite side. It is something which is probably of importance to us as well. I should like to say a few words about it, although it is not of a political debating importance. The question I want to raise is the moral basis of the policies of the respective parties. We have been accused by hon. members on the other side that the United Party has a policy which has no moral basis. As I understand it, the argument of the other side is that we want to give the non-Whites a few representatives in the House of Assembly. According to hon. members opposite, that means nothing and sets a limit to what the non-Whites can get. They say our policy is one of suppression, and one of suppression for all time. I want to reply to that by saying, in the first place, that it is not immoral to discriminate in your policy towards various race groups in a country.

For example, we as Whites are also discriminated against in many respects. I am thinking for example of the defence of our country. In the wars of the past it happened, and in those of the future it may happen, that the vast majority of the persons who are killed in action will be Whites. That can be called discrimination against the Whites, but I do not call it that. Neither do I regard it as immoral. There is a provision in our law which says that no white person may buy land in a reserve. That is discrimination against Whites, but we do not see that it is immoral. My point is that while the United Party discriminates towards the various race groups in our policy, we are not following a policy which is immoral. There is something wrong in the thinking of people who say that there are only two alternatives, i.e. total integration as against total separation. Things are not simply black or white. A piece of paper is not simply black or white. It may be green. Similarly, this bench is brown and the floor has a different colour again. It is a sign of false logic to argue in that way. The United Party does not make that mistake in its thinking. We believe in a policy of political pluralism.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Name me one country in the world where your formula has succeeded.

The hon. the Minister asks me to name another country, but are the Nationalist Party not the people who say that South Africa’s problems are unique? For that reason our problems and our solutions are unique too. The Nationalist Party’s solutions are fantastically unique. The United Party believes in a system which I call “political pluralism”. There is nothing immoral in a policy of this nature. It is a policy which says to the Bantu population in South Africa: We are going to give you your own communal councils and we are going to do so on two bases. The one is on the basis of land in the territory in which they live. We are not going to grant equal status to all the territories in South Africa. We are in fact going to grant the Bantu special rights in territories such as the Transkei and Zululand, but we object to their being torn from the living heart of South Africa and made into independent countries. Our second basis is the national context. We shall have different communal councils for the various non-white groups.

Hon. members opposite say that we grant the Bantu no or very few rights in the white Parliament, and that that is immoral. On the other hand we grant them far more rights than the Whites have with the communal councils which we will give them.

The solution—and I regard it as a moral one—is to find a balance among the various population groups. The solution is not to run away from your policy. One cannot have a policy of total separation and then think that one can relegate the entire problem to the reserves. Our policy is one of leadership based on morality. We have a duty towards the non-Whites and our policy is a moral one. It is duty of compassion and humaneness.

My hon. Leader said it is our duty to give the right priorities to the important matters in South Africa. What are the priorities in connection with the non-Whites? The first is food, then housing, health, education, and last of all, political rights. Hon. members opposite are obsessed with political rights and independent states. Why do they not rather do their moral duty in connection with these priorities which I have mentioned? I want to ask hon. members opposite seriously: When they speak of a moral concept in connection with a non-White policy, and when they speak of a moral concept when they say to the Bantu that they must have their own area where they can have and exercise their full rights in an independent country, where does it apply to our Coloureds? My hon. Leader put that question to the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, who said that he would reply if he had the time, but before his time had expired he resumed his seat without having replied to that question. That is the first question to which we want a reply.

The second question is: Where is the morality in a policy which denies all rights to between 1½ million and 2 million detribalized Bantu in urban areas, which makes them completely landless persons in white areas? These are persons who have been living in white areas for two generations. Where is the morality in denying them all rights now and in the future?

When the hon. the Prime Minister spoke, he gave us four excuses for the Nationalist Party’s having done worse in the past election. Firstly, he said that the Government had been in power for a very long time, for 22 years, in fact. He said that this usually led to dissatisfaction. The long time they have been in power and the results of that are not symptoms, but the disease itself. That party is getting old and obsolete. Forget about the symptoms. That is where the disease is. Furthermore, if I remember correctly, the hon. the Prime Minister mentioned climatic conditions. Is it the dought which caused them to do worse in the election? What effect did the drought have in the cities, where the heaviest defeats were suffered by that party? It was the drought, as my hon. Leader said, but it is a drought in the soul of that party.

Then the hon. the Prime Minister said that it was due to a rebellion in their own ranks, but I have heard that that rebellion was stamped out after the general election. And yet, when the Langlaagte election took place, they fared even worse than in the general election.

Finally, the hon. the Prime Minister said that it was due to unsavoury methods used by the Opposition. Talk of unsavoury methods! Think of the tomatoes and the eggs which, during these times of drought, were hurled in such large numbers by Afrikaners at fellow Afrikaners at Nationalist Party meetings. There was a so-called appeal by the hon. the Prime Minister that it must not happen again, and what happened? Instead of small eggs they used large eggs; instead of rotten tomatoes they used first-grade tomatoes. It went on and on. Talk about methods in that election! Have you ever, Mr. Speaker, heard such unsavoury language as that used by those hon. members against their opponents, more so against the Herstigtes than against us, language such as “blasphemers”, “liars”, “oath-breakers” and “baboons”. These are the methods of that side of the House. Talk of unsavoury methods! Has there ever been an election in South Africa in which a poor, innocent questioner got up and asked the Prime Minister a question, to find shortly thereafter that the police came to take a statement from him? Unsavoury methods? Yes, such methods were used, and all those unsavoury methods gained them absolutely nothing.

The hon. the Prime Minister spoke of the administrative mistakes which, allegedly, were also partly responsible for the defeats they suffered in this election. One wishes that one could hear a little more from the hon. the Prime Minister as to what exactly those administrative mistakes were? If he told us, we could surely help him not to make such mistakes again. Was it the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education and the fantastic statement he made in connection with Bantu servants on 3rd May this year, which was repudiated by his own Minister the following day?

That is untrue and you know it.

Was it the hon. the Minister of Mines whom we heard floundering here this afternoon? Was it the Japanese jockey? Was it the Chinese children? Was, it the case of Basil D’Oliveira or that of Arthur Ashe? Was it the fact that after it had not been envisaged, foreign exchange control was nevertheless announced subsequently? Was it the telephone mess? Was it the television delay? Was it the breakdown of the population register, which they are trying to put right now? Was it the Land Bank loan to Mr. Haak? Was it the telephone exchange provided for Mr. Haak? Was is the statement by the hon. the Minister of Information on a special Colouredstan for the Coloured people, which was repudiated by the Leader of his own party? Was it the Planning Act? What were these administrative mistakes? Let the Prime Minister tell us what they were and take us into his confidence and we shall help him in the matter. No, Sir, the governing party can talk as much as they like; they have deteriorated, as the “political realist”, the hon. the Minister of Community Development, has said.

This election undeniably proved at least eight facts. The first—and there I agree with the Prime Minister—is that the country is beginning to tire of this Government. Secondly, their cardinal policy, their race policy, has failed, and they are to-day a danger to the white civilization in South Africa. The third fact which was proved is that the leadership provided by the Prime Minister is weak. He is the first person to have led his party downhill. The fourth fact which was proved is that this Government is a danger to the national economy of South Africa. The fifth fact is that this Government no longer cares about the interests about the man in the street. The sixth fact is that verkramptheid still holds sway—let them say what they like—in the inner circles of that party. The seventh fact which was proved is that their attempt to rehabilitate themselves by trying to copy the policy of the United Party has failed completely. Sir, one can give a baboon a piano and he will be able to press down the keys, but he will certainly not produce a tune. That is what they have been trying to do with the policy of the United Party. The eighth fact proved by this election, is the enormous vitality of the United Party and of its leadership.

If the hon. the Minister of Labour had not spoken at such length and had not made so many mistakes, I could in fact have started my speech with these eight points. However, I shall just elaborate on a few of them here and there. I said that their race policy has failed completely. They did not even test that race policy in the one constituency where they could have tested its effect, i.e. in the Transkei. In the Transkei there were Whites who had been in daily contact with the Government’s policy of Bantu homelands. That was the place where they could have put up a candidate. That was the place where they could have proved to the world that South Africa stood behind them; that the people who know the Bantu supported their policy. What happened? The hon. member for Transkei was unopposed and is back in this House of Assembly, triumphant. They did not even consider putting up or dare to put up someone against him.

But surely you have been elected; why are you fighting the election all over again?

I am not fighting the election over again; I am discussing the result of the election. This is after the election. Sir their policy has failed. My hon. friend the member for Transkei read out part of what Die Beeld had written. Do we still hear of 1978 to-day, when the great flow-back of the Bantu to the reserves was going to take place? Do my hon. friends still believe in that? Is there still someone who does? Does the hon. the Minister of Community Development still believe that 1978 will be the great year when the flow-back will begin, or will he say that he is not the Minister any more?

I have other work now.

He is building permanent houses for them in white towns now. As Die Beeld rightly said—and again I quote from a Nationalist Party newspaper (translation)

The mystic date of 1978 came to be accepted National Party politics. This was to have been the year in which the flow of the Bantu to the cities was to be reversed.

This is Die Beeld—

It is already so many years later now and so many years closer to 1978. I extend an invitation to everybody: Come and take a look at Johannesburg and come and take a look at Soweto. Before your eyes you will see the obvious absurdity of 1978 and of every other date.

These are not my words. This is said by their own newspaper, by one of their most able politicians, Schalk Pienaar. He continues—

This is what Die Beeld says, and they are right. This is what we have been saying for the past 20 to 30 years. When are hon. members on the opposite side going to listen to these words of Die Beeld?—

We must stop bluffing ourselves. We are, after all, bluffing no one else.

These are not my words. [Time expired.]

There is one thing I can tell the hon. member for Orange Grove. The flow back of Bantu to the Bantu areas will definitely begin and take place before the United Party comes into power again. Come on, give me a reply to that? Now the hon. member is sitting there. Do not put your foot into a trap! The take-over of the reins of Government by the United Party will, therefore, never take place. Mr. Speaker, the other day the farmers held a day of prayer at the church. When I sat listening to this hon. member, I could not help thinking of this little joke. After they had prayed for rain—and this was a solemn meeting—one of the farmers came out and said to another, “Brother, it seems to me as though this drought will not pass without a shower of rain.” It seems to me that the drought prevailing in the ranks of the United Party will not pass without a change of policy either.

The hon. member’s speech can be subdivided into three parts. The first aspect which he discussed, was labour. In doing so he embarked upon very uncertain ground. The main speaker on finance on his side, the hon. member for Parktown, has most probably read this report by the Bureau for Economic Research. He did not refer to it at all. He knows what he is talking about. But this hon. member came along and seized upon this report. [Interjections.] I assume that he read it, but what do the people who drafted this report say? I shall read it to you. The report on which the hon. member has based his reply to the hon. the Minister of Labour, says the following—

But here the hon. member comes along and bases his reply on an unreliable report which is subjective from A to Z. The replies received, were from people who had an interest in their replies and who were trying to see how much capital they could make out of it.

The second aspect he discussed, i.e. the election, was so absurd and nonsensical that I do not wish to deal with it. The third aspect was the so-called principle of morality which is woven into their policy. I want to put two questions to the hon. member. Is it not moral, is it not the most perfect implementation of morality, to have Bantu represented by Bantu in this Parliament now, immediately? Is this not the highest form of morality? Is it not moral to brine Coloureds into this Parliament directly, straight away? Is the hon. member in favour of that? Why does the hon. member evade these realities? I want to tell the hon. member that morality, as he defined it, has been totally misrepresented and is inapplicable or cannot be made to apply when one is dealing in practical politics. I shall, therefore, leave it at that. Sir, the United Party has never done anything—and this has once again become clear in this debate—since they assumed their role as the Opposition in 1948, and also before that time, to build into our political structure something which could strengthen our State and our nation against the onslaughts lying in wait for us in the years ahead. They have not built in anything. On the contrary time and again that party has tried, as has now become clear once again, to avoid the conflicts that arise within a state such as South Africa with its numerous problems; rather than confronting such problems directly, they have tried to avoid the problems that arise, to choose the short-cut and to pursue a short-term policy. They are a short-term party. And we know that anything that is done on a short-term basis, proves to be expensive, if a man borrows money on a short-term basis, he pays a high rate of interest. Capital redemptions are expensive. They are a short-term party, and the fact that they launched their attack in the way they have done during this debate, confirms what I am saying here. These problems with which we are dealing in South Africa, are not only economic problems. They are socio-economico-political problems, so inextricably interwoven that the three legs cannot be separated from one another without the entire constellation based on those three legs collapsing. Here the United Party comes along in this debate and its main attack against the National Party is aimed at the economic aspect. They do not pay any regard to the socio-political aspects or facets of this national relations problem with which we have to deal. Is it not strange that from 1948 to 1953 this United Party also stressed the economic aspect? Then it was said that under National Party régime this state would be economically too weak; we would not get capital from abroad; our banks would run dry and economic chaos would prevail here. At that time, too, their attack was based on the economic facet, and they were still hoping that it would not be possible for the policy of separate development to evolve, because of our economic poverty. And here in the year 1970 they are, of all things, harping on the economic facet again. Now that we have become prosperous and there has been built into our economic system a growth rate giving us the guarantee that economically it is possible for us to obtain the inherent dynamics for solving this problem, they are saying that this economic prosperity will cause the failure of apartheid. Hence this emphasis on this so-called manpower shortage in South Africa. To-night, in 1970, we see that since 1948 the United Party has faithfully followed this clear, continuous thread—the economic aspects without having the least regard to the politico-social aspects involved in our problem. I want to tell the United Party that they should now, once and for all, accept that the process of building in those components which are eventually to provide the political structure with its content, its form and its dynamics, is spread out over a long term. No instant recipe such as that of the United Party, or the way it is being done in the U.S.A. through legislation for compulsory integration, will have any success. The United Party wants to effect this by abolishing everything that makes it politico-ideologically essential for us to place it on the Statute Book or to carry it out. They want to apply the instant recipe to everything. This is the shortcut to total destruction. [Interjection.] No, I do not even mention miscegenation. Sir, the fundamental differences between my party and the United Party are to be found in what the United Party wants to weave and build into the future political structure as we are projecting it for the future. When the Prime Minister announced the election, he put the matter into a nutshell by saying: I am asking the electorate to judge the deeds of the National Party. I think the wording was perfectly correct. With reference to that I want to say a few words. In saying that, he went directly to the voters, and it is in this regard that I want to say a few words. I think it is necessary for us to lay bare these fundamental differences. In saying a few words about the deeds of the National Party, I want to devide my comments into three parts. I think that since the National Party assumed office, we have passed through three major eras I want to call them three major liberation processes. The National Party took over the reins of Government in 1948, when this country of ours was economically at its worst. I therefore wish to call the first major liberation process for which the National Party was responsible, the great economic liberation process. Through the exploitation of our own resources and our own manpower, the National Party set in motion the economic concentration of power, centralized around our own resources. You will recall that in the fifties and sixties we had to reorganize and modernize our Railways as an integral part of our economic structure, in order to integrate it with the anticipated growth of our economy. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that during the first five years of National Party régime, which ended in 1953, the United Party vehemently, irresponsibly and negatively attacked in this House this phenomenal, unparalleled recovery of our economy under National Party régime, so much so that Dr. Malan, the then Prime Minister, in an amendment to the United Party’s no-confidence motion in 1953, was obliged to state the position as follows—

It is not wonderful, Sir, that to-day, in the year 1970, it is possible for us to move a similar amendment to this motion and that it will be one hundred percent applicable to the National Party’s deeds to-day? I say that in this very first liberation period by the National Party, which served as a prelude to the second phase, the United Party played a negative role throughout. What is more, Dr. Malan accused them of this in 1953, after the first five years of National régime had come to an end, by laying against them the charge that as Opposition they had played a reckless, irresponsible, negative role. During this first liberation period one major, indispensable component was built into our political structure with its numerous population groups, i.e. stability. When the hon. member talks about priorities, I say that the first priority in our future state, with which we are dealing, must be stability. We must give top priority to stability. It was started by this party during those years of economic liberation. Through the process of building stability into South Africa under National régime, a start was also made with the unravelling of one of the greatest dilemmas into which this country and its people had ever been plunged by the United Party. That was the dilemma of continuous tension which prevailed in the country. That was the tension between Whites and non-Whites which mounted year after year. Sir, when stability is being built into a political structure, it marks the beginning of the easing of any state of tension that may exist. This is what I put forward as another priority for the state which we are engaged in building and which has to arise from this young Republic—a state free of tensions. These are the fruits of National Party regime. The United Party’s reaction to this was violent and vehement—so fierce that after his first five years of being in power, Dr. Malan stated the following in his amendment—

1. (1)That, with regard to the colour problem, for which it (the United Party) is unable to formulate a policy of its own, it nevertheless acts in such a manner as to encourage agitation against and even defiance of the existing law of the land, and consequently assists in seriously disturbing race relations between Europeans and non-Europeans;
2. (2)that, in an unpatriotic way, it exploits for its own party-political ends the unwarranted and malicious attacks made overseas upon South Africa and even permits an appeal to be made openly by certain sections of its United Front to overseas countries for interference in our domestic affairs.

Mr. Speaker, read through Hansard, and you will find that the Hansard over the past 22 years of National Party regime teams with examples of this thing of which Dr. Malan accused them. Over there we have the hon. member for North Rand who openly, unashamedly, said this a few years ago, “There must be a shock from outside.” I do not have the time to mention all of these, but Hansard teams with examples of this. Mr. Speaker, the United Party did not build into our political structure those two essential components: stability and the removal of the tension which prevailed and which they had caused.

Then we entered the second liberation period. We gained our freedom in the international sphere. We got the Republic. With the establishment of the Republic our Nationalists, our Afrikaans-speaking people who for the most part comprised the National Party, handed over the key to our English-speaking fellow-citizens; we handed over to English-speaking South Africa the key to unlock their own house. It is not I who say this; read the Cape Times of 19th July, 1961; this is what it said—

Sir, this is inherent in our second liberation period which was initiated by this National Party. In this second libation period, during which we became independent in the international sphere and free to judge in our own interests, at our own time, as and when we considered it to be in our interests, what role did the United Party play? They did nothing towards bringing about that stability which we wanted to build in and that tension-free state which we wanted to bring into being, for inherent in the United Party policy as stated by that party in the course of this, debate, are the germs of unrest and of tension and eventual, total disintegration of a state based on law and order. This in inherent in their policy. This second liberation period was accompanied by many enriching and faithful achievements on the part of the National Party, apart from the fact that we handed over this key to them and to our own people. This is the key by means of which it has been possible for us to gain access to one house, and as a result the essential cooperation between English and Afrikaans-speaking people will have to thrive. When we had rid ourselves of the Commonwealth and when we had been wrenched from the British community, we drafted our own carriculum. We developed our own methodics. We broke with everything that was peculiar to, and based on old colonial structures and concepts. What a far-reaching effect this had on the political thinking of our people on the road to political independence! The major defence revolution in the years from 1960 to 1970, when this second liberation period was in progress, took place simultaneously. The uniform gained a different significance to both English and Afrikaans-speaking young men. Tension between Afrikaans and English-speaking people in our Defence force started to disappear. Stability did not retain its significance on the purely economic level alone. We built into this political structure additional components, such as mutual trust, the smoothing away of mistrust as well as the elimination of racial feelings. During this period, too, we threw the industrial machine into a higher gear. Finally, with the Act introduced by the hon. the Minister last year, we virtually brought to finality and concluded during this decade the legislative programme for the big ground-plan of apartheid.

Sir, this brings us to the third period, where we find ourselves now. The greatest test for the National Party lies in the seventies that lie ahead. We shall have to guide the Whites in order that they may not make or produce foolish and unrealistic projections in respect of our task for the future. Let the newspapers dictate to the Prime Minister what he should have said on Monday. Let them draft a message for him and tell him to say this or to say that. The Prime Minister will go his own way and not to allow himself to be dictated to, for we are not living in a fool’s paradise where we are making foolish projections for the future.

The second thing which we shall have to do in the seventies, will be to simplify our national relations problem on both sides of the colour bar. That side wants to make this matter more complex, whereas we are on the way to simplifying it. Sir, the Bantu territories are already in existence, and in them it is possible for the Bantu to exercise their essential rights, which they have and to which they are entitled. I am now referring to their political rights, their rights of ownership, their investment rights and their rights of citizenship on the other side of the colour bar, in their own geographical areas. If it is possible for them to do all of that, then, surely, we have simplified this problem. In that case we have taken away their political legs and we have removed the social danger aspect. In that case the presence of Bantu as labourers here in the White area will only mean that they are economically active persons here. In that case they are not a political and sociological factor. In that case they are here in their physical capacity and as economically active persons. Then it would be possible for us to say, “Never mind petty apartheid.” Then those hon. members could stop shouting about “petty apartheid”. I want to tell the United Party This: We have simplified the political problem between Afrikaans and English-speaking people to such an extent that it no longer has any political bias. That side is welcome to beat that drum; it will not reverberate any more.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude. Built into this political structure, as we see it, based on our policy as it has been stated repeatedly over the past twenty years—I do not want to state it again there are, therefore, stability, a tension-free community and growth. A state can only grow and it can only grow in an economically stable and normal manner if such growth is based on a stable political structure. If, with a view to the decentralization of industries, which should now be undertaken with the greatest measure of speed, I should be asked what I would choose—growth, or decentralization with a retarded growth rate—I would say: I prefer decentralization with a retarded growth, for I do not want to exchange stability for growth. They want to exchange stability and they want to give priority to growth. I say that stability comes first and that growth comes second, for with stability and with a sound growth rate we shall build into our political structure the greatest measure of justice towards both the Whites and the Bantu. Even if the price is a second Tomlinson Commission for making a thorough inquiry into the decentralization of industries, even if we have to eliminate all administrative snags and even if we have to make every attempt to obtain a greater measure of co-ordination, it would still in the seventies and eighties be imperative for us to implement, with the greatest measure of speed, this policy of decentralization and everything that goes with it. Herein lies the message. If we asked for a message for the seventies and the eighties I would say: It is not for the newspapers to say: “This has to be expected,” or “Such and such a bomb should be dropped”. Our message is inherently built into our policy. How could we possibly give the community and the people a greater message than giving them this guarantee: A stable future lies ahead for you. A tension-free future lies ahead for you. Based on those two things, you are going to meet a future in which stable growth has been guaranteed to you. These are the main differences between us on this side and them on that side. They have never lifted a finger so as to have a share in the creation of this future state.

Sir, before you call me to order I want to say that, with this policy of decentralization, we shall have to face the facts. According to calculations we shall have to provide employment to approximately 88,000 to 90,000 Bantu every year. This is a reality to which we shall have to face up squarely. We shall have to bear the cost involved in the creation of new infra-structures. Eventually we shall have to do this. I think it is essential for us to relieve our metropolitan areas of their over-burdened infra-structures. We should not try to cram everything into these infra-structures. Eventually we shall have to create new infra-structures.

I want to conclude by saying that I have never gone to meet a five-year period of parliamentary work with more courage and more confidence than is the case with the five-year period that lies ahead, for I believe that, inherent in our policy, there is a profound message for our people. We must not create artificial messages. That is the greatest mistake we can make. It must grow along with our policy. Our population and our sons and our daughters will have to see that, out of the development of this policy, there should emerge for them what is the desire of every person on earth: A desire for stability, security and progress.

Mr. Speaker, my difficulty with the hon. member for Carletonville is that no matter how much I should have liked to have replied to the statements he made, he had so much to say here which was incorrect that if I were to reply to all of it I would have had to re-write his entire speech. I want to mention one example, the question of South Africa’s political freedom. What party made South Africa politically free, sovereign and independent? It was this party that did it. The United Party was established in the year 1934, and one of the first Acts which the old United Party under Gen. Hertzog piloted through this Parliament, was the Status Act of 1934. They made South Africa an absolutely sovereign and independent country I do not want to detract in any way from the value and significance of the Republic, but the Republic merely changed the form of our freedom. It brought no extra freedom for South Africa.

After a general election as we have just had, it is obvious that every party will sit down and make calculations and try to work out for itself how the future will develop for them. I do not want to participate in this kind of arithmetic which we have had, particularly from the Prime Minister. During the course of the election campaign, and the one we had was a very long election campaign, we were all able, and this applies to me as well, to come into contact in an intimate way with the public in all parts of South Africa, something which one does not have the privilege of doing every day. I want to state to-day that apart from whatever the figures in regard to this election may indicate, or whatever calculations one can make with them, I am absolutely convinced from what I experienced in this election that it has come within the means of the Opposition to assume the reins of government. The National Party has a very strongly traditional and sentimental vote which is based on its Afrikaans character. That is a fact. It is no longer what it once was, but it is nevertheless very strong. However, the position is changing in this regard, and if it had not been for what still remains of that strong sentimental vote, the results would even now have shown a quite different position, in our favour. Reservations about the policy of that party, and frustration among the people in regard to the success of the Government’s race policy, runs far wider and deeper than indicated by the result of the election.

But you have been the Opposition for 27 years already.

That hon. member should not be so quick to make interjections when I am speaking. During the election he came to hold a meeting in my constituency in Bezuidenhout, and he holds the record for not a single person having turned up!

That is not true.

Yes, it is true. It does not harm us if hon. members opposite refuse to see the signs of the times. I am convinced that the result was not in fact indicative of the extent of the reservations in regard to the success of the race policy of that side. On the contrary, I want to say that I am quite convinced that the race policy of that party, and here I am referring to apartheid, far from being the solution to anything, is in fact South Africa’s greatest problem and has become the greatest problem of that side of the House. Nobody with any intelligence, sees compulsory apartheid as it is being dogmatically applied, as a solution to anything. They have had the time, and nothing has been solved. On the contrary, as I have said, it has become a problem. The height of political irony in South Africa is that this dogma which in its slogan stage was the greatest weapon of that side, has already become its greatest problem and the greatest source of irritation directed at it in this country. I am convinced that we are in South Africa going to have a new and steadily widening division in politics, not necessarily as far as parties are concerned, but in the thinking of people. That division will not be, as some people here say, between conservative and liberal, or between right and left. The terms “right” and “left” are in fact not applicable in South Africa. The same applies to “conservative” and “liberal”. I think all educated people are in some respects conservative and in other respects enlightened (verlig) and liberal. The great Van Wyk Louw, one of the greatest Afrikaners our age has produced, would have described himself as a liberal nationalist, conservative in many respects and liberal in others. For that reason I do not in any way see the division as being between left or right, or conservative or liberal. The division which is taking place in South Africa is a division of dogmatism, the tyranny, the domination of a dogma, i.e. the dogma of apartheid on the one hand, as opposed to a return to a healthy democratic way of life in South Africa on the other. That is the contrast, and to an increasing extent it is going to become the contrast. In the years the National Party was in office, we have seen a process developing in South Africa. We have seen how the situation grew in size from where apartheid began as a method of dealing with certain situations. From a method of dealing with certain situations, as its creators originally had in mind, it became a predominating principle, a principle in terms of which it is no longer asked today whether a specific situation is good or bad, necessary or unnecessary, wise or unwise, fair or unfair, human or inhuman. That is the trouble. No, the doctrine is master. It dictates separation whether it is good or bad, and whether it is necessary or unnecessary. It dictates separation in all spheres of life, regardless of whether it is in the interests of the country or not. This is always the difficulty with any country which accepts a dogma and makes it a predominating force, which accepts an “ism” which becomes your master. Then one has the kind of situation we now have in South Africa. There is a leading Nationalist who said to me: “Apartheid has got out of hand.” That is why we get the kind of foolishness today where a man such as the hon. the Minister of Community Development has to go to the Cabinet in order to decide whether a few Chinese may play “putt-putt” at a certain place!

He did not do that.

Yes, he said he went to the Cabinet. A Minister of the Cabinet must decide whether or not a woman may take a few young children under her wings! That is the point of foolishness to which this dogma has brought South Africa. The police had to take action in Durban when a number of Coloureds and Indians, all of them non-Whites, wanted to play a little football. The police had to come and tell them: “You cannot play football on this field until you have requested the permission of the Department of Community Development.” Where is this heading? People outside are not laughing at us. This is no laughing matter. Those people think we are not quite all there because we have such ludicrous situations in our country and because such matters have to be decided on Cabinet level. That is the ridiculous situation in which the dominating dogma has landed us. Mr. Speaker, a short while ago we again had the incident with the visiting Dutch ship. The facts of the matter are not public yet, and I hope that we will subsequently get the facts from the Government. We want the entire Western world to regard the Cape sea route as its own, and to help us with its defence. Yet every time a ship arrives here, such as the Dutch ships, every last policeman and official must run around from one café to another, from bar to restaurant and inform the owners that they must please refrain from applying apartheid if crew members turn up there.

Do not start any more gossip.

No, it is a fact; that is what happens. How much longer are we still to endure this situation? During the past two weeks hardly a day went by without incidents which resulted in immeasurable damage for South Africa in the outside world. Do hon. members think this is the end? We have reached a stage of chronic incidents. I want to predict that in future scarcely a day will pass without such incidents.

Who creates them?

That hon. member is asking who creates these incidents. They are created as a result of the fact that we have a Government which leaves no-one in peace; it interferes everywhere; it leaves nothing to the normal, sound common sense of people to decide on their own level whom they want to greet and whom they do not want to greet. This is the major difference between this side of the House and that side.

I shall tell hon. members what the great test for this Government will be. It will not be the question of Bantu homelands. Suppose the Government succeeded in satisfying the Bantu so that they accepted Bantu homelands, now who would then object to that? [Interjections.] No, there are practical problems which they shrink from. The test for the Government will be whether it will continue to allow itself to be dictated to by the dogma in regard to all situations, or whether it will accept the viewpoint of this side of the House, namely that such situations should be dealt with on a practical basis and on merit; that we should return to a healthy democratic way of life.

We on this side of the House acknowledge that there are situations in South Africa where differentiation is necessary; situations where this would serve to protect those against whom differentiation was being practised. A practical example of this is the question of the Bantu areas. If Whites were to be allowed to buy up all land, the Bantu would today have been left without any land. That is why differentiation in this case is a good thing and is essential. It is in those people’s favour. So, too, there are situations where differentiation is desirable and where one can with sound negotiations and sound mutual understanding arrive at a solution. Take the practical example of the removal of the Native residential area in Windhoek. This is probably the only time the Government has accomplished such a task in a sensible way.

It took the Government ten years to remove the Natives from their old location in Windhoek to Katachura. The fact remains however that it succeeded. Did the Government succeed by using force? No. Owing to the international situation the Government decided it would be better to use tact. Tact succeeded. It took a little time, but eventually they persuaded the Natives to go to Katachura voluntarily.

Just as we acknowledge that there are situations where differentiation is necessary and other situations where differentiation is desirable, so we acknowledge that there are situations where apartheid is unnecessary, where it is unwise and where in many cases it is offensive. That is why we on this side of the House—that is the difference between us and that side of the House—believe that we must get away from predominating dogma and refuse to allow it to go on controlling our lives in South Africa, and that we must return to the democratic way of life where more decisions are left to those people and groups concerned. That is where the dividing line between the two parties runs.

I listened to the speech made by the hon. member for Algoa and I noticed that he made a very interesting remark. He said that we on this side of the House spoke about apartheid but that the National Party had long since “moved beyond apartheid”. When that hon. member makes another speech, I should very much like to hear more about this “moving beyond”. I want to ask him whether the basis, the nature, of apartheid has changed or whether it is only the name?

Can I reply now?

The hon. member could just tell us whether it is simply the name or whether it is the basis which has changed.

I cannot reply in one word only.

Very well, I shall wait until the hon. member has another chance to speak. To my way of thinking apartheid means separation, by Government force, on the basis of colour, and more often than not merely for the sake of the dogma. That is what apartheid means to my way of thinking. It is still the predominating basis of the Government’s policy. Hon. members on that side of the House may talk about separate development, but just go along to the Thomas Boydell Building where the Board of Censors has its offices. Hon. members will find that there are three lifts in that building. Two of them are reserved for “Whites”; the other is marked “non-Whites and goods”. That is one of the first things the Board of Censors should have censored.

That you read the other day in the newspaper.

No, it is a completely different building. I went to see for myself. I am now asking any member on that side of the House whether this is apartheid or separate development? If it is separate development, what development of any kind do they see in something of that nature? All I can see in that is separate offensiveness, and this is far from being anything in the form of separate development. It is these questions which are going to form the test for this Government and which it will have to try to remedy.

After the shock members on the Government side received in the recent election, exceedingly interesting noises have been heard from the Government camp. One commentator and reporter after the other tried to establish for himself what had gone wrong and what should be done on that side of the House to remedy the position. One commentator spoke about “soul-searching” which was being engaged in on the Government side. In this way we came to expect that during this debate, as members have mentioned already, something dynamic in respect of policy would emerge from the other side.

But surely it should have emerged from your side.

No, we are not governing after all. [Interjections.] Let us now be reasonable. Great expectations were created. I am now asking members on that side of the House what the people who have the power have given South Africa? We would be only too grateful to have that power, for then we will get something done. But that side of the House has the power. What has emerged in this debate in the form of anything substantial after all this soul-searching had been completed? I am afraid we have a problem with the hon. the Prime Minister. If he does not have an answer to a situation, he simply refuses to acknowledge that there is a problem. I remember that reporters asked him one day what his opinion on petty apartheid was and he then replied that he did not know what that was; he had never seen it. What does one do with a person who is in control and who, when one questions him about a problem which all his newspapers are writing about and which is a central problem, replies that he does not know what it is and that he has never yet seen it?