Yesterday the hon. the Minister of Defence made a speech here on the global strategy of Communism and emphasized the need for us in South Africa to be conscious of the danger. In actual fact there is very little of what the Minister said with which we on this side cannot agree. The criticism we do want to level at him is that we think that he laid his remarks at the wrong door. In our opinion he should have addressed those remarks to himself and to the Government. In the first place, we think that he adopted the wrong tone towards leaders of Western nations, and I hope he does not mind my saying this. The impression he created was that the leaders of the Western nations are virtually half-blind to this danger of communistic strategy, and that we are in fact the only people who understand the position. No ideology is as candid about its objectives as Communism. The fact of the matter is that a country like America, with Cuba close to its borders, is in fact engaged in a real war with Communism in South East Asia. A country like Germany, in the heart of Europe, is saddled with a divided Berlin and with the entire country in fact torn in two between the West and Communism. To want to pretend therefore that leaders of the West, particularly of countries like England and America, are half-blind to the communistic danger, is a little naive, and creates a very unfortunate impression outside.

You did not listen very carefully to what I had to say.

I am talking about the tone of the speech, and this applies not only to the Minister, but also to the Prime Minister. The impression is being created that we know all there is to know, while the rest of the world is blind to the danger. To a large extent it is, and I am sorry to have to say this, the Government that fails to see the heart of the problem. The two most explosive factors in the world in which we are living to-day are colonialism and colour and race discrimination. When Sir Alec Douglas Home was in South Africa, he said on more than one occasion in his speeches that what the West feared the most and what to his way of thinking constituted the greatest danger, was the divisions of the world into racial or colour blocs. A thing like this could serve the interests of no country better than a country like China; it would welcome that. To-day nothing in the world is being exploited more successfully by Communism than racial and colour situations and discrimination is in fact being exploited. Under such circumstances we are saddled here to-day with a Government which remains completely blind to the realities of the situation and to the dangers which it constitutes. It is therefore not we on the Opposition side who must be made conscious of the danger. We are already only too conscious of the danger. It is the Government who must be made conscious of the danger and that must realize to what extent we are in fact a beleaguered country. One of their own newspapers warned recently (translation) —

Our complaint against the Government is that it does not recognize the danger. Their own newspapers are taking them to task, but it is them and not us or the public who have to be made conscious of the danger; it is the Government who must realize this, and they must strengthen South Africa against that. We are to-day the most vulnerable country in the world to a communistic onslaught. Who made us so vulnerable? The Government which is sitting there. [Interjections.] Just look what is happening with a country like Britain. The moment it indicates that it wants to show us a little friendship, that it wants to meet its obligations under the Simonstown Agreement, the entire world comes down on its head. That is the position in which we already find ourselves. I do not think the Government realizes, or at any rate never shows any signs of doing so, what extremely strong feelings its colour politics have unleashed against us in the outside world.

Leaders of the Western world recognize South Africa’s strategic importance; I am certain that they realize it. But unfortunately association with the Government which we have entails so many problems and hostility that they feel they would be weakening their own case in the struggle against Communism by showing us any friendship. For that reason it is of no avail preaching about the communistic danger. It is the Government which has made South Africa vulnerable, and now it is the duty of the Government to enable South Africa to defend itself again. And when it comes to South Africa defending itself, it is not simply a question of weapons.

Who but the present Prime Minister seized the communist leaders in South Africa by the scruff of their necks?

Oh my goodness me, Mr. Speaker, that was on a limited scale. The hon. the Minister drew our attention to the global strategy of Communism, and it is in that connection that I am trying to indicate here that we must be made conscious of what our foreign problem is. It is this Government which must make us capable of defending ourselves and when it does so it is of no avail relying on weapons only. I will admit that the Government is doing its best to arm South Africa well; certainly it is doing its best.

This is a filthy speech.

I agree.

That hon. member’s way of thinking is a little filthy …

Order! Both hon. members must withdraw the word “filthy”.

I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

So do I.

I withdraw. You see, Mr. Speaker, that is the attitude those people adopt towards this Parliament.

Order! The hon. member must refer to other hon. members as “hon. members”.

This is an unpatriotic speech.

This Parliament is there to approach South Africa’s problems with open eyes and in an honest way. But my hon. friends opposite refuse pointblank to do so. We on this side are preached at and we are accused of being unrealistic, but as soon as we begin to discuss our problems, they become excited. But we will not allow ourselves to be put off by that. What we want to say in the interests of South Africa, we will say, and next time we will see to it that the hon. member does not come in, not even in Langlaagte.

As I have said, the Government must make South Africa capable of defending itself, and to achieve that, there are two things it must do. In the first place there is the promise made by the Prime Minister and his government, i.e. that he will see to it that South Africa rids herself of unfair discrimination. This is on record: it is on record abroad. This promise the Government will have to start carrying out. I want to suggest to the hon. the Prime Minister that the time is ripe for him to appoint a commission consisting of all parties in Parliament, or he can appoint a commision outside Parliament, to see what practices and regulations of apartheid there are which can be removed without detracting from the principle that it should be possible for all population groups in South Africa to exist without the one eventually dominating the other. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, furnished a further example of the complete lack of policy of the party on that side. He told us yesterday afternoon that, inherent in the policy of that side, there was also discrimination. He spoke about differentiation and everything that goes with it, but he is not prepared to accept the consequences of that situation. The rest of his speech was criticism of this side of the House because this side is in fact doing what is inherent in his policy, as he put it to us. But he goes much further than this. Yesterday afternoon he accused the Government of finding it necessary to call a Cabinet meeting over a few Chinese children, etc. But at the same time and in the same breath he said: Under the United Party policy every situation will have to be dealt with on a practical basis and on merit. He erroneously accused the Government in regard to the case of the Chinese children, but then stated that that party was not in fact going to have a policy in terms of which they would proceed. No, every situation would have to be dealt with on a practical basis and on its merits. How can such a person as he accuse the Government?

For 22 years now the United Party has been searching for an alternative to the race relations policy of the National Party. For 22 years they have been searching for an alternative to present to the nation. To date they have found nothing which in any way lends itself to that. The hon. member’s speech, which he has just made, is the best proof we can get of that. Sir, I am not fond of quoting from the Sunday Times, for it is very seldom that I can do so to further my case. However, in October of last year there was an article in the Sunday Times in which the following statements were dished out to the United Party—

That is the advice they were given by the Sunday Times. The article continued—

For 22 years the nation, the voters of South Africa, have accepted and repeatedly subscribed to this policy of the Government. For 22 years that side has sought an alternative. For 22 years they have been too stupid to follow the will of the people and to accept the policy devised by this side of the House. Obviously they do not understand the political implications thereof. That is why I am inclined to agree with the Minister of the Interior when he says that the United Party is now showing some signs of life. I wonder how many people voted for the United Party during the recent elections simply because they wanted to return a slightly stronger opposition. I can testify to the fact that in my own constituency there are people who are affirmed Nationalists but who complained that we do not have an opposition. [Interjections.]

Sir, I want to show you how weak they are. Last year, during their congress, the Cape Times wrote—

I should like to read to you what happened last year in my constituency. In one of the towns a circular was sent out, which read as follows—

There were eight, I heard. The circular continued—

[Interjections.]

Now you must listen to this, Mr. Speaker—

They themselves said that if there was no drastic revival in their party, the United Party was dead. I am afraid that that drastic revival has not been forthcoming. The circular goes on to say the following—

Sir, as I have said, I learnt that there were eight of them present. In spite of the great revival which had to take place, during the election, they succeeded in obtaining 1,622 U.P. votes in Ceres. As far as I am concerned, I therefore welcome the fact that the Opposition party is showing some signs of life, for I will now have less difficulty with my National Party supporters who want to vote for the United Party simply in order to get a better opposition in Parliament.

Sir, I do not really want to compare figures in respect of the recent election, but I should like to comment on one matter. That is the conduct of the Opposition during the recent election in respect of one of our vitally important problems in South Africa. I want to say that during this recent election the United Party, and with it the English-language Press, did South Africa the greatest disservice it could probably do.

That is probably the “jockey” case.

Sir, if those hon. members want to be ridiculous and if they want to distract the attention of the House from what I am now dealing with, then it is because they do not like it. They know that the nation has a justifiable charge against them, and they do not want it to be exposed. All of us—the entire South Africa—are talking about national unity. They are talking about it as well, but do you know how presumptuous they are? They are saying that it is all lip-service on the part of the National Party and the Government. Co-operation between English-and Afrikaans-speaking people for the sake of the broader interests of South Africa is probably our most important consideration. I can discuss this matter, because I have never harboured any ill-feeling against any one in South Africa on the basis Of his language, his background or his religion.

Yes, they are all your best friends.

Yes, I believe that to a very large extent South Africa’s success lies therein that English-and Afrikaans-speaking people must see eye to eye when it comes to our major problems. I can discuss this matter and I feel myself at liberty to discuss it. The mother of my two daughters was English, not merely English-speaking as with members on that side, but English, because she came from England and because she had been born there. In my house English was spoken as frequently as Afrikaans. In my house there was never any ill-feeling towards a person because he spoke a different language or because he had a different religion. That is why I say that I feel myself at liberty to discuss this matter. I want to state unequivocally that the National Party has never isolated certain groups in the politics of South Africa and stated that there was no place for them anywhere. No, what the National Party has been doing over the years, and this has been where its success lay, was to lay down a broad policy for the voters of South Africa. The National Party stated its policy and asked the voters for their support if it was acceptable to them. But we have never done what the United Party and the English-language Press did, i.e. to isolate, long before the election and afterwards too, the English-speaking people in South Africa and come forward with the cry that there was no room in the National Party for English-speaking persons.

What does Blyth Thompson say?

Very well, then, there is that. I need not confirm this point any further. The hon. member for Durban (Point) has confirmed this statement which I have just made. He has just confirmed that there is no place for English-speaking persons in the National Party. Is that the way in which we must practise our politics in South Africa? [Interjections.] Just listen to them shouting now. Just listen to how they have been hurt. Is that the way in which we must practise politics in South Africa, i.e. by isolating a part of our community on the basis of its language? It is not being done on the basis of a person’s conviction. I am glad hon. members now accept that they have done this. That is why I say that they have done the people of South Africa the greatest disservice with their conduct during the recent elections as far as this matter is concerned.

You are saying something you cannot prove.

But it is true. What is there to prove? The hon. member for Durban (Point) accepted it a moment ago.

Here in my hand I have a sub-leader of The Star under the heading “The English Vote”. The entire article emphasizes that English-speaking persons should not vote for the National Party, not because the policy of the National Party in South Africa is wrong, but because they are English-speaking.

Read the article.

Yes, I am going to read it. This same article goes on to refer to the Herstigte Party. It reads—

Hear, hear!

Why is not the English-speaking person’s right to vote for a Herstigte if he wants to do so? Why are the English-speaking people being told that because they are English-speaking they should not vote for a Herstigte?

You say the Afrikaners may not vote for that party.

That is correct. I say that one may not vote for the Herstigtes on the basis of their principles and policy which they advocate. But the hon. member says that because you are English-speaking, you may not vote for them. I can speak for a long time on this subject because I believe that we in South Africa, particularly as far as the English-and the Afrikaans-speaking people are concerned, should try to find ties in order to bring the two groups closer together. We must not emulate the United Party by trying to drive them further apart. It is true that during the recent elections the United Party tried to make the English-speaking people as a group afraid of the Afrikaner and the National Party. I do not mind their making the English-speaking people afraid Of the National Party. But I do object to the English-speaking people as a group being isolated. I object to it being isolated as a group and being told that it may not vote for the National Party, not on the basis of the policy of the National Party, but because it is English-speaking.

That is not correct.

But, Mr. Speaker, it is correct. The hon. member for Yeoville can dispute this as much as he likes. The hon. member for Durban (Point) accepted it and admitted to it at the beginning of my speech. I then said that it was not necessary for me to argue that point any further. I want to state, in all possible earnestness to-day, that our future success lies in co-operation, in the interests of South Africa, in regard to major problems of principle, regardless of the language which one speaks or the church to which one belongs. It is not our task to repel one another on the basis of language, but to consider the policy and the principles of the separate parties and to decide on that basis which course South Africa should follow for the future.

I should like to furnish a brief reply here to two minor points raised by the hon. member for Parktown and the hon. member for Hillbrow. It concerns the new Department of Economic Affairs which the hon. the Prime Minister has entrusted to me and to which I should like, to a large extent, to give my attention. The hon. member for Parktown made certain allegations which I translated and noted down while he was speaking. He stated that the Railways, the roads and the harbours of South Africa were obsolete. He also stated that the supply of water was not receiving the necessary attention. He then went on to say that there had been an increase in Government spending. Now I should like to put a question to that hon. member. If that hon. member wants to renew the Railways, the roads and the harbours which are obsolete, if he wants to build dams more rapidly than they are being built at present, how on earth is he going to succeed in curtailing Government spending? That is all I want to ask that hon. member. I think that is the reply to the entire speech made by the hon. member. Does he not realize that the largest portion of Government capital spending is that in respect of our infrastructure? It is the same infrastructure for which he is pleading, but for which he does not want to make the money available. Since the hon. member is saying that, he must tell us where the funds are going to come from if he wants to curtail spending. Does the hon. member not realize that our greatest current expenditure on revenue account consists of salaries and wages? If the hon. member maintains that the spending is too great, where must we then introduce curbs? Must we reduce salaries? The hon. member must reply to that question which he put to himself.

The hon. member for Hillbrow spoke about “this massive deficit in our foreign trading account”. That is true and I admit that it is true. There has been a decrease in our trading account. There has been a deficit on the current account of our balance of payments. That is quite correct. During the first quarter of 1970. that is to the end of April, the deficit was R139 million. In the previous three quarters, that is, the last three quarters of 1969, it was R78 million, R109 million and R46 million; that is a total for the year ending March 1970 of R372 million. Of course, I must admit that this has caused our foreign reserves to drop. Our foreign reserves reached a peak in April 1969 when they stood at R1,230 million. From that peak they dropped until April 1970, when they stood at R1,025 million. This decrease was largely owing to fewer exports on the one hand and also as a result of a decrease in our net gold production.

It was also owing to a considerable increase in our payments for services abroad. The decrease in our net gold production was attributable to the smaller premiums which we received for our gold sales in the open market. As far as our increased payment for services was concerned, that was the result of increased rates of interest and increased dividends which left the country for abroad. But during the past year there has also been a major increase in our imports. In 1968 our imports stood at R1,930 million, and in 1969 this increased to R2,200 million. If these amounts are now compared, hon. members will see that the reserves of the country have decreased to a lesser extent than the deficit on the current account of our balance of payments. The smaller amount by which this amount decreased is due to capital flowing into the country. This is further proof of the confidence overseas countries have in the economy of South Africa. In analysing these figures to which I have just referred and which I furnished with reference to the concern expressed by the hon. member for Hillbrow over “this massive deficit in our foreign trade”, I want in the first instance to say that our foreign exchange reserves should not be regarded as something sacred and something which is completely inviolable. The reserves are there to help us and to support us in cases where there is a deficit on our balance of payments. It is only when the deficit on one’s balance of payment becomes exceptionally high and endures for a long time that one should really become concerned about the position.

Our reserves position is still at a very high level: to tell the truth, it is sufficient for approximately five months support at the exceptionally high import rate being maintained today. Another consideration I should like to submit to the hon. member for Hillbrow today, and this is the most important of the two, is the fact that the joint deficit in our current account of R372 million, to which I referred a moment ago, is far less than the amount with which our stocks position has increased during the same period. Our domestic stocks have increased during the past year by R450 million, as against the deficit in our balance of payments of R372 million. In other words, although we have had a deficit in our balance of trade on the one hand we have built up our stocks to an amount greater than that. Consequently, if one compares these two figures, we are in respect of those two items only, better off by R78 million, and not worse off as the hon. member for Hillbrow wanted to suggest to this House.

I should like to make an analysis of the position of our economy in South Africa as I see it to-day, since I want to promote the Department of Economic Affairs as far as it is in any way possible for me to do so. However, I fear that I will not have the time to deal with these matters in detail. I should however like to make a start. When I set myself four criteria by which to determine whether the economic administration of a country is efficient or not, I mention the following four. In the first instance I ask myself whether the general growth rate has been in accordance with the potential and resources of the country.

The answer is “no”.

I shall come to that. The hon. members need not answer the questions for me.

Why are you asking us then?

I am asking myself this question. [Interjections.]

Order!

The second question is whether avenues of employment have been expanded in order to supply the growing population with an adequate means of subsistence. The third question is whether the Government has ensured the economic viability of the country. Fourthly, has the Government fulfilled its task without endangering the foreign balance or the domestic stability of the economy. I have asked myself these four questions and I should like to reply to them. In all likelihood I will only have time to reply to one of these questions and will have to reply to the others at a later opportunity. The first question was whether the general growth rate has been in accordance with the potential and the resources of the country in recent times, that is to say during the period of National Party regime. Let us consider for a while the history of the country. Let us take it over the past 50 years, that is from 1920 to the present. During this period there has been an average growth rate of 4.3 per cent per year. That means that our real gross domestic product increased during this period of 50 years at an average growth rate of 4.3 per cent. In the decade 1938-’48, the decade which the Opposition is so proud of, and during which according to them things went so well, was …

That was during the war years.

War conditions have the most stimulating influence on growth. It should have increased the growth rate, but during that period the growth rate was 4.2 per cent, that is to say the growth rate during that period was lower than the average growth rate during the past 50 years. Let us look at the situation since the National Party assumed office, i.e. since 1948. In the ensuing two decades, that is to say from 1948 to 1968, the average growth rate has been 5.3 per cent per year. Let us take that picture a little further. Let us consider the past seven years, the period 1962 to 1969. During that period our average growth rate was 6 per cent, or rather 50 per cent more than it was during the United Party regime. This growth rate was in fact greater than the ideal growth rate we had set ourselves. Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition came along and launched an attack on the growth rate, as if the growth rate was the only thing on earth on which one should build and on which one should base one’s existence. All other matters, in respect of the safety of one’s nation, and so on, may as well be thrown overboard. If we look at this growth rate, we can see the success which the National Party has achieved over the past years. This success is owing in particular to the great expansion of our industries. I should like to make a few analyses of our industries. The production in our clothing industry over the past ten years has increased by 108 per cent, in our chemical industry by 100 per cent, in our base metals by 107 per cent, and the steel production in South Africa will increase more than twofold over the next ten years as a result of the expansions which are now being envisaged. The transport industry has during the past ten years increased by 264 per cent, and this is being run directly by the State. I should like on an ensuing occasion to continue to convince this House of what the National Party Government has done for South Africa in the economic sphere and what it will continue to do in the best interests of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying to the effect that every day has its surprises. We had a typical example of this to-day. An hon. Minister told us how serious the Nationalist Party was about accomplishing national unity in South Africa. This sounds strange in the mouth of an hon. Minister who is a member of a party which, a few elections ago, still had the slogan: “There is no place for the Afrikaner in the United Party.” The hon. the Minister’s argument is that the United Party is trying to drive English-speaking people into one fold because they are English-speaking, and not because they differ from Nationalist Party policy. Is the United Party responsible for a Transvaal Nationalist Party membership card which is differently worded for Afrikaans and English-speaking people: is this United Party, or is that Nationalist Party, responsible for greater and greater separation being made at school between Afrikaans and English-speaking individuals? The Nationalist Party had the opportunity of proving to the English-speaking people in South Africa how serious they are about accomplishing national unity. Before the last election there were three English-speaking people sitting on their side in this House of Assembly. Now there is only one. There was, therefore, a decrease of 66 per cent in the number of English-speaking people they had in this House of Assembly. I do not find it strange that this happened, especially when one reads, for example, how they treated Mr. Blyth Thompson when he was a member of the Nationalist Party. According to the Burger of 18th March, Mr. Thompson said the following (translation) —

Those are the accusations of someone who belonged to their party.

I welcome it if the hon. the Minister and his party have had a change of heart in respect of national unity. It will probably be to South Africa’s good in the long run. However, the hon. the Minister must then not come with ridiculous accusations that the United Party is trying to fence the English-speaking people off. If there is one party in South Africa which has always worked towards unity between Afrikaans and English-speaking people, towards a decrease of ill-feeling and the elimination of hatred and enmity between Afrikaans and English-speaking people, then it is this United Party. The Nationalist Party simply trots along behind. Fifty and 60 years after our greatest national leaders placed South Africa on the road to national unity, the Nationalist Party, as always, echoes that they now also want to bring about national unity in South Africa.

The hon. the Minister was also proud of the economic progress of South Africa over the past few decades. He was particularly proud of the growth rate of 6 per cent from 1962 to 1969. He pointed out how poorly South Africa had grown under a United Party Government during the years 1938 to 1948. Does the hon. gentleman not know that at that time South Africa only stood upon the thresh-hold of its industrial development? Who created those industrial possibilities for South Africa by means of an Industrial Development Corporation? Was it the Nationalist Party? No, South Africa’s growth rate could still increase considerably if that side of the House were prepared to amend its policy in respect of labour, and if they were to utilize all our natural resources and the available manpower to the full. The Nationalist Party is not prepared to do this, and yet the hon. the Minister still boasts of the growth rate of 6 per cent.

That the latest election would be high on the list of subjects discussed in this debate goes without saying. The result of the election shows me a number of things. The first is that the electorate have tired of the old stories of the so-called black peril. That hon. member, who cost South Africa R60 million to get him here. i.e. the hon. member for Langlaagte, had that experience in his constituency. The hon. member put out a so-called black peril pamphlet, with a photograph of what Parliament would look like under a United Party Government. What did Mr. Schalk Pienaar tell him? He told him that that pamphlet’s value was less than nothing. This was one of the first proofs that this election furnished me with, i.e. that those old stories in respect of the black peril were no longer making any impression on the electorate.

The second characteristic of the election is that the people of the country realize that economic development is irrefutably based on the utilization of all our manpower. The election indicated that national unity among our population is automatically and mutually created and promoted by the language groups, regardless of what this side or that side may say. National disunity is no longer a place where a political party may try to scavenge. It is also very clear to me that the people are, to an increasing extent, paying attention to everyday problems, i.e. how to make a living, and that they want answers to that. It is also very clear to me that the electorate is becoming increasingly sophisticated and efficiency conscious. It desires that its government and its representatives shall govern the country with increasing efficiency. The people of South Africa will no longer accept small talk in an election. I just want to quote one example of what happened to a Nationalist Party candidate in the recent election when he said he could influence the electorate in such a manner. I am now speaking about Dr. L. A. P. A. Munnik, a Cape M.E.C. and a Nationalist Party candidate in the recent election. [Interjections.]

A man of consequence.

Decidedly. He was the Nationalist Party candidate in the King William’s Town constituency. He then selected certain voters and sent them circulars about why they should support him. He sent a letter to the “pigeon lovers”. In it he told them—

But now comes the climax:

This will enable me to take my place in Parliament next to other pigeon fanciers. And what happened to this man? The hon. member for King William’s Town had no problem strengthening his majority in that constituency. As I said, the electorate is becoming increasingly sophisticated. It no longer pays any attention to the “pigeon lovers” and their stories.

And neither to the revelations you made in my constituency.

I am still coming to that hon. Minister. He will hear from me. He must just not be too hasty.

I am waiting for you.

That hon. Minister will discover later that he is not the only person who lost letters. The electorate wants this Government to limit its mistakes to the minimum. It therefore surprises me that there were attempts in this debate to put up lightning conductors. Such an attempt was made by the hon. the Minister of Defence when he claimed that we are not making the people danger-conscious and that we should not exploit grievances. Neither does he want to smother criticism. But what does the hon. the Minister then want? Does he want an Opposition in South Africa which first airs the grievances and then, after they have been aired, withdraws them again? Does the hon. the Minister of Defence not have in mind that he will be having his Cape conference one of these days? His newspapers are already telling him that the Cape electorate wants to air its grievances at these congresses. Now the hon. the Minister says that the United Party must not exploit grievances. It is a warning to his own people.

Since 1960 South Africans have become increasingly conscious of the danger of terrorism. Because the people appear outwardly calm we must not think that they are unaware of the dangers. It is also unnecessary to cry wolf the whole day long. What South Africa wants to-day is not the creation of a spirit of pessimism about the future, as the hon. the Minister of Defence is trying to do; the people of South Africa want to have confidence in their future. If there were to be a comprehensive threat one day, South Africa would want the greatest loyalty from all its citizens. My question is whether this Government is creating the opportunity for all citizens to have that spirit of loyalty if and when the trouble actually comes? What did the hon. the Minister of Defence want to achieve? He wanted to create the impression that they were the only people who could lead South Africa in times of danger, and that only a victory for them could put the enemies of South Africa in their place. No, we on this side of the House are just as competent, if not more, to do so. The enemies of this country will find no allies in the United Party. South Africa is our country, and anyone who tries to touch South Africa under United Party rule will be faced with a powerful weapon. This weapon is the spirit of South Africanism, and the common loyalty of all the citizens of this country. But we are not going to disconcert South Africa unnecessarily. We are not going to frighten away prospective immigrants. Neither are we going to frighten off prospective investors in South Africa. We shall create a calm determination to deal with any attacks that may come. That is why I say that the people of South Africa are outwardly calm, but they are also deeply aware of these dangers.

But we want to come nearer home by focusing attention on the question of the efficiency of this Government’s Ministers. I immediately want to come to the hon. the Minister of Community Development in respect of the question of the Chinese. He accuses this side of the House, and also me by name, of being the cause of all this trouble, while I have not said a word about this dispute in public. I did, it is true, deal with him on the question by letter. I now want to tell the hon. the Minister that the Chinese in Port Elizabeth—and I think the Chinese in the rest of the country as well —have never been a problem.

They are not a problem yet.

The hon. the Minister of Community Development announced, in this House, the policy in respect of Chinese. The last part of the policy, which he said was announced five or six years ago, is as follows (translation) —

This is the policy the Government laid down five or six years ago. However, now the hon. the Minister comes along and tells us that the trouble came about as a result of the fact that there is now a new official, a good official, in his Department who had to deal with this matter while he, the hon. the Minister, was in Rhodesia. But when the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport was doing the Malawi cotillions, the hon. the Minister of Community Development was probably doing the Rhodesian cotillions. On the 13th March a certain person who owns a billiard saloon in Port Elizabeth applied for a permit to allow Chinese in his saloon. Chinese always visited his saloon before, and there was no question about that until someone objected. On the 13th March that application was sent through to the hon. the Minister of Community Development’s Department.

That is untrue. I have never received such an application. I only received your request.

I have all the correspondence in this connection plus the letters I wrote to that hon. Minister. After that application was refused, I wrote the hon. the Minister a letter dated 15th May. I then received a friendly little letter from the hon. the Minister on 22nd May in which he said that the matter would be investigated. But now it is said that a new official dealt with the matter while the hon. the Minister was on leave. When the Cabinet last week discussed the case of the Chinese children in the nursery school, that hon. Minister, of course, forgot to discuss my matter. But then we ran across each other outside here and he said to me: “Myburgh, I am terribly sorry but I have lost your letter”. If that is the form that efficiency in Government action takes, I want to know where there is an example of efficiency.

I just want to tell you that you must never venture to discuss anything with me again. You are dishonourable.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw the word “dishonourable”.

Mr. Speaker, it was a private discussion and to come and blurt it out here … I withdraw the word “dishonourable”. I do not have a worse word for that.

Mr. Speaker, it was not a private discussion. The discussion was about a policy matter. We absolutely did not discuss any private matter. If this hon. Minister says that the reason why this matter was not dealt with is because there is a new official responsible for it, I want to ask that hon. Minister: What kind of Ministry does he control if a policy was already laid down in 1965 and the officials who must implement it do not know about it yet? If that was the policy laid down five or six years ago, why then do we have all this nonsense and this behaviour in Port Elizabeth? But then the hon. the Minister says that it is we who are making a fuss about it. However, on 19th July he granted Die Beeld an interview. He said to Die Beeld: “My Department has the complainants name”. This was about the nursery school. I read further: “The man is an educationist from Port Elizabeth”. Now he says it is the United Party. I challenge that hon. Minister to say who that educationist was who objected. It is not the United Party that wants to blow up this kind of thing. We specifically want to try to bring about a healthy form of race relations in South Africa. These are people who have never been any problem to us, but he stand up here and says: “I am the best Minister of Community Development we have ever had”. I can thus mention one example after another. The hon. the Minister also asked me what I would do if the Junior United Party asked my permission to hold a dance in Port Elizabeth, and Chinese wanted to attend it. What has this to do with public places, as in these cases? If there are Chinese who want to support the United Party financially, as the Indians of Uitenhage support Mr. Swiegers financially, and they want to come along, and such an application was made, could he refuse it within the framework of this policy of his? I ask him this question: Could he refuse it?

Of course I could refuse it.

If he refuses it, what does this policy of his mean? “This course would appear to be the obvious one to follow, and if the community accepts it, there can be no objection,” he said. I would say that the hon. the Minister of Community Development is probably the best Minister I know—the best among the rotten ones. This is undoubtedly the case if this is the way he is handling a fundamental matter such as the relationship between South Africa and its 8,000 to 10,000 Chinese.

I want to come to a further example of this Government’s inefficiency. I want to refer to the behaviour of the Government in the recent announcement of the Saldanha project. I want to do so in connection with the trouble in the Cape Province because we cannot attract the necessary economic development here. Even the Government had to appoint an individual internal committee, consisting of men from the Cape Province to find out whether they could not attract more to the Cape Province. One investigation after another was made by Iscor, the Railways and the Government. They know what the problems in the Eastern Cape are. They know that we have problems with the Planning Act, i.e. that it is restricting economic development in that area. They know that there must be balanced economic development in the Cape Province. But they announce one development for one part of the Cape Province and leave another part to stew in its own juice, simply hoping for the best for the future. Any Government with insight into such matters would have known that it would be best, under these circumstances, to announce something for the Eastern Cape as well. That is why there is large-scale dissatisfaction among those people of the Eastern Cape to-day. We are not opposed to the development of the Western Cape. We say to the Western Cape, “Good luck with that announcement”, but was it impossible for the Government to propose something similar for the Eastern Cape, which is specifically waiting to get a form of large-scale economic development there?

The inefficiency of the Government is not only proved in the case of economic development. I want to come to my last point, i.e. the question of agriculture. The largest portion of the Cape Province is still in the grip of a tremendous drought to-day, so much so that the majority of small farmers have already dejectedly left their land, while the average farmer despairs, and even the large-scale farmer in the Cape Province is mistrustful of the future. What has this Government done to take care of the problems of the farmer in recent times? They are told every year that the greatest problem the farmer is struggling with to-day is that he is simply not capable of handling his own financing. Have we not told them year after year to look to the high interest rates which are squeezing the South African farmers to death? Did we not warn them that they are causing the fanners to lose millions of rands because of their policy of combating inflation in South Africa? Did we not tell them this? What did the Government do about that? They will boast of the ad hoc assistance. They will boast of the millions of rands appearing in the Estimate, and this will probably appear there again, but in the meantime the position of the average farmer in South Africa is progressively worsening because this Government is not prepared to take care of the problems these people are faced with each day.

Is it only a case of interest?

No, of course not, but this is one of the most important factors. One of the most important factors is financing costs, because he cannot compete. If I may teach the hon. the Minister a lesson, let me say that he knows that the farmer in South Africa is not in a position to add his increased production costs to the price of his product. The hon. the Minister knows that this is the problem. We have put it to the Government year in and year out. What are we now going to encounter in the future? We are now entering a Parliamentary sitting in which the drought in the major part of South Africa, but particularly in the Cape Province, is the worst in living memory. And what is the course the Government offers us? What does the United Party say should be done under these circumstances? We say that the State’s duty will have to increase progressively. [Time expired.]

We have now reached the end of the no-confidence debate and, during the whole debate, the United Party used only five minutes to discuss agriculture.

Not five minutes, but precisely two minutes and 30 seconds.

That was old Streicher, the old gossiper.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it.

In his introductory speech on Monday, the Leader of the Opposition said that “agricultural aid is only patchwork”, and that is all he said about agriculture. The hon. member for Newton Park started off by saying that we use the hon. the Minister of Defence as a lightning-conductor, but he used himself as a lightning conductor by discussing matters which have nothing to do with this debate or with his portfolio as a shadow Minister. But the matter which worries me most as far as this hon. member is concerned, is that in the past election we had to do with an unsavoury situation in which he dragged in a private person—no matter what that person’s political convictions were—by the hair left, right and centre because he had obtained a loan from the Land Bank.

Shame!

This was used at every possible opportunity by the United Party. The Government feels that when a man’s loans and when personal problems are concerned, it is a confidential matter, and it has always been our attitude that these things must not be used for political gain. But what happened? Farmers have come to me and have said that they are afraid to ask for a State loan or a Land Bank loan, because they fear that it will be made public and used for political gain. Is this the level to which we must descend in politics, to use Land Bank loans in such a way in areas where the people have problems because of the drought, and in this way try to catch a few votes? But our attitude has been that we have all the information and will not tell the electorate that this or that United Party supporter obtained a Land Bank loan. This has been our attitude, but I want to go further.

The hon. member spoke here about national disunity. Sir, do you know what our attitude is when we have to decide about a piece of State-owned land which must be allocated, in comparison with what I read happened before 1948? We have an Agricultural Credit Board and a Land Tenure Board which are autonomous bodies and which recently allocated farms under the Orange River scheme, and Nationalist members of the House of Assembly came to me and said: But that man is an adamant United Party organizer; how can you give him a farm? I replied: Our policy and standpoint is that when we have to do with a white farmer, we do not take his political convictions into account; we only consider whether he is a practical and efficient farmer. But it seems to me we are making a mistake. We must rather do what those people did many years ago when they were in power, and we must also say: Fine, we will discriminate. But one would achieve nothing by doing that. Then the hon. member comes here and talks about national disunity, but these matters such as State aid, land grants and Land Bank loans we must always try to keep outside politics and we have always tried to do so. I say it would be a sad day for me to think that we should follow this practice and drag in politics. I cannot imagine that we should descend so low.

You conveniently miss the point in connection with the Land Bank loans.

No. I can explain our system.

Why did you accuse people on our side only and none on your side? Why did you just pick out a number of Afrikaans-speaking Nationalists?

Order!

Then the hon. member said that the people have become efficiency-conscious to-day. If the people have become efficiency-conscious to-day, then they must also be aware that some of the hon. members in the Opposition benches are no longer efficient as far as their task as an Opposition is concerned. Their task as an Opposition is not to score points off insignificant little matters, but to give me direction and to tell me: This is what you should do in this Department, and if we should ever come into power, we would do this or that. Do not simply follow the example of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who said that “agricultural aid is patchwork” and then sat down without having anything more to say about it. Indicate a direction which we should follow. Then the hon. member said that he had always maintained that interest rates in agriculture are too high, but this is not our greatest problem; it is one of our minor problems. Ask the farmers. Sir, I attend many congresses and I have never seen the hon. member for Newton Park at an agricultural congress. He does not go there; he is not a delegate to one of these congresses. It does not help to wallow in the mud if you have no contact with the people who have the problems. Most of the people who are in difficulties to-day, tell me that everything will be fine if only it will rain.

That is so, but what does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition do? We must refer to what he said last month (translation) —

We give him ten out of ten for that. Then he said—

In any case, our farming is not based on the principle of family farms, as in Europe. In South Africa the farmer is 90 per cent dependent on hired labour. There is no hired labour on the family farms of Europe; it is the man, woman and child themselves who work. He went on to say—

These people develop this approach because the Chamber and those people tell them that we are doing too much for the co-operatives.

you are missing the point entirely; I was referring to something else.

You did not say that, but now I come to the point—

The small farmer must be retained, but the farms must be larger so as to ensure an economic unit. You yourself know, Sir, that if we say a unit must be enlarged and two pieces of land must be consolidated, one man must leave. How can you retain the small farmer? Then the United Party always boast that in their time there were 125.000 farmers, and today there are only 90,000. But on the other hand the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that the units must be enlarged. He criticized the agricultural extension services in South Africa and said that 200 extension officers are not nearly enough to serve the 90,000 farmers. He referred to the shortage of both extension officers and veterinary surgeons. Now I shall read only the last part and then I will provide him with information on each of these matters, so that the Leader of the Opposition, when he attends a congress again, can inform the farmers correctly about what the Government is doing for agriculture—

I will show you that the farmer receives more than 5 per cent on his investment—

He must know now already what he will receive for the maize which he is going to plant next year—

Sir, you can ask any farmer at that congress and he will tell you that this proposal is unpractical and that this cannot be done in a country like South Africa.

Now I come to the point where the hon. member said that the farmer must be able to share in the 5 per cent growth rate enjoyed by industry. Do you know, Sir, that the average price received by the farmer for products in South Africa increased by 26 per cent in the past 10 years? The prices of farming requirements—seeing that the hon. member for Newton Park said that farming requirements and production costs are among the things which have increased so much—increased by an average of 11 per cent, and the retail price by an average of 24 per cent. Proportionally, therefore, the position is quite sound. But now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that we must not pay subsidies. In order to keep this increase in production costs down to 11 per cent, the Government made a contribution of R15 million per annum in respect of artificial fertilizer alone. Look at the price of artificial fertilizer to-day as compared with the price five years ago. I am not talking about labour. The Government has no control over labour. Labour costs have risen, and if you examine this average, you will see that this is in fact the case. Ten years ago the wheat farmers of this country received R36 million for their crop; last year the figure was R85 million. In this way I can mention one agricultural product after the other in the case of which the value of the crop has increased by 40 per cent, etc., except in the case of wool. Ten years ago these farmers harvested products to the value of R735 million and last year the figure was R1,247 million. Did they not share in the development of the country? Why must the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say this sort of thing at a congress? Sir, I am referring to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said at a congress, because in this House he said nothing. I ask myself the question: Is it necessary to hold up this House for a week with a no-confidence debate about a negative lot of nonsense, instead of mentioning the positive things which are in fact being done and acknowledging it if something has been done to the benefit of the people? But instead of doing that, he comes here with the popular cry that these farmers are being forced off their farms by the interest rates. Let me tell you. Sir, how we approach this matter of interest rates and what we are trying to do in order to solve the problem. He says it is only the average farmer. In the case of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure 34,000 farmers were assisted and 10,000 were not assisted. In three years and four months, just for the consolidation of debt, R20.4 million was made available, and for the purchase of land—since the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that the units should be enlarged— R30.3 million. In the vast majority of cases assistance was granted. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not like this; he said that we would come here and juggle with a lot of figures, but Sir, these figures are the gospel truth. The hon. member can take a look at the figures himself if he does not believe me.

And more farmers are becoming bankrupt.

Now we come to the question of assistance. He said there were only 200 extension officers. Sir, these are things which are said at agricultural congresses and which will perhaps be said in Parliament in due course. He also said that we have a manpower shortage. Do you know what we had in 1948 for the purpose of providing professional information? How many research and extension officers did we have? There were 891 posts and 714 of these were filled. To-day there are 1,721 posts, of which 1,417 are filled —83 per cent now, as compared with 70 per cent at that time.

Then we come to veterinary surgeons. Today we have a total of 740 registered veterinary surgeons, one for every 122 farmers, and then I include farmers such as fruit farmers, etc., who have no stock. In the private sector we have 551 veterinary surgeons to-day, most of them trained by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, among the best in the world. This is the position, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that we do not have enough veterinary surgeons to do this work. Ten years ago we did not even have an engineering branch in the Department of Agriculture; to-day we have an engineering branch with 58 engineers. The number of people who assist the agricultural industry is phenomenal. There are 6,000 officials employed by the Agricultural Technical Services alone. Their salaries work out at more than R400 a farmer, just for information. If we consider all the officials which work in Agriculture, what do we find? To-day we have one official to every nine farmers, and in spite of this, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that we do not have the staff to meet the needs of the growing population.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to the drought conditions prevailing in the Karoo. I do not want to mention the subsidies which are granted in order to gain the best price for the farmer’s product. The Leader of the Opposition said that these subsidies should be withdrawn.

Now the farmers are going to help themselves.

The Leader of the Opposition said that these subsidies should be withdrawn. Sir, I mentioned to you how the turnovers of the various industries have increased and the products of almost all these sectors have had to be sold on the overseas market at much lower prices than what could have been realized here. We all know that we have droughts in this country from time to time and one cannot foresee them, but the farmers know that as surely as we are experiencing a drought now, the good years will come again. We then told the farmers that they should withdraw one-third of their stock in order to save their soil. As a result of representations we received from the various farmers’ associations and agricultural unions we increased that withdrawal of stock so that today a man qualifies for R4,950 per unit if he withdraws that one-third, and for the rest of his stock he receives 20c per sheep, to a maximum of 1,500 sheep, in other words, R3,600 per year, R8,600 per unit. Why? Because we would like to save the soil and because we want to help the farmer who has landed in difficulties because of climatic conditions. It is correct and fair to say that we should withdraw the subsidies and that we are doing nothing for the average farmer who lands in financial difficulties? The hon. member makes statements which he leaves hanging in the air. The hon. member’s approach is to hold up a negative thing to the farmer and to suggest to him that there is corruption, but he will not succeed in that. He said that we must prevent national disunity; he said that we are disuniting our people, when we are in fact trying to bring about harmony in agriculture in view of the tremendous risk factor we have to contend with in agriculture. I should appreciate it very much if the United Party would adopt this attitude in future and not continually talk about the negative side in agriculture. Members of the United Party should rather acknowledge here that there are average and small farmers who are making a tremendous success of agriculture in our country, in spite of climatic conditions. Let us rather encourage that man and, by so doing, also encourage the young boy who wants to go farming one day. If these people have to listen to the tale of woe from that side of this House as far as agriculture is concerned, I can assure you, Sir, that it will put them off farming. That speech which the hon. Leader of the Opposition made in East London, was worth nothing, because he merely put off the young man. No member of the United Party has ever stood up here and thanked the Government for the assistance being granted to the farmers. They have never had the courage of their convictions to do this.

You have a short memory.

I want to refer hon. members to a very intensive survey which was made by Agricultural Technical Services. They took three groups of farmers in the Western Transvaal, a considerable number under identical circumstances, and they were divided into three categories, namely the best, the average and the weaker ones. This was also done among the wool farmers in the Karoo region, and what was their finding? They found that the third best farmer realizes R13.93 per year nett for every R100 which he invested in his land and in implements, etc., and that the third weakest realized R3.33 nett—under identical circumstances. A little while ago, the hon. member spoke about efficiency and said that the Cabinet had to be efficient. In that case, he must be consistent and apply it to the humblest official and worker on the Railways and elsewhere.

What was that same farmer’s turn-over on those sheep ten years ago?

I am talking about a grain farmer in the Western Transvaal; I have the figures here. The hon. member is not prepared to admit that there are in fact efficient farmers who under these circumstances are still making a tremendous success of agriculture with the assistance which the State offers them. What do we find? That third best farmer’s fertilizer costs alone are five times higher than that of the weaker fanner. I said that the officials who are there, are prepared to give information and do research work. Must we take the farmer by the throat and tell him he must do it, or can we merely show him the example and advise him to farm according to that? What do we find? We find that a certain percentage do drop out, but, as in every industry, the efficient man survives. Members of the Opposition stand up and criticize; the Leader of the Opposition says that “State-aid is patchwork”, but no one tells us what we should rather do or what they would do if they came into power. No, Sir, they make statements and then sit down. For me there was one inspiring message in the speeches made by hon. members on this side of the House—the time is past that we in this country, with all its problems and its dangers, just criticize and ask; the time has arrived that we must ask the Opposition to help us to tell our farmers, especially the younger ones, to roll up their sleeves and to work harder. The Opposition should also work harder in this respect and not just talk about efficiency on the one side. This country offers wonderful opportunities to everybody, no matter what his colour is. The time to “loaf’ is really past. Everybody must work hard now. Even though they may never come into power, the Opposition should at least tell the efficient farmer: “My friend, you have done your duty; you have worked hard; you did not merely let others work for you, but you yourself have worked in order to make a contribution and do something constructive for your country and its future”.

The farmers of South Africa know that, with the Leader of the Opposition being himself a farmer of the highest standing and with the legislative record of the United Party in matters in the interest of the farmer, their interests will never be neglected by us. It was in that spirit that the question of the Land Bank loans was raised— because huge loans were being made to people who could afford to obtain such loans from private financial institutions and that the more needy farmers were thus unable to obtain loans from the Land Bank.

A lot has been said in this debate about the things said during the election. Allegations have been made about unfair statements having been made, but we have had precious little, if any, chapter and verse from members on the Government side in substantiation of such allegations made against the United Party. It is the Government and the Herstigte Nasionale Party that had hard things to say to one another, looked as they were in a bitter struggle. Many things were also said about us, not only during the election, but also during this debate. And it is to these things that I should like to draw attention in view of the big song and dance we have had from Nationalists in this regard. For instance, we have had the allegation that the United Party stands for integration. We in this House are perhaps sophisticated enough to know what is conveyed thereby; but at the same time we know very well that the supporters and canvassers of members opposite, outside use this in a way that is extremely damaging. I say this amounts to a disgraceful allegation. When a similar allegation was thrown against the Nationalists, they reacted by saying that it was an allegation that they stood for “bloedvermenging”. When the allegation of integration and liberalism was thrown at them, they said it was intended to convey it would lead to the bastardisation of the Afrikaner. They stated it and I give chapter and verse for that. Yet they make this allegation against us day in and day out. I say that if we have elements of integration in our policy, then they have practically as many elements of integration in their policy. But let us get this straight. This allegation did not come only during the election or only during this debate, but has formed the cornerstone of the Nationalist Party’s attack on the United Party down the years. Now let us see what this attack means in Nationalists eyes. I have the words of Dawie when he replied to the Herstigte’s allegation against them—

That is how Die Burger dealt with the insinuation and allegation that it was the Nationalist Party who stood for integration. And yet day in and day out the Nationalist Party throws this allegation at us, with, I suggest, in many cases exactly the same intention. Dawie goes on—

Must we say the same about our colleagues opposite? “Lieflike kêrels wat mnr. Vorster rondom hom vergader het!” Must we say that? Therefore I say to hon. members opposite that if they raise a song and dance, as they have done in this debate, they must bear in mind what is the stock-in-trade of Nationalists against my party right throughout the country.

Have you ever heard it said that the Government is doing too much for the Coloureds?

I say that by comparison with this consistent allegation coming from the Nationalist Party anything that could be said in that regard is as nothing.

I want to move on to a matter raised by the Prime Minister in this debate, a matter which is obviously being pressed forward as a propaganda plank into the future. This concerns the 140,000 English-speaking voters who allegedly supported the Government in the election. The first observation one feels inclined to make in this regard is that if in fact 140,000 English-speaking voters voted for the Government, is one representative out of 117 Nationalist members regarded by the Government as being a fair representation for those English-speaking voters? This to my mind is the first indication that the Government themselves do not believe that they actually got that number of English-speaking votes. As a matter of fact, everybody knows that the Government did not get 1,000 English-speaking votes on an average in the 140-odd constituencies contested by them. The Minister of Labour did alter that by speaking of “non-Afrikaans-speaking” voters; also the Prime Minister I think made a fleeting reference to that although he emphasized English-speaking voters.

You are being side-tracked.

No, I am not being side-tracked, because this is a line of propaganda that is going out. If it had been a casual remark, one could have let it go, but this is a line of propaganda that is being put out and therefore I think we ought to get some accuracy in the matter. Sir, I am certain that the hon. the Prime Minister is completely sincere in the matter, but I venture to suggest to him that there is a fallacy in his argument. The hon. the Minister of Labour indicated that this was based on census and statistics figures. He said that the statistics and projections for 1960 show that 52 per cent of South Africa’s Whites are Afrikaans-speaking, while 42 per cent of them are non-Afrikaans-speaking people. This is, however, a very flimsy basis. This overlooks the whole question of citizenship and of aliens. In fact, there are countless aliens in South Africa—far too many. I have checked and I have found from an authoritative document, which I have here, that it is clear that in 1960 there were, in round figures, approximately 150,000 aliens, that is to say White people who are not registered as citizens. 150,000 was five per cent of the total White population at the time. Consequently there is immediately an error of five per cent in the hon. the Prime Minister’s figures. Speaking in approximate terms again, his figures of 58 per cent and 42 per cent must immediately be changed to 58 per cent and 37 per cent. There is a further element of error. Included in the non-Afrikaans-speaking people there are not only English-speaking people, but also people who, for census purposes, are given as “bilingual”. However, without making a further issue of that point, it is perfectly obvious that there is an error of five per cent, which is perhaps equivalent to the very figure of 140,000 which the hon. the Prime Minister mentioned as the number of English-speaking people who voted for him in this election. Therefore, although there are certain unknowns, a much more accurate statement would be to say that if the United Party’s percentage of the Afrikaans-speaking vote was what the hon. the Prime Minister stated it to have been, then not one single non-Afrikaner, including bilingual Afrikaners, could have voted for the Nationalist Party. Thus one can immediately see that if any English-speaking people, any bilingual people, any Greek-speaking people or any German-speaking people voted for the Nationalist Party, as they undoubtedly did, the percentage of Afrikaans-speaking voters, who give their home language as Afrikaans, and who voted for the United Party, must have been far higher than that mentioned by him.

Can you not leave that alone?

No, I could not leave it alone. I shall leave it alone now, but I have explained why it was necessary to deal with this matter. This matter was raised not by one speaker only on the Government side. It was mentioned by several speakers and then taken up by the Press on their side. I think it is only right that we should have clarity in this regard. Let me hasten to say that people who are shown as being bilingual and who are in fact bilingual are surely especially to be praised, with a view to our situation here. Especially praiseworthy is that spirit which seeks to adopt as one’s own not only the culture of one’s home language but also the culture of the other language of our country. If we approach our problems in that spirit, and not with the idea that our spirit should be exclusively the one or the other, surely we will move towards the sort of unity which is essential in the times that lie ahead.

I want to deal now with the times that lie ahead. I could not support more strongly the attitude which has come from both sides of the House that, during the years that lie ahead, there must be the greatest measure of unity and harmony in the first place amongst white people. There must certainly, of course, also be the greatest measure of solidarity with the non-white people. Sir, as we move into the seventies with this new Parliament, we are entering what is undoubtedly a new and more dangerous era for South Africa. It is being brought home to us ever more strongly that there are eyes upon our country, eyes which have power behind them. We have heard this from members of the Government. We can see for ourselves the inroads that are being made by the Communists in our direction. At sea we have been told that the number of submarines which the Russians themselves deploy exceeds the number deployed by America, Britain and France together. We know, in regard to the continent of Africa, that the Chinese Communists are making an important bid for greater influence.

And yet you were against the Communism Act.

We stand second to no one in our condemnation of Communism, but we do not believe that it can be best fought by abandoning the best standards of democracy save in an emergency. We have seen, Sir, before this last period, how the Chinese have made inroads into Tanzania and into Zambia, but now we have seen that they have concluded an agreement for a railway to run from Dar-es-Salaam to Zambia. This obviously represents a great new threat.

Sir, Government members sometimes say that our enemies wish integration upon us here. What they undoubtedly want is to bring about a situation in which they will obtain the land of South Africa, with its riches, or a government subservient to them. There is no question here of minor matters such as integration in the sense of mixed this or mixed that. It is the very land and the riches which they are after. And so where we, as members of this House, face up to this new situation, the policies which people offer must be tested in the light of this background. I would say that we are all agreed that the maximum economic and military strength of South Africa is essential. The hon. the Minister of Defence mentioned in his speech the will to oppose. I would like to ask: When he speaks of the will to oppose, whose will is he referring to? I ask this because the onslaught which is designed to build up against us will require the will not of the Whites only, but of every person in this country, so that we can be prepared to defend our cause and to defend South Africa. It is again in that light that the policies of the parties must be examined. The three policies of the three parties in this House have been stated. Little need be said of the Progressives.

But they have the same policy as yours.

Do you see, Sir? That is the sort of misrepresentation which I fear was indulged in throughout the last election, as well as before and after the election. Indeed, the difference between the two parties is so fundamental that they split from us, and have remained apart ever since. I need to say little about the Progressive Party’s policy. It has minimal support in South Africa from the White voters. When it was being discussed in Rhodesia at the time of the Monckton Commission, the non-White people of Rhodesia were not prepared to support it. Apologists for the Progressives in South Africa thereupon said that the reason why the non-Whites of Rhodesia would not support it was because it was too little, too late. It is therefore clearly too early for the South African electorate, even in the eyes of the Progressives, and it is too late, in their view, for the non-Whites. So far as the Nationalist Party policy is concerned they know that the writing for them is on the wall. It is true that they are being urged not to hesitate, stop or turn back, but in fact they have taken the mental decision and know that this is a dead-end road upon which they are travelling. They say that in fact the slogan has been to some extent “Poor but White” and “Smaller but White”. This approach certainly will not measure up to the demand of maximum strength, military and economic, for South Africa.

In this very debate we had again a basic admission of failure from the Government. If I understood the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development correctly, he said in regard to the reserve areas or homelands that those people will have to look after their development themselves. The note I made reads—

In other words, this whole question of development to ensure the incomes and opportunities for these people in their very own areas was again negated by the attitude of this Government. We have been used to hearing the hon. the Prime Minister say that development will be at the pace that these people can take. But we have had it ever more clearly in this debate that the development of those areas will be left to themselves. Taken together with the statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister again and again during the election, that the Government will ensure full employment of the Bantu peoples until the end of time I say that this involves a complete committal to a Black labour force for South Africa for the rest of time. It is quite plain, again referring to the statement by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, that it is not even a thought in the minds of members opposite that this can be in the Native reserves.

I must move to an end. And in doing so I am glad to say that the third alternative which the people have, is enjoying increasing support. The country is slowly but surely turning to the United Party. In the very heart and brain of Afrikanerdom the United Party made some of its greatest strides in this election. In the Stellenbosch constituency the United Party’s percentage of the votes cast increased by no less than 6 per cent. In the very home of Afrikanerdom of old, wise and young Afrikanerdom, the United Party made great progress. The United Party has faith in the future of this country. The United Party has faith in the White man of this country. It has faith which hon. members opposite do not have, namely that the different race groups at different stages of civilization can live in harmony here. Hon. members opposite in groping to the policy which has led them into a dead end were mesmerized by numbers. They allowed themselves to be forced into the position where their policy rested upon the one man one vote slogan. That approach we totally discard. There was however a time when they were not so blinded. They stood for the limited representation of the Coloured people in this House and in fact they ruled this country for 11 years when the Native peoples had representation in this House, here I should like to quote the words of my Leader as follows—

Mr. Speaker, with that approach not the Whites only, but all the peoples of South Africa, will be prepared to defend South Africa, should these attacks come.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, is a speaker to whom I normally like to listen as he is one of the men on the other side who usually comes forward with logic and a sober analysis of facts. I took pleasure in listening to him in the past. To-day he started his speech with an absurd reference to the idea of miscegenation, which is quite irrelevant. After that he devoted the rest of his time to a detailed analysis of the English-language vote, concluding with a bravado of hollow words devoid of any content whatsoever.

There is one thing I should like to tell the hon. member: The United Party policy which is at present being extolled as the salvation of South Africa, the policy of race federation and the non-white representation in that federation, was rejected as far back as 1926 by the one person of whom the United Party would and will in fact take notice, i.e. General J. C. Smuts. In 1926 it was the idea of General Hertzog, the then Prime Minister, to solve the problem of the Bantu franchise by introducing into Parliament seven white representatives in the House of Assembly to represent the Bantu. To accomplish this, he needed a two-thirds majority. He then approached General Smuts as the Leader of the Opposition to see whether he would be prepared to support him in this matter. I am now going to quote General Smuts’s reply word for word—and I am going to read it in English so that hon. members opposite may understand it better—

This is what General Smuts said in 1926. And to what Bantu did he refer at the time? It was the Bantu who, at that stage, were much less developed than at present. In what kind of world was he speaking at the time? It was a world in which no rights were being demanded for non-Whites. Would General Smuts not have had all the more reason to-day to speak these same words in a modern world with the demands being made by the United Party and the black states at present? This policy to which the United Party is adhering to-day and which that hon. member is so fond of advocating, was rejected in 1926 by the greatest leader he has ever had.

The greatest truth about the seventies that lie ahead, is that the world has become small. As a result of modern means of communication and conveyance the world has become small. It has become small in the sense that peoples and nations who a decade or two ago never rubbed shoulders, are doing so at the moment. As a result of the population increase throughout the world and the population explotion which we have had throughout the world, the world has also become more crowded, so that the foothold for nations is becoming smaller and smaller. Under these circumstances it will, in the seventies, be more difficult for any country in the world to meet these problems, as countries are going to have increasing contact with one another. This applies to all peoples and all nations throughout the world. In this decade which has just started, we too as a small people on the southernmost point of Africa, must struggle along the course we have taken and indicate the direction in which we are moving. It is in this world that we have to gain our foothold, but also play our part as we believe every people with self-respect would play its part.

The main purpose of this debate, which we are going to conclude soon, is from the nature of the case that policy be pitted against policy so that the electorate outside may be placed in a position to judge whether the Opposition has an alternative policy or whether the alternative policy is acceptable as regards the problems of the day and the issues of the day so that they may be seen as an alternative government. In laying down that requirement, one immediately asks oneself what this debate has actually produced as far as the Opposition is concerned. I immediately gain the impression that because of their parliamentary success during the past elections, they have been trying—by way of great bravado and ostentation, words, words, concepts, ideas and terms—to cloud this whole issue, to veil it to such as extent that nobody has penetrated to the real facts and the real issues or offered any alternative solutions to them. I want to mention a few examples. There is one concept the Opposition has tried to bring home in the course of this debate, i.e. that they have an instant solution to every problem. It does not matter what the problem is— “You mention it, we have it”. If this is the problem, then the solution is there, and if that is the problem, then the solution is there, too; one has merely to press the button and the solution is there. It is so easy; like a skater on ice they glide right over and past the problem, with the sole purpose of giving the public outside the impression that these real problems and these real issues with which the Government is struggling in the interests of South Africa, present no problem to them at all; they can quite easily be solved before breakfast and that is the end of it. However, the crux of the matter is that they never get round to saying what their solution is. A vague concept is furnished in regard to the matter. They have an instant solution to everything and they want to pass lightly over it in a superficial manner. I do not want to allow them to get away with that. In the short time I have at my disposal, I want to take a few of these matters and try to subject them to a penetrating examination to see whether they really have the solutions they pretend to have.

To start with, I just want to say that the whole bravado about the success they had at the elections gives one the impression that they are already governing the country. However, the fact of the matter is that Adv. John Vorster is sitting here as Prime Minister with a stronger mandate to implement the policy of separate development than General Smuts ever in his entire career had in this country. He obtained a stronger and a greater majority and a stronger mandate than any United Party Government has ever had, and we shall implement our policy in terms of the mandate of the people, in spite of all the fuss on the other side. Adv. Vorster has received the mandate of the people for that purpose, and he will proceed with it.

Can Vorster trust you?

Could Strauss trust you?

Yes, he could.

Did he? Not for long.

Strauss couldn’t trust you.

I told Strauss to his face that I didn’t fancy him; that is more than you did.

On which side were you then?

Order!

One of the first statements I want to analyze, is this one of the Opposition’s, i.e. that the economic growth rate in South Africa is dropping. They say that economic conditions in South Africa are weakening, the Exchange is weakening, money is becoming scarce, everything is becoming more expensive, and having stated all those facts, they come forward with the simple generality that everything can be blamed on the implementation of the policy of separate development. This is the whole concept, this is the whole screen they are throwing up. In other words, this means that it is being suggested to the public which is beginning to feel the financial pinch here and there, that the whole cause of this is the policy of separate development. Surely, this is not true, and those hon. members ought to know it.

It is the unfairness in the application of the policy which we are referring to.

Fine, the hon. member is referring to the application of the policy. This is not true and, surely, those hon. members know it. After all, this policy has always been the policy of the party, since 1948. This afternoon, in the course of this very debate, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs furnished figures in regard to the phenomenal growth South Africa has experienced since 1948. In spite of the fact that apartheid as such has been applied in South Africa, this growth has taken place.

Where is apartheid being applied?

Apartheid has been applied for the past 20 years. The hon. member should lift the lid off it once again; then he might achieve something.

You are talking about it.

It was under this very same policy that, in spite of a setback in 1960, it was once again possible for us to pick up and improve economic activities to such an extent that we reached new heights in 1969. The facts of the matter are that what is happening at present, is not the result of the application of apartheid. It may be a contributory factor in a certain way, and in a moment I shall tell hon. members why I say that it may be and has to be a contributory factor. It is, however, a fact that what is happening to our economy at the moment, is a world phenomenon. This world phenomenon in the economic sphere comes and goes and varies from country to country from time to time, irrespective of the government in power in that country and irrespective of the policy applied in that country. This is the way it is in America, this is the way it is in England, and this is the way it is in the whole world. Therefore, to make the statement that it is attributable to this, is to make a statement devoid of all truth. They might well say that the Physical Planning Act is only now being applied in full, and that it is to blame. In that case I must say at once— and I must say it in all earnest—that the U.P. is prepared, and now I am testing them against this requirement, to follow the course of least resistance, as has become very apparent. They are following the course of “the solution to every problem is very easy”. They say they will control the inflow, but manpower will not be a problem; they will make it available. In other words—and now I am going further again, on the basis of this yellow booklet published by the United Party—these people will be permitted to come and live in the White areas just like any other person, on a family basis. It will be possible for them to obtain permanence and to obtain rights of ownership. Now I ask this question in all sincerity: What would our cities and towns look like within ten, 12 to 15 years if the United Party’s policy were applied?

Just as they do now.

What would our pavements look like; what would our squares look like? The hon. member says, “Just as they do now”, but I say they will look a 100 times worse, because we would have a mass inflow of non-Whites into our cities.

This was never the case in the past when we were in power.

This will be the case. You see, Mr. Speaker, they are placing the full emphasis on unlimited economic growth at the expense of all other matters. This is what has been said here. I have the Hansard here, and I shall quote what Sir De Villiers Graaff said here. He said, “The maximum growth …”. What is the maximum one could have? [Interjections.] This Parliament has the mandate of the people of South Africa to preserve our white identity at any price, for we want to retain our white identity. This is our right, just as it is the right of any nation. This is the basis of our whole thinking policy and all our actions, and against that background we are not prepared to give free reign to our economic growth so that we may have to make sacrifices in this sphere. We dare not do it. There are no instant solutions to this problem.

I want to touch upon a second matter, i.e. the question of unpopularity. South Africa is unpopular in the outside world as a result of this party and this party’s policy—this is the statement that has been made here. On the other hand, if the United Party with its policy had been in power, so it was said, South Africa would immediately have been more popular. This is the statement that was made here, and they slurred over this as though it were a matter of course. Let us delve a little deeper. I do not want to go back too far, for I do not want to rip open old sores unnecessarily, but it was, after all, not the National Party that found itself in the dock of the U.N. in 1947. At that stage when General Smuts found himself in the dock facing India, there was, after all, no apartheid in South Africa. After all, it was the United Party and General Smuts who formed the government of the country at that time. When pressure was brought to bear by India in the U.N., what did Gen. Smuts and his party do? They returned to South Africa and yielded to the pressure of the U.N. and immediately introduced here in this House an Act providing for the granting of Parliamentary franchise to the Indians. That happened directly afterwards.

That was in 1946.

It was the same time. Very well, if the hon. member’s argument is correct, I shall put it the other way round. If this had allegedly been the case, then surely it means that the U.N. was not satisfied with the representatives. The facts show very clearly that this was not the primary problem. But fortunately the National Party set this matter right in 1948. Rhodesia, before U.D.I., with Sir Edgar Whitehead in charge, was prepared, and openly said that it was prepared, to hand over the government of Rhodesia to the majority population within 15 years. The U.N. and the world outside were not satisfied with that. This was not apartheid, but they voted against Rhodesia’s standpoint in that regard by 72 votes to one.

Who cast the dissentient vote?

South Africa. The policy of Portugal is, after all, not a policy of apartheid. Nevertheless, Portugal is unpopular in the world, even if it does not propagate a policy of apartheid. What makes South Africa unpopular? I am now going to mention three things which make South Africa unpopular according to the information I obtain from my overseas guests who come here. One of the things making us unpopular, is the legislation relating to job reservation. People from abroad cannot understand why we have such legislation. They cannot understand why we have legislation in terms of which we restrict certain people in certain spheres in respect of certain things which they may not do and therefore cannot develop fully. It is being said by the hon. Opposition that, when they come into power, that matter will disappear at once and that they will be popular. They say that they will repeal the legislation relating to job reservation.

Only section 77.

Yes, it is that specific part. Yesterday there was an argument in this House, and I then asked the hon. member for Yeoville whether under their regime it would be possible for a White man to work under the authority of a non-White person. Then the hon. member immediately said that it went without saying that this would not happen. Now I want to ask hon. members opposite in all sincerity whether this is not a disguised form of job reservation. Is it not a disguised form of job reservation when the non-Whites are told that they will never hold posts higher than those of the Whites?

I have here an interesting opinion from the ranks of the hon. member for Yeoville which is a direct contradiction of what he said. This person is another shadow Minister, i.e., the hon. member for Durban (North), who is unfortunately not present now. On 14th November, 1969. when he was asked how the image of South Africa would improve if his party came into power, he said the following to Mr. Lawrence Morgan in an interview with the Natal Mercury: “If you can say to the outside world, ‘Look, if there is not an individual in South Africa, whether he is a Bantu or an Indian, a White or a Coloured who does not have the opportunity to take himself as far as he can go’, then I think you would have made a major break-through with overseas critics”. “As far as he can go”, does this include what the hon. member for Yeoville said, i.e. that it will not be possible for them to have Whites working under them? I now want to put it to hon. members opposite that this quotation which I have read out, is not true according to United Party policy. I want to grant at once that it is true according to the Progressive Party’s policy, for they believe in “merit and merit alone”. According to National Party policy I can state with an open mind that it is possible for everybody to develop “as far as he can go” in his own homeland, fatherland and own territory. But the hon. Opposition, who regard the whole of South Africa as a unit, dare not say that it is possible for everybody to develop “as far as he can go”, for they have permanent restrictions on the non-Whites, politically, economically and in other spheres. In other words, once again we have the position that hon. members opposite have passed lightly over the solution to this problem. They are of the opinion that they will immediately be popular, but they cannot even stand the first test.

I want to touch upon a second matter that makes us unpopular with the outside world, i.e. what is commonly called the so-called “petty apartheid”. People abroad cannot understand why we have separate entrances, why we separate Whites and non-Whites on our trains, why we do not share hotel rooms with non-Whites and why we cannot have Whites and non-Whites sharing the same educational facilities. These are the things that are making us unpopular. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout gave us a definition of “petty apartheid”. He said it included anything that was injurious to a person’s honour. I want to test the hon. member for Bezuidenhout’s policy at once to see whether it will stand the test as far as people abroad are concerned. In the United Party’s yellow booklet on policy it is stated very clearly that the United Party stands for residential, social and educational separation. I shall keep quiet about the rest of it. Is it not injurious to a person’s honour if he wishes to live in Yeoville and is not permitted to do so? Is it not injurious to a person’s honour if he wants to travel by train along with Whites in a first-class passenger coach and is forbidden to do so? Does it not hurt a Coloured person if he wants to enroll his child with an English school here in the Cape and is not permitted to do so? The United Party cannot stand the primary test of petty apartheid, and for that reason they will also be unpopular in the outside world. Judged in terms of this standpoint, the United Party will stand as little chance of being accepted abroad as the National Party does.

I now want to touch upon another matter that makes us unpopular in the outside world, i.e. certain aspects of our sports policy. I want to add at once that this is not an easy problem. With the M.C.C. tour, however, the clear requirement laid down by the demonstrators, was integrated sport in South Africa and nothing else.

This applies to demonstrators only.

Fine, but eventually the demonstrators did after all determine the outcome of the tour. In the final analysis it was the demonstrators who determined whether or not the tour would take place, when the country in question was not strong enough to take action.

The Conservative Party would not have cancelled the tour.

Why have the Conservatives not invited us to come now; after all, they are in power now? Now I want to deal briefly with the Ashe affair, and I do not want to enter into details unnecessarily.

That is Frankie’s speech.

I touch upon this matter purely as an example of what is making us unpopular abroad. Do hon. members opposite not realize why Ashe could not be allowed to come to South Africa. If Ashe as an individual were permitted to take part in our open championships, on what grounds would we then refuse the Coloured champion of Cape Town to take part in those championships?

That is your problem.

I should like to receive a reply from the hon. member. Is it the policy of the United Party that the Coloured champion of South Africa should also take part in our championships? Is the United Party prepared also to allow the Bantu champion of South Africa to take part in the open championships? On what moral grounds would they refuse him, if Ashe were permitted to enter? [Interjections.] I am being very frank now, but hon. members opposite are not prepared to answer me. If integration were demanded in the sphere of sport, would the hon. member be prepared to allow non-Whites on his bowling greens and to admit them to his golf club, etc.? Is the hon. member prepared to do so or is he merely trying to cast a shadow over the whole matter and hoping that they will be popular?

You have just read out our policy of social separation. Why do you ask us?

Hon. members opposite will therefore not be prepared to do so. I am grateful for the hon. member’s reply. The United Party will therefore apply this sports policy in that way, and will therefore not find any favour with the world either, since it would be just as unacceptable to them as is the case with ours. Do not try to delude the world again into believing that you will be popular in this respect.

Let us be honest. There are no practical instant solutions to these problems. Hon. members opposite are of the opinion that their policy would be acceptable to the outside world and that South Africa’s unpopularity would disappear when they come into power. This also includes their Bantu policy in all its facets.

Not with everybody, but with very important people.

I want to say at once that, according to the majority of my informants, the dissatisfaction with South Africa in the outside world exists because a minority here is governing a majority. This dissatisfaction is being aggravated because the minority is white and the majority is non-white. No objection is raised to the fact that in Biafra, for instance, there are minority and majority groups, as everybody there has the same colour of skin. However, the whole world is in revolt because a White minority is ruling over a non-white majority. Now I want to say at once how I see the United Party in this regard. There is one hon. member opposite who is outspoken in regard to this matter and who is convinced that the United Party’s policy will be accepted abroad. He is convinced that it is right and that it will be the solution. Once again it happens to be the same hon. member, in the same interview, i.e. the hon. member for Durban (North). Mr. Morgan asked him the following question—

Yes, I have spoken to overseas critics and have outlined this plan. They accepted it as a reasonably intelligent basis from which to start.

And in what direction is it to develop?— “… from which to start”. There is only one reason why the world would be pleased and satisfied with the Opposition, and that is that they would then know that they are dealing with a party which would yield under pressure and slide further and further. This is the only reason why the Opposition would be more popular than we are, for they have already seen that this will not be possible with this National Party. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has already shown that he is susceptible to pressure.

Your whole policy.

No, do hon. members know what the whole trouble with the Opposition has been during this debate? For the moment they tried to take advantage of a situation found in the country at the moment, and tried to create the impression that they have a solution, an instant solution, to all problems. But if the United Party is tested against the basic problems, one finds that they would fail more miserably abroad than we have, and that they are at the same time wrecking our internal security. This is the tragedy of the hon. Opposition. They are maintaining this superficial flippancy in regard to the matter instead of going deeper into the matter, down to the actual crux of these problems. They remind me of the real holiday spirit in Durban, where children are driving to and fro in small electrically-powered cars and, when they bump into one another, give way and go on driving round and round. They take no notice of one another. They follow the course of least resistance. If any pressure is brought to bear on them, irrespective of what direction it comes from, they simply give way without offering any resistance at all. Oh, well, this is after all the easiest course to follow.

I have only a few minutes left, and in this time there is a last thought I want to submit to hon. members. Ahead of us there is a period of at least ten years during which the National Party will govern. The first five years of regime has already been announced, and after that the next five years will be announced. What is the task that lies ahead of us? For what purpose did we obtain a mandate on 22nd April? In the first place, we must carry through to its conclusion the policy of multi-national development in all its consequences, without watering it down or deviating from it. In the second place, we must develop our economy intelligently and circumspectly, without restricting it unnecessarily, but also without giving up a single principle in respect of the implementation of the major aspects of policy. We dare not exchange our birthright of a white national identity of our own for a mess of material pottage. That is why we should prepare ourselves in the military sphere so that we may defend ourselves against anybody who wants to interfere with our freedom. In the fourth place, we must, in the interests of South Africa, continue to make contact with other countries both inside and outside Africa. However, the inexorable condition remains that, in the words of the hon. the Prime Minister, they must take us as we are. In the fifth place, both domestically and abroad we must continue to furnish more and more information on the true facts of the policy of the country and all its consequences and where it leads to. The implementation of this policy to its logical conclusion, will bring about acceptance and peace domestically as well as abroad. In the sixth place, we must build up the spiritual and more fibre of our nation. Problems and issues cause me no concern. It would in fact cause me concern if, because a love of ease and a devil-may-care attitude, our people should no longer have the will to meet these problems. If that will to fight for one’s ideals is undermined, the greatest injustice is being done to the people. This is precisely the effect the United Party, with this nice solution and the nice policy propagated by it, may and will have on the people outside. In the seventh place, we must manifest a sound attitude to labour. We must guard against the trend of less and less work at higher and higher wages taking root amongst us here. The solution to the economic problems is largely to be found in greater productivity in the labour market.

A nation that is prepared to work hard, does not go under. Post-war Germany and Japan are very clear examples of this. In the eighth place and in conclusion, we must above all retain our faith. I say this even though this might be ridiculed, for this is my unshakable belief. We must above all retain faith in the firm knowledge that we have here a task to perform and a calling to fulfil. We must retain those spiritual anchors despite world trends and modernism which poke fun at them. We must deliberately and purposefully and with deep awareness of our calling respond to the clarion call of the present Prime Minister of the Republic of South Africa, i.e. “Fulfil your calling”, and keeping this in mind we shall come through this decade successfully.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Information, who has just sat down, will forgive me if I do not follow him directly. I have made note of the points he has raised. I hope to deal with them as I deal with those topics in the course of my reply. I would just like to say that I am sorry that he thought it necessary to raise the subject of sport again. After the statement by the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation in this House, I think we are more confused than ever. I believe in the interests of good sports relations, particularly in the interests of success of a multi-racial tour of South Africa at present being conducted in accordance with traditional United Party policy. It would be better to leave this matter until later and to continue the dialogue with the hon. the Prime Minister which we initiated some years ago.

We have had some interesting debates over the last five days. I should like to say immediately how much we on this side of the House welcome the discovery of the new process for enriching uranium and how much we want to associate ourselves with the congratulations to the scientists concerned. Of course, we realize that they probably still have a long way to go to ensure commercial success. So far as we are concerned, I associate myself with the statement by the hon. member for Yeoville that we devoutly hope that our full expectations will be realized in this regard:

The objective of this debate was to draw attention to the fact that in the last election the Government had been warned by the people that improvements in its administration and policies were necessary for government in the interests of the ordinary man. I believe that in the course of the debate important matters concerning the welfare of the ordinary man in the street were spotlighted. I want particularly to congratulate hon. members on my side of the House for their contributions in this regard. If there is one thing that has been evident, it is the extent to which they have thrown the Government speakers into disarray. I think they have further exposed their inability to provide the answers necessary for the welfare of South Africa. In fact, they have made my job easy. It is for me virtually a mopping-up operation this afternoon. The interesting fact that emerges from this debate is that the Government seems a bit chary of admitting that it has had any warning from the public at all. It speaks with great confidence of its mandate. The hon. Minister who has just sat down boasted of the majority they have. They tend to ignore the fact that their position is different from what it was when this House was dissolved. It seems to me that they are still so out of touch with the people that they have failed to read the lesson of the election results or to get the message from the people. They still have not explained why it is that there are nine new members on this side of the House representing constituencies which were represented by members on that side of the House when this Parliament was dissolved. The hon. the Prime Minister has made a number of excuses for the state of affairs which has arisen. One is that a long term in office causes unpopularity. Well it does; it causes the grievance vote to grow. This is the first Nationalist Prime Minister who has failed to overcome these difficulties in the last 22 years. The hon. gentleman has made another excuse, and that is the difficulties and the effect on the voters of the rebellion in his own party. I almost said “the mutiny” in his own party. I should like to challenge him to name one seat which we won in which the Herstigte Nasionale Party vote accounted for our victory.

The third excuse which the hon. the Prime Minister has made is to complain about the methods that weere used in this election and to point an accusing finger at this side of the House. What was he criticizing? Was he criticizing the fact that we defended the right of a minority group, the Herstigte Nasionale Party, to hold orderly meetings when it is the duty of the Government to maintain law and order in South Africa? I see the hon. Chief Whip shaking his head. Let me tell him that I know what happened in his constituency when the Herstigte Nasionale Party tried to hold a meeting there. Must the complaints the hon. the Prime Minister made be ascribed to the exposure of an hon. Minister’s Land Bank loan? I have here the report of the Land Bank of February of this year. From this report it is perfectly clear that the Land Bank itself seems to be in a measure of confusion. The report states—

They say that they are waiting for the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Fiscal and Monetary Policy in South Africa and the Commission of Inquiry into Agriculture. What is their policy? That is the one thing we do not know yet. The hon. the Prime Minister in the course of his speech made mention of certain articles in the newspapers in which there was criticism of the United Party. He referred us to two such articles. Despite all my efforts I have been unable to obtain the article concerning Senator Louw, but I have got the other one concerning Mr. Flip Myburgh.

The newspaper was The Friend and I mentioned the date.

Unfortunately I could not obtain it. I telexed for it but I could not get it.

I can let you have it now.

I would be grateful for it. I will deal with that article some other time as we have agreed, but I will deal with this article now. The hon. the Prime Minister complains about what was said by the particular candidate. Does he not know that the candidate was repudiated by the Chairman of the United Party here in the Cape Province and that that candidate went to a meeting in Caledon where he withdrew his implications and said that he stood by United Party policy? The Prime Minister nevertheless comes to this House and makes a complaint about that statement.

Then we had an attack on me from the hon. the Minister of Community Development. He made a most extraordinary statement. He proceeded to read a passage which he said is in inverted commas. I have at last found the passage and it is not in inverted commas.

Of course it is in inverted commas.

I have that passage here and it is not in inverted commas.

Read it and say when the inverted commas start.

It reads as follows—

Rumours about Nationalist politicans “and how they make money” are spreading throughout South Africa like a veld fire.

That is not what I said.

There you are wrong.

That is not what I said; that is the comment of the newspaper. It goes on—

The hon. the Minister said that the whole passage was in inverted commas. Now he throws his hands up.

Who did you have in mind when you said that which is in inverted commas? Was it Nationalist politicans or not?

I never mentioned the words “Nationalist politicans”.

Are you not ashamed of yourself?

No, you should be ashamed of yourself. You used this point in the House about what I am alleged to have said but you misread the report.

Who then are the people who are making money?

I spoke of the concern that is general.

Concern about whom?

Does that hon. Minister now know of the article that appeared in News Check, a Nationalist magazine? The magazine News Check recently published a lengthy report on the subject of alleged corruption. It said—

Do you believe that?

That is a Nationalist magazine.

It is not a Nationalist magazine.

It has never supported us.

Here is a second example. Here is a statement by Blyth Thompson just after he had resigned from the Nationalist Party. Blyth Thompson said—

I spoke at a public meeting and at that meeting I criticized the hon. the Prime Minister for his attitude to a questioner, Mr. Van Vuuren. I said that in view of the concern over what is alleged to be happening, I deprecated the fact that the Prime Minister did not take the opportunity to dispel those rumours. That is exactly what I said. Then this hon. Minister attacks me for using bad tactics in the election, while I was trying to give the hon. the Prime Minister a way out.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition a question? Does he know of one single person in this House who is guilty of any of those practices which he has read out?

Mr. Speaker, I do not know of a single such person in this House. If I did I would bring the matter to the notice of this House and the Prime Minister as I am going to do in the case of a certain other matter very shortly.

Yet you make insinuations outside.

I criticized the hon. the Prime Minister for not taking an opportunity to dispel the concern that is general on this subject, and what do I get for it? Next time I am not going to criticize him for not dispelling it. I am going to join in with the rumour mongers if that is what he wants. [Interjections.] The man who squeals the loudest on that side of the House, is the man responsible for this Black Prime Minister story, with which he went round South Africa. Nobody on that side of the House believes it except that hon. gentleman. This is the man who dares to come and accuse us of poor election practices! And then, Sir, what else is the hon. the Prime Minister complaining of? Is he complaining, as he did, that according to him we took the Herstigte Nasionale Party under our wing? [Interjections.] Does the hon. member remember a debate in this House when finally the hon. the Minister of Transport repudiated Dr. Hertzog? And would he ever have been repudiated had I not attacked the hon. the Prime Minister? [Interjections.]

Do you remember what I read out in the House during that debate?

I remember the debate which took place in this House very well. Nobody can say I was protecting Dr. Hertzog.

I read out a sworn statement where there was cooperation on your part. [Interjections.]

The hon. gentleman knows it was repudiated.

I do not know that it was repudiated.

What a tissue of nonsense by hon. members on that side of the House to find excuses for the fact that they are losing favour with the public of South Africa! No wonder the hon. the Prime Minister said: “Oh, you gained ground because the English Press fought so hard for you”. And the Afrikaans Press, Sir? They fight for the hon. the Prime Minister at every election, and Radio South Africa as well; but then he squeals because the English Press fought for the United Party. What did he expect them to fight for, I wonder? Most of them are perfectly sensible newspapers. Anyway, who are they to talk about poor election practices after the behaviour of audience after audience of Nationalist Party supporters at H.N.P. meetings and the shortage they caused in the tomato market and the egg market? It was some of the most shocking behaviour we have ever seen in South Africa, but they come and complain! Sir, there was some extraordinary behaviour in this Parliament last session, as you yourself remarked. [Interjections.] I can go on, Sir. Do you know, Sir, what this whole thing sounds like to me? The hon. the Prime Minister, knowing how badly his own people have behaved, tried to get in quickly and accuse the other side.

But in the course of the debate we found no adequate explanations given at all for the administrative blunders of the past and no likelihood at all that they will be discontinued in the future. In fact, the pre-election frolic of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is still remembered, and the Prime Minister never defended him. [Interjection.] Is it conceded that that was a mistake? It certainly cost them votes. Then we have the position of the present Minister of Health and of Mines. He has been given an opportunity in this House to deal with certain allegations made against him. First of all, there is a complete denial of his story by Die Beeld and a complete denial by him of Die Beeld’s story. I leave it to them to settle this thing. It would be very interesting to see what is written in Die Beeld in its next series of articles. I know the editor has not got parliamentary privilege, but I think it will be quite interesting. But that is neither here nor there. It enables us to say to the public that they need not believe Die Beeld because Carel de Wet says it lies, and that is quite useful to us. He defended himself here, but we could not persuade him to tell us what the threat was he made to Mr. Oppenheimer. I have tried to obtain reports of what he is alleged to have said. This is one, the first one—

I should like to know whether he had the approval of the hon. the Prime Minister when he made that statement. You see, Sir, the hon. gentleman had the opportunity to explain in this House what he said, but he deliberately refrained from telling us. The next one is this, and the heading here is: “De Wet’s Second Attack”, and it reads as follows—

Did that carry the approval of the Prime Minister? We should like to know. These applications were going to be treated with the greatest suspicion unless Mr. Oppenheimer stated that he would help to assist in the promotion of border industries and the decentralization of African workers. Then he goes on and outlines certain other matters and says his standpoint is not based on any desire to discriminate against Mr. Oppenheimer, but was in the interest of our fatherland. I think we on this side of the House would like to know whether these threats had the approval of the Government, and is this the way industrialists who happen to disagree with Government policy are going to be treated? This is a very serious thing for industry in South Africa. If it does not have the approval of the hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet, can he still retain that Minister in his Cabinet?

Then there is a third matter in this regard. There was a third allegation raised in this House concerning the hon. gentleman. That has to do with what has come to be known as the Marendaz case. What was interesting here is that the hon. gentleman in this House at no time denied that he was a director, but we know that Marendaz was prosecuted originally for alleging that the hon. gentleman was a director while he was not. Somebody must have given the police or the public prosecutor that information, and in the nature of things the conclusion that was drawn by a speaker on this side of the House, and a conclusion that it seems difficult to avoid, is that the hon. gentleman gave that information himself. Then his letter of resignation was produced, and we have had no explanation at all, despite the hon. gentleman having been given full opportunity, of this situation. Sir, so one is faced with the fact that there is a second matter that has not been explained. And then there is the third matter of the deal done with Marendaz, of which the hon. gentleman says he knew nothing. He was away overseas. He says it was done on behalf of the Government through the State Attorney at the time. Sir, can the State Attorney give an indemnity of that kind concerning deportation without the instructions of his principal, who was in that case a Minister in the Cabinet? He says he did it on the authority of the Minister.

Yes, I take full responsibility for it. You can raise it under my Vote if you so wish.

Well, I will raise it under the hon. gentleman’s Vote. But before I leave this matter, here is another case concerning the hon. the Minister of Health where his word must be called in doubt in the absence of an adequate explanation. We are faced with the fact that in this House it has always been the custom to accept the word of an hon. member and more particularly to accept the word of a Cabinet Minister, and I think it would be a great pity if our public life reached the stage where that was no longer the accepted practice in South Africa. But I must warn the Prime Minister that unless there is a satisfactory explanation of this matter, it is going to be very difficult for that practice to continue.

I said, Sir, that there was no adequate explanation given for certain administrative blunders in the past but it was also evident from this debate that the Government is still clearly out of touch with the people. I think Langlaagte must have been the most expensive by-election in our history. I think the Government has failed to realize that we have a mature electorate, a much more mature electorate than we had …

That is why they elected us.

That is why they elected the hon. gentleman with a smaller majority. I believe that that more mature electorate wishes to move into the second half of the 20th century and it wants the sort of facilities that it expects in the second half of the 20th century. I think it wants adequate housing. It is frustrating to have a Minister of Community Development telling us that there is no shortage of housing. I think it wants protection against the high cost of medicines and it is faced with a Government that is adamant in not producing the necessary schemes. I think it wants more security for our old folk who find no response from the Government. I think it wants television and not commissions.

Without knowing what it is going to cost.

I think the public wants a more compassionate society in their own interests as well as other people’s, and I think they resent being held back by the Government’s archaic view that concern or mercy for others undermines the fibre of our people. Sir, the Government also does not realize that the public to-day wants real national unity and not the sort of national unity spoken of by the Minister of Transport, which seems to be the best that the Government can offer. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that in the course of his speech he appealed to me to support him in an appeal to the business men of South Africa to ensure that Where employees of their firms deal with the public they are capable of serving members of the public in their own language. I heartily endorse that.

Also as far as M.E.C.’s are concerned?

I hope that in selecting candidates and making appointments, the hon. the Prime Minister will ensure that his people also are bilingual. One is faced with the fact that this is not an easy matter. I think we have to be both reasonable and patient. I think we have to make special allowance for older people who find it difficult to learn the other language, whichever one it may be, and also for new arrivals in South Africa.

I put a question to you about a M.E.C. Will you reply to that?

Sir, I say again that with older people and people who are immigrants we have to be patient. There are so many gentlemen on that side of the House who boast about their bilingualism but when one tests it out, it is found to be very lacking.

They can all understand and speak English as well as Afrikaans.

What about your side; what about the hon. member for Pinetown?

The hon. member for Pinetown has made a speech in this House in Afrikaans on more than one occasion.

And your M.E.C. in Natal?

I want to say that although we are agreed on the question of national unity, there are fundamental differences between us in this sphere and what is meant by it. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs complained this afternoon that there was talk in the election of an English-speaking section and an Afrikaans-speaking section. There was, Sir. For how long has this Nationalist Party not been talking of “Afrikaner-eenheid”? Does it lie in their mouth to talk of things of that kind? Sir, I have said that there are differences between us. National unity is as old as the party itself as far as this side of the House is concerned; we have lived it for over 60 years. If you look at our congresses, and our public meetings, the show windows of the party, what do you find? You find English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people, different language groups, unconscious of the language the other speaks and very conscious of their desire to serve South Africa and of their loyalty towards South Africa. We have never judged a man on whether he is Afrikaans or English speaking. We have judged him on his services to South Africa and his work for South Africa. Not only has there always been with us a sense of South African unity based on the equality of the two sections of the community but it has been coupled also with the recognition and appreciation by either section of the distinctive cultural heritage of the other. Sir, what is the position when you talk of national unity in the Nationalist Party? I know the hon. the Prime Minister talks of it and states his terms. His party has a long history when it comes to national unity. Some of the difficulties with which he is faced has been raised in this House. The membership form in the Transvaal looks different in English from what it is in Afrikaans. Then there is the attitude of his party towards membership by people of the Jewish faith and the sort of thing that has been said concerning the history of his party and what led Gen. Hertzog to walk out of the Nationalist Party congress in the Free State.

Rather tell us what happened to Mr. Strauss.

He was a sick man.

Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister has put a fair question. He knows very well why Mr. Strauss left. Why does he try to drag this into a discussion on national unity? This shows an irresponsibility that we do not expect from the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister asks us to judge him on his deeds when it comes to national unity, let us see how many English-speaking people he has on that side of the House representing those 140,000 English speakers who, according to him, voted for him; let us see how many he has in the Senate and how many there were amongst his candidates in the last election. How many Afrikaans speakers were there amongst my candidates in the last election? Over 60 per cent! Sir, I believe there are differences between us which are of a fundamental nature. I think one of the first is that where we emphasize South African patriotism and seek points of agreement, they emphasize Afrikaner nationalism and seek points of difference.

Secondly, where they emphasize the preservation of Afrikaner identity, and even place it above national unity, we are prepared to accept the traditions, the language and the cultural treasures of both sections as our own. Thirdly, where they want national unity because they fear that they are not strong enough to stand alone, we want national unity because of our love for and our trust in our fellow South Africans. I believe fourthly that where they and the hon. the Prime Minister want co-operation on terms, we live out, and have through the years lived out, true South Africanism in the United Party. That South Africanism is something which I believe the public wants at the present time.

Sir, there is something else which was glossed over when the reasons which cause the Government’s setback were dealt with. That I think was the worry in the minds and hearts of many South Africans about South Africa’s isolation in the world to-day. The Government does not realize to what extent people are worried about that isolation. The reply of the hon. the Prime Minister was a stock reply. I think his reply makes it so evident that he does not understand the situation. He says that we have to-day 65 diplomatic contacts, in other words that we exchange diplomats with 65 countries, as against 19 in the past. That is true. We have diplomatic relations with all sorts of people when it suits us, but how many of those with whom we have diplomatic relations support us at the United Nations and in the difficulties with which we are faced in other parts of the world?

How many supported us in 1946 and 1947?

I believe that, of the 19 with whom we had diplomatic relations, a very high percentage indeed supported us.

How many supported General Smuts at U.N.?

Far more, I believe, than are supporting the Government to-day, with twice the number of people attending. Sir, let us continue. The hon. the Prime Minister talks about contacts in the scientific field. He talks about contacts in the economic field. Of course, many people trade with Communist Russia, but that does not mean that they are friends. Many people trade with Communist China, but that does not mean that they are friendly. The hon. gentleman admits to sports deterioration. That I hope we shall debate on another occasion, but where is the warm friendship for South Africa that we had in so many countries of the world round about the year 1948?

As long as they could use us in the war … [Interjections.]

Sir, here is complete evidence of the hon. the Prime Minister’s misunderstanding of the whole situation. What we had at that time was a warm friendship from a large number of nations who appreciated South Africa, appreciated what we had done, appreciated her standards, and stood by her in all her difficulties.

Hon. members opposite are inclined to say to-day: “How would you fare better?” The hon. the Minister of Information is one of them. I believe that we could fare better. I believe that we have a different philosophy from that of this Government. I believe that the outside world knows it. Despite the fact that we have said that we would decide our own policies for ourselves, and allow no interference with our internal policies, and despite the great concession Dr. Verwoerd made when he announced the apartheid policy in this House —he said it was a concession to overseas pressure—I believe that we would get more support in the outside world than this Government will.

It is no good just believing it. You must prove it.

The hon. gentleman says that I must prove it. Very good, Sir. Let us prove it. Just put us in power. [Interjections.]

Sir, I believe that this debate has shown something else. It has shown that there is still no adequate answer in regard to race relations. Apartheid, as applied by this Government, is still a failure. They have no new vision. They have no new solution, and their lack of progress to-day shows that the policy is in ruins about their ears. I have been proved right. It is becoming more and more obvious. To-day intellectuals in the universities—some of them former supporters of the Nationalist Party —are advising the hon. the Prime Minister that the policy is incapable of fulfilment and that he must settle for limited objectives.

You said that ten years ago.

Yes, and the movement is even stronger now. The trouble with this policy is that it is based on a theory which is belied the moment it is applied to the Cape Coloured people and to the Indian population.

Tell us something about your betrayal of the Coloured people.

Mr. Speaker, I will come to the hon. the Minister in a moment. He has a fixation with which I can cope very easily. The theory at the moment is that this is a multi-nation and not a multi-racial state, and that we should, therefore, develop into separate nation states. The Prime Minister will agree that that is fair? The moment you apply that to the Cape Coloured people, the policy breaks down. This is the whole flaw in the argument of the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs. He told us that, with our philosophy and with our policy for the Bantu people which is considerably fairer than his policy for the Coloured people, we should expect a revolution in South Africa. Had we been in power, he says, there would have been a revolution, because of the false philosophy underlying the policy. Why is there not a revolution in respect of the Coloured people of South Africa, when the policy he is applying to them is very similar to the policy we want to apply to the Bantu? The whole argument falls down, Sir. It ceases to hold water.

The hon. the Prime Minister also sought to criticize me for drawing his attention to the fact that the area of land available to the Bantu is limited and that the areas are not divided in proportion to the numbers. The hon. gentleman is sensitive about this situation. He tried to smear me with a communist taint for reminding him of this. I drew his attention to it very deliberately because I want to draw his attention to the magnitude of the task before him if his policy is ever going to succeed. This task is that he has to develop one-seventh of the land so that it can carry a decent living standard for more than three-fifths of the population. If he will take the trouble to read my Hansard, he will see that I said: If you are not prepared to give more land, then you must be prepared to develop it. Now the hon. gentleman turns around and says it is an excuse. What has been done in this direction in the last 16 years? What is going to be done in this new “dinamiese derde dekade”? I think the question we want answered from the hon. the Prime Minister is: Is he prepared to call on his people to make the necessary sacrifices to make this policy a reality, or is it going to continue as sterile as during the last two decades? I think the question the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government have to answer is: Will it be made possible for the Bantu people to live decently and with self-respect, as nations in the homelands which they have, or will those homelands be mere symbols with no reality attached to them? Will the majority of the Bantu people still have to work in the White areas, whether in Johannesburg or in nearby Pinetown in order to live? Will this notion, this philosophy, this policy, become a reality or will it remain a figment of the Government’s imagination, and an excuse for applying in many cases repressive measures on the Bantu outside their own areas? I think that most thinking South Africans have realized that this policy has failed. I believe that the only way the Government can restore the position is by accepting the challenges that I have put before them this afternoon, and indicating in practice that they can carry out that policy. I do not believe that they have the courage or the determination to do it.

We have both.

The hon. gentleman says they have both. What have the replies of the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development been so far? They did not deal with the points I have raised in my speech, namely how to make the territories viable. They did not indicate where they were establishing industries in the reserves which would give sufficient work for the people who were living there; they did not deal with the problem of education of the Bantu. They did not deal with the rising living standards. The allegations I made in this House concerning the Bantu population in Sekhukhuneland were challenged by that talkative hon. member, but were never denied by the hon. the Minister. It is vitally important to create the infrastructure for industrial development. The reply so far by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has been words, words and no realistic approach. The emphasis is always on political development with no economic foundation on which political institutions could rest firmly and safely. The danger is that unless they can rest on firm economic bases those political institutions become the instruments of agitators and communism. What has the hon. the Prime Minister told us? He is boasting of the success of his Government, according to him, in having kept another 1½ million Bantu in the Reserves employed in border industries. Whether one accepts those figures or not, the fact of the matter is that all he is telling us is that there are an additional 1½ million Bantu dependent on White industry and that we are dependent on that labour. According to him we cannot get along without them.

So what?

So, it merely means that border industries is another example of integration in the economic sphere. It is not bringing about separation which must be brought about if this policy is ever to be made a reality. Now the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is talking of consolidation again. The former Prime Minister used to talk about that. Then he heard of our federation policy and, appreciating the difficulties with which he was faced, he said consolidation was not necessary. Now the hon. the Minister is once again indicating that he is moving in the direction of consolidation. I believe that by saying that he has created uncertainty through large areas in South Africa. I should like to warn him now that we shall demand details on his Vote of what he is going to consolidate with what and what the boundaries of those areas are going to be. For years we have never had satisfaction on this subject. We thought we were reaching a stage where the position was more or less quiescent. Now there comes this statement which will set a large number of people, Whites and non-Whites, throughout South Africa by the ears. We had one other attempt to justify this policy which also came from the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs. He says that overseas apartheid has led to peace. Has it led to peace between India and Pakistan? Has it led to peace between Israel and the Arab states in the Middle East? Then he turns around and says where is United Party policy applied? These are the people who tell us every day in South Africa that our problem is sui generis and that we have to find an answer they have nowhere else in the world. I believe the dialogue to-day should be: What other policy can we apply? Not how this policy which has been proved to be impractical can be applied, but what other policy can be applied which will bring satisfaction and security to everyone in South Africa. I suggest that the Government should wake up from its ideological dreams and face up to realities. The hon. the Minister of Information discards the policy of the United Party. He says that General Smuts spoke against it in this House in 1926 and emphasized the dangers of separate representatives for the Bantu in this House. Why did he omit to tell this House that General Smuts voted exactly for that policy in 1936? [Interjections.] Yes, he found it was the best answer he could give. We are in this position. If the Government had the courage to look at its own philosophy in respect of the Coloured people and its own philosophy in respect of the Indian people and changed it a little to adapt it to our philosophy, they would have an answer for the Bantu people of South Africa which would not only give security but would give higher living standards and safety for South Africa for many generations to come.

You are living in a fool’s paradise.

Mr. Speaker, I can return the compliment to the hon. the Minister. I do not think we will get anywhere by shouting remarks of that kind across the floor of the House.

I should like to raise one more point. The other fact that has been apparent from this debate is that the extent to which the economy is slowing down and the extent to which it is being mismanaged is apparently not even appreciated by hon. members opposite. Their whole thinking is putting the economy into a straitjacket with the hon. the Minister of Finance the prisoner of the hon. the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Labour the prisoner of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development believes that the labour shortage is due to prosperity and prosperity is due to apartheid. I base my appeal for a higher rate of growth in the economy not only on a desire for better living standards but also on the dangers to our security of being economically weak. Both the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Defence have accepted the importance of economic growth for our security in the military sphere though they tend to stress the moral fibre of the people as being an important element. I accept that. However they cannot deny that without economic strength, no matter what our moral fibre, we will never be able to stand up to countries with sophisticated weapons. The dangers with which we are faced are real. The hon. the Minister of Defence has emphasized them again. I remember emphasizing them myself some seven or eight years ago when opening a conference of the United Party in the Free State and dealing with the dangers of terrorist infiltration through Rhodesia from Mozambique and from the areas that might be set free at that time.

The hon. the Prime Minister seems satisfied for South Africa to be only a “middelslagmoondheid”, to be about 15th in the growth rate stakes despite our enormous natural resources and despite the vast labour reservoir have. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs pats himself and the Government on the back and compares the growth rate under this Government with the growth rate of South Africa during the war years when an enormous portion of our manpower was up North fighting for his safety. We on this side of the House are much more ambitious than that. We cannot see why South Africa should not be amongst the top two or three nations of the world when it comes to speed of economic growth. I believe that that would lead not only to greater security for us, but it would also lead to higher living standards and better race relations. As I expected in the debate, doubts were thrown from certain hon. members opposite on the availability of the necessary capital for that improved rate of growth. I think I anticipated that argument and indicated that where we went for a greater rate of growth, capital from overseas would be attracted more easily because it would gain a greater return. We also had the old story of the difficulties of the balance of payments. It has been shown very clearly that those countries which have grown fast had the best balance of payments position because their exports grew so rapidly. Instead of sharing this vision and reaching out for it, Government speakers seemed obsessed with shipwrecking the whole idea by emphasizing the labour problems, particularly the position of the white workers. The hon. the Minister of Labour, the man who virtually holds the life and death of the economy in his hands, dares to be frivolous about it. He said—

Of course, Sir, he is in a difficult position. His whole portfolio is literally bound hand and foot by the policies of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. I believe that if he is a man he is going to fight for his own freedom. Surely he has some regard for the pressures and the interests of commerce and industry in South Africa. Shortage of labour is their problem. But, Sir, it is an artificial creation of this Government’s ideological fantasies. The hon. the Minister of Labour never speaks up for commerce and industry and the white workers employed by them who could enjoy very much higher standards of living if he would take a more realistic and enlightened approach to this problem. I believe that he would be doing himself less than justice if he does not fully acquaint himself with the labour conditions prevailing in industry to-day. Let him enquire into the rates of turnover, the degree of absenteeism, the declining ratio of permanent workers in any industry, and the paralysing uncertainty with regard to the availability of labour. Let him enquire, too, into the consequences of these problems, such as factories closing down, the dying away of incentives, the unwillingness of businessmen to get themselves involved in the strangulating tangle of red tape and restrictions and the prospect in fact of a chaotic and mortally sick economy.

Now, are we likely to endanger the white worker by having a more rapid rate of economic growth? If the hon. the Minister wants to talk practical politics about English and Afrikaans votes, let him accept the practicability of the labour issue also. Nothing is going to protect the white worker if things go wrong with the economy. If we have depressions, breakdowns and a serious slowing-up, then he is going to have his hands full as never before. Let me say that prosperity could lead to greater immigration and a greater inflow of labour from overseas. But a faster growth will require better education of both White and non-White. What do we have from the hon. the Prime Minister? He supplied a lot of figures about university and vocational training.

In reply to your accusation.

Yes, I still make that accusation. It was the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut who said that we are 25 years behind the times as far as education is concerned. We are still spending on education about half as much, proportionate to our gross national income, as most of the intensely industrialized countries in the world. Let me tell the hon. the Prime Minister also that he made no mention of Bantu education, which remains Operation Bootstrap and may be one of the most difficult things with which he will have to deal in the future. But, even if those things were put right, there would still be the uncertainty which would remain due to Government ideological policies, the Physical Planning Act of which the hon. the Minister of Information is so conscious, the Bantu Laws Act as it is sought to be applied by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, and the existence of the job reservation provisions. If we speed up economic growth, a number of lower-paid jobs now reserved for Whites will of course have to be done by non-Whites. This is happening now. The great bulk of the Whites replaced would move to yet higher-paid jobs for which they would have to be prepared by proper industrial training schemes. When in a wealthy economy Whites are replaced by non-Whites, those few who for personal reasons such as age or health, etc., cannot be employed in better paid jobs, could be protected by adequate measures. This is an evolutionary process. It can, however, involve a vertical shifting or adaptation of the colour bar. That has been going on for some time. In this debate the two heroes resisting it were the hon. the Minister of Labour, who admits that job reservation only applies to 2 per cent of the white workers in South Africa …

Statutorily.

Yes, statutorily. I accept that. But the hon. the Minister is allowing non-Whites to do white work in border industries without the safeguard of the rate for the job to an extent never seen before in our history. All he wants to know is whether we will allow Whites to work under non-Whites. The answer is no, just as little as he would.

Will you write that in your little booklet?

It is taken for granted. It is only someone with a mind as suspicious as that of the Minister who would have a suspicion of that kind.

Will you legislate against it?

The hon. the Prime Minister asks whether we will legislate against it. How are we doing it to-day? How is the hon. the Minister doing it in the Railways? How is it happening in the Police Force and in the Defence Force? How is the Department of Labour doing it administratively throughout South Africa? How did they do it under the old United Party Government?

The other hero concerned was the hon. the Minister of Transport. He is a man who has thrown open more white jobs to non-Whites than any other employer in South Africa. He comes along with what is now his annual challenge by asking whether we will throw open the doors to non-Whites in all spheres of employment, even if the trade unions do not agree with it. This time he is supported by some excerpts from a speech made by me in 1963. It was a good speech. Unfortunately it was not well reported, because after the passage which the Minister quoted there were certain other passages in that speech which were very important. I accept that the hon. the Minister did not know about it. They were not reported in the Press and I accept that the hon. the Minister did not know about it. I said this—

I want you to give a straight answer. That is all.

I could not understand the hon. the Minister’s obsession, but I do now, because I have found a speech he made in 1943. There he dealt with collective bargaining and the powers of the trade unions. This is what he said …

Now you are going back to 1066.

I quote—

Which he stood for and which I presume he still has at the back of his mind—

This is the hon. the Minister who has boasted in this House that he had thrown open white jobs to non-Whites despite the resistance of the trade unions. Now, the hon. the Minister wants to know how we will do it. As far as we are concerned, we have stated categorically that we stand by the traditional colour bar in South Africa which makes provision for the customary colour bar, as it is known, and includes the Mines and Works Act and the Railways Act. We also indicated that we believed

There is no colour bar under the provisions of the Railways Act.

Well, then, the Railway practice. In any event, so far as it is effected. We said that we believed that there must be adaptation of labour patterns. We believe this should be done as a result of consultation between the employers and the employees’ organizations. In this booklet we have set out what guarantees we believe should be given to the workers. The hon. the Minister has read them and he is well aware of them. He is trying to suggest that those guarantees already exist in the Railways today. Of course, they do not because that hon. Minister is prepared to override the trade unions and because whereas employment is protected by law on the Railways it is not protected at real wages equivalent to what they are getting at the present time and the Minister knows it. In so far as there have been changes and non-Whites have done the work of Whites there is no guarantee by this hon. gentleman that the rate for the job will apply.

You have got it entirely wrong; but you can raise it again in the Railway debate. Then I shall reply to it; I cannot do it now across the floor of the House.

I believe that what the hon. the Minister should be striving for is what I have seen reported as being the basis of the situation in Japan. I quote—

But you have not replied to my question. Will you apply your policy? In other words will you have unrestricted employment of non-Whites even if the trade unions do not agree? That is all I want to know say yes or no.

I have never been prepared to throw white jobs open to non-Whites without the agreement of the trade unions and the hon. the Minister knows it. That is why I am suggesting to him that he should follow the Japanese policy. [Interjections.] I know why the hon. the Minister is asking this question. He is always asking this question because he wants to say to the people on the Railways: “It will not help you to have a United Party government, they will bully you just the same as I am doing”. That is what he wants to do. It is so transparent. Let me tell him that we will work by negotiation and consultation and we will not use the big stick the way this Minister is doing.

Let me tell him something else. Shortage of labour, skilled or otherwise, should not be a problem in South Africa. Our abundant labour supply should be one of our greatest assets and should be a source of strength alongside that of our natural resources which should enable us to equal the growth of any other country in the world. In contrast to the sterile attitude of this Government I have read an address given on marketing in South Africa and which, I am sure, will interest the hon. the Prime Minister. It was given by Mr. Jan Marais, the chairman of Trust Bank. This is what he said—

It is exactly what is happening to-day. He goes on—

That is the forecast of one of the most successful economists in the country at the present time. This Government seems to be doomed under these policies of the hon. the Prime Minister to remain, at best, a second-rate power, unable to keep up with the foremost runners in development in the world, with no hope of attaining the vision which other policies could make a reality. What hope have we of revitalizing the economy under these policies? What hope of possible planning for growth and what hope of avoiding ideological blunders, like that which this hon. Minister committed when he and his Government went back on the promise to the Coloured people that they would not remove their representatives from the House of Parliament? What hope of an outward-going approach to race relations at home based on confidence which they will not have in that hon. gentleman? What hope of the development of the quality of our people and increasing harmony between them? What hope of becoming a more compassionate society with a fairer deal for everyone? I have been in this House for some time, but I have never known a Government, after a general election, to show so great an air of decay as the present Government. They seem to me to be a spent force. It may take a little time for the public to get the wind of the odour of decay that is about them, but their demise is as certain as, let us say, the extinction of the quagga. There are still a few querulous old bulls sitting in the front bench. They are left in the herd and there will no doubt be a lot of noise and bluster from them, but they are really a dwindling herd. One of man’s attributes has been his ability to adapt himself to changing circumstances. This Nationalist Party is fighting a losing battle so long as they cling to outmoded and almost instinctive responses in the face of changes. Without doubt, I think the crisis point has been reached in the history of the Nationalist Party. Those of them who have greater insight know it. What is more, is that they know that it is only a question of time before South Africa will be rid of this Government and saved from its disastrous policies.