Mr. Chairman, I move—

That the further consideration of Revenue Vote No. 36, Loan Vote K and S.W.A. Vote No. 18 stand over until after Revenue Vote No. 4 has been disposed of.

Agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 4.—“Prime Minister”, R3,149,000:

Mr. Chairman, I am just rising to my feet, in the first place, to offer my formal apologies for the fact that I have, as a result of circumstances over which I unfortunately had no control, been absent for many weeks from the business of this House. Since this has happened, I just want to point out that it may perhaps be to the advantage of Parliamentary business if it becomes the practice that the Vote of the Prime Minister be discussed as the last Vote. The idea occurred to me that if this is done, it will facilitate discussions in so far as we are dealing, under the Vote of the Prime Minister, with a general debate. If the Prime Minister’s Vote is put at the end, it will afford both sides of the House a good opportunity again to broach matters which were not adequately elucidated during the discussion of the Votes of the relevant Ministers. Hon. members can then state their standpoints on those matters freely in a debate in which they would otherwise not have had the opportunity to do so. This is an idea which occurred to me after the position arose that we are now compelled to discuss the Prime Minister’s Vote almost last of all.

I am also rising, in the second place, to express my appreciation to the hon. the Leader of the House, who in my absence not only had to fulfil his own manifold duties, but also had for several weeks to take my duties on his shoulders as well. Not only do I want to thank him for having done this, but I also want to thank him for having done it with distinction.

In my absence and while this House was in session, something happened in regard to which I want to join issue with my friend the Leader of the Opposition. He did something which I could not believe a Leader of the Opposition would do while the House was in session. This is that while this House was in session and there was therefore ample opportunity to discuss matters, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition saw fit, by way of a statement made outside the House, not only to demand the resignation of the acting Prime Minister and senior Minister, but to do so in language which I take amiss of him, language which has become customary for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members on the opposite side of the House. The Leader of the Opposition made an attack, not across the floor of this House, but by means of the Cape Times and other newspapers, on the acting Prime Minister and Minister of Transport, in which he used inter alia the following words—

It has become customary for hon. members on the opposite side to make continual insinuations against the credibility of this side of the House, more specifically against Ministers for whom I accept responsibility. I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that we will in the course of the next few days place these insinuations and allegations under the magnifying glass in this House and across the floor of this House. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went on to say the following—

What was the Leader of the Opposition doing here? He was levelling an accusation at the hon. the Minister of Transport, a Minister who is responsible for the conveyance of many millions of people every day, that he did not care two hoots. This was the effect of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s statement, and this, I must tell him, is also how he meant it—that he did not care two hoots for the safety of the passengers and that his only concern was to make a political issue of the matter. Now I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I do not take cognisance of demands which he states to me through the medium of newspapers while Parliament is in session. I expect of him, this very afternoon, at the very first opportunity, to lodge a complaint with me against Minister Schoeman across the floor of this House, since he has not only demanded the resignation of the Minister of Transport, but has also made an ugly insinuation against the senior Minister. I must accept responsibility for the Minister, and if the Leader of the Opposition demands the resignation of a senior Minister, I must naturally take cognisance of it. But I must say to the hon. the Leader that I do not take cognisance of newspaper and streetcorner gossip; I only take cognisance of accusations which he addresses to me in this regard across the floor of this House. And this applies not only in respect of the hon. the Minister of Transport; it applies in respect of other Ministers as well. It applies amongst others to Minister Carel de Wet. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will recall that when he first referred to that matter in the reply to the censure debate …

No, in the introduction.

If I am wrong, the hon. the Leader can tell me, but as far as I recall, when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to that in his reply, I told the hon. the Leader that I accepted full responsibility as the then Minister of Justice, and that he could raise it on my Vote. The hon. the Leader said he would do so. I am therefore waiting, in respect of this matter as well, for him to charge the Minister concerned across the floor of the House. I say, and this is all I want to say for the moment; that I accept, and I must from the nature of the case accept, responsibility for every Minister sitting on these benches. They are sitting there because I asked them to enter the Cabinet. They are sitting there because I have every confidence in the way in which each of them is handling his portfolio and performing his duties. I am waiting now for the charge which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has to level against me in this connection.

May I ask for the privilege of the first half-hour? I first of all wish to express my pleasure at the rapidity with which the hon. the Prime Minister has recovered from his recent operation and to wish him a complete and speedy restoration of his health and his vigour. Secondly, before raising certain controversial matters, I want to express the disgust and the vehement disapproval of this side of the House at the present decision of the World Council of Churches, which voted a sum of money for the support of terrorist organizations in Southern Africa. That is support for organizations which depend upon assassination and the murder of innocent women and children to further their political ends. It is difficult to understand how such actions can be condoned by people who are the active servants of Christ. I cannot imagine that any South African church or churchman can ever condone this action. I think they should know that the people of South Africa rely upon them to show those responsible for this decision how wrong and how wicked that decision was.

What do you expect when you tell the people that we are a police state?

May I say to that hon. Minister once and for all that I have never told the people that South Africa is a police state. If it were, I do not suppose we would be running loose.

I was most amused by the hon. the Prime Minister’s introduction to this debate. It seems that in his actions he has fallen under the influence of a disease known as Burgeritis, Die Burger, having nothing to write about throughout the session which would give it any pleasure, has been doing its level best to draw a massive red herring across the trail of the failure of Government policies in order to try to distract attention. Now let me tell the hon. the Prime Minister this. He has referred to parliamentary opportunities that I had to deal with the matter of the hon. the Leader of the House, but what parliamentary opportunity was there? If the hon. the Prime Minister wants to deal with that one, it will be dealt with in good time, and I am certainly not going to have the hon. gentleman dictate to me in what order I should raise subjects here. Sir, I will not disappoint him; I have a number of very important matters that I want to bring to his attention.

The first one is this: Since the hon. gentleman is responsible and takes responsibility for the policies and the administration of his Ministers, I feel that in the interests of South Africa I should report to him that the Minister of Labour has allowed himself to be deluded, I think, by the doctrinaire Minister of Bantu Administration and Development into taking up an attitude which I believe is detrimental to the true interests of South Africa. I raise this matter first as there is no doubt whatsoever that the uncertainties as to the supply of labour and the shortage of manpower generally are assuming serious proportions in South Africa. But, Sir, instead of taking adequate steps to deal with this very worrying situation, the Minister of Labour, while admitting that there are labour shortages, blandly denies that there is any crisis at all or that there is likely to be one. He does not seem to appreciate the seriousness of the situation.

What is the evidence, Mr. Chairman? During the discussion on the Labour Vote speakers on this side of the House quoted one witness after the other to establish how acute and how dangerous the shortage of labour has become, and how damaging to capita! investment in private manufacturing industry the uncertainties as to the labour position were becoming. Sir, I do not want to cover that ground again, but I do want to emphasize that evidence comes from industrialists, including Afrikaans business organizations and Afrikaans leaders of industry, from trade union leaders, from economists and professors of economics at our universities, from the banks and other leading financial institutions. It comes from the chairmen of companies who in their reports to their shareholders tell us of the problems and the dangers. Mr. Liebenberg, the president of the South African Railways Artisans’ Staff Association, said only a short while ago—

Sir, I want to remind the hon. the Prime Minister that a recent survey conducted by the Stellenbosch University Research Bureau showed that a staggering 76 per cent of the industrialists questioned singled out Government labour policy as a major curb to growth and 62 per cent mentioned the Physical Planning Act. I also want to draw his attention to the fact that Mr. van Wyk of Sanlam said before the recent congress of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut in Cape Town in April of this year that under the 1968-1973 economic development programme it had been estimated that with 20,000 immigrants a year, by 1973 there would be still a shortage of 65,000 white workers, which is more than 4 per cent of the total labour demand; and that the total labour demand; and that the shortage of professional and technical workers would amount to round-about 23,000, 11 per cent of the total demand.

Meanwhile it has been estimated that there will be a surplus of 98,000 non-white workers by 1973. Sir, I emphasize that—an estimated surplus of 98,000 non-white workers by 1973. Only on Saturday, Sir, we had the report of another company published in the newspapers, a company called Barratts Industries, in which once again we have the directors stating—

The full potential of the export market could not be exploited because of the shortage of labour.

They emphasize, Sir, that the labour scarcity was also responsible for the group having to limit the number of orders it took from local customers. This is a group manufacturing articles like rock drilling and ancillary equipment for mines and industry, for which there is a big demand overseas. I do not propose to weary the Committee with other examples which are legion, but the effect of all this is well-known. It has led to a stop in private investment in the vitally important manufacturing industry and it has led to the tailoring of our economic growth rate in order to remain within the bounds of what can be produced by a labour force which is artificially restricted by Government policy rather than seeking higher growth rates, higher standards of living and greater economic strength and security for the country. In fact what Ministers seem to have been doing is to find excuses for the limiting of our growth rate rather than attempting courageously to find the answers to our problems. In fact, the Government took such a drubbing during these debates that the hon. the Minister of Finance was apparently constrained to evade his critics in Parliament, to go over the head of this institution and to avail himself of the monopoly provided by the South African Broadcasting Corporation to state his point of view to the public. I know it was stated that he was invited by the political correspondent of the South African Broadcasting Corporation to discuss the matter over the radio but once again I want to register my protest against the fact that no opportunity was granted to the Opposition to state their point of view on a matter of such vital importance to South Africa. In that interview the Minister of Finance blatantly tried to deal with Opposition arguments over the radio. In the course of his broadcast the hon. the Minister of Finance attacked those people, like we on this side of the House, who advocates a faster growth rate for South Africa. He emphasized the obvious fact that labour is not the only requirement for fast economic growth. Of course it is not. What he conveniently did not state was, that industrialists throughout South Africa had named uncertainty about labour as the great inhibiting factor to their growth and expansion. He then emphasized other factors which are vital to an increased growth rate, namely capital, enterprise and the necessary infra-structure. He did not mention that uncertainties as to the supplies of labour is the one factor mainly responsible for causing a falling off in private capital investment in the manufacturing industry. This is a factor which is making the man with enterprise nervous about his future undertakings. Whilst stressing that the infra-structure includes the services normally provided by the Government such as transport, tele-communications, power, water, roads, etc., he goes on to plead in almost the same breath for the establishment of industries in and around the Bantu areas. In the Bantu areas this very infra-structure of which he makes such an important point, is almost totally absent, hereby further slowing South Africa’s growth rate.

Obviously the means to be imployed in order to construct this infra-structure and to make industrial growth possible in and around the reserves, must be derived from South Africa’s present economic activities which are concentrated in the existing industrial areas. Unless you have growth there and unless you have it as urgent as our problems are urgent, we shall lack the means significantly to develop the reserves from inside and alongside their borders. To make this possible we urgently need the use of additional manpower. What are the members of the hon. the Prime Minister’s Cabinet doing to make it available? Firstly we saw the efforts of the hon. the present' Minister of Community Development when he was Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. He said it was his goal to reduce the number of black workers in the white areas. He set out to make the Western Cape his proving ground and he planned to reduce the number of black workers in the Western Cape by five per cent per annum. He began to apply this policy some years ago. It has failed to reduce the number of black workers, but it is doing untold harm to the industrial development of the Western Cape at the present time. Is this still Government policy? We would like to know from the hon. the Prime Minister, and it it is the policy of the Government, why does it not apply to the South African Railways in the Western Cape? If it does not apply to the South African Railways, can the hon. the Prime Minister explain to us why this department of State, the largest single employer of labour in South Africa, does not or cannot set an example to the country as to the practicability of Government policy?

The next Minister that comes into the picture is the former Minister of Planning and his administration of the Physical Planning and Utilization of Resources Act. The Committee will recall that this Act was originally intended to give the hon. the Minister powers to implement the negative aspects of Government policy by prohibiting industrialists in existing industrial areas from establishing new industries or enlarging existing industries if it meant the employment of additional Bantu labour without his consent. There is no doubt that this Act has had an inhibiting effect, but the Committee will also recall that during the censure debate I showed the hon. the Prime Minister how the former hon. Minister of Planning had abused the vast powers accorded to him when he used them as a threat against one group of industries for political ends. He told industries of the Anglo American Group that he would personally scrutinize every application for black labour that came from one of them and would have special inspectors to check their activities unless the head of the organization, Mr. Oppenheimer, gave his assurance within a stated time that his industries would not permit integration. Their applications were going to be treated with the greatest amount of suspicion unless Mr. Oppenheimer stated that he would help to assist in the promotion of border industries and the decentralization of African workers.

Exactly!

We have never heard whether these threats had the approval of the Government. We have never heard whether they had the approval of the Cabinet and we do not know whether they are part and parcel of Government policy or not at the present time. We know that the hon. the Minister was removed from the portfolio of Planning. Was that the reason? As far as we know, there has never been a public repudiation of this statement and this policy. Will the hon. the Prime Minister tell us what the position is? I think the country would like to know.

A striking illustration of the confusion existing in the ranks of the Government on the labour issue became apparent during the course of this Session. The Committee will recall that in his Budget Speech and in his reply to the Budget debate, the hon. the Minister of Finance announced that the Government was investigating the possibility of finding methods of establishing industries in the homeland and on the borders and at the same time to make more non-White labour available to those industries remaining in the white areas. He also invited industrialists to join in a dialogue with the Government on the possibilities of developing both the homelands and the white areas to the full. The country sat up and took notice because the hon. the Minister of Finance has no control over labour. He has no control over the capital that is pushed into the reserves. He cannot send any capital into the reserves without the permission of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. The labour position is controlled by the hon. the Minister of Labour and by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. It was therefore felt that the hon. the Minister of Finance was speaking on behalf of the Cabinet. It seemed here that there was an important move by the Government to free itself from its ideological bonds and to make black labour more freely available to develop the homelands as well as the rest of South Africa. The relief of the people was clearly reflected in the comments of financiers, economists, and businessmen throughout South Africa.

The relief, however, was shortlived. Within a few days the hon. the Minister of Labour made a speech in this House on his Vote and gave a strange interpretation to the words of the hon. the Minister of Finance. He told us that where the hon. the Minister of Finance said it was possible that more non-white labour could be made available in the white areas of South Africa, he did not mean black labour. The hon. the Minister of Labour caustically condemned those who thought that the phrase might have included black labour. He said it meant only Indian and Coloured labour. A little later when the hon. member for Maitland was speaking, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development became almost hysterical shouting again and again that we had sucked the thought of any relaxation of Government labour policy out of our thumbs. On that occasion, too, the Minister of Labour confirmed in a statement to the hon. member for Maitland that he, the Hon. Minister of Labour, still wanted to reduce the number of black workers in white South Africa. It is true that in the subsequent broadcast speech, the hon. the Minister of Finance seemed to resile somewhat from his Budget statement, but he left three important questions unanswered. I believe that these questions; must now be answered by the hon. the Prime Minister. The first is: Why did the Minister of Finance, in a prepared and considered statement like the Budget speech, use the general term “non-White” if he was excluding the majority of non-Whites from the suggestion he was making? We all know that in South Africa, when we speak of “non-Whites” we include all people who are non-white, and especially the Bantu. The second question is: How could the Minister of Finance have referred to Coloureds and Indians only when he must have known that there are not enough Coloureds and Indians available to meet the increasing shortage of skilled and semi-skilled workers? The Minister of Labour has admitted that there is very little unemployment indeed amongst these people. Thirdly, if the Minister of Finance meant only that Coloureds and Indians would he allowed to do more responsible work in the white areas than is the position now, then what is the answer to the question of who is going to take their places in the jobs they are doing at the present time? The answer must be “Black labour”, so we are back to square one again.

I think there are only two possible conclusions to be drawn. The one is that the Minister of Finance meant what he said, but that in a divided Cabinet he has been forced to succumb to the extremist politicians, the Ministers of Labour and of Bantu Administration and Development. The other possible conclusion is that we have a man in the responsible position of the Minister of Finance who, even in a carefully prepared speech, does not know the meaning of words and is unable to say what he means. I must say that, knowing the hon. gentleman as I do, I find it very difficult indeed to accept the second alternative.

It is becoming quite clear that there is a division in the Cabinet on one of the most important issues before the country at the present time. This issue is vital to make South Africa strong enough to solve the complicated and difficult problems that vex and harass all of us in South Africa. Do you know how bad the position is, Sir? It is so bad that in the “Business Times” addendum to the Sunday Times of yesterday, the following passage appears:

Then, to place this apparent confusion even more beyond doubt, we have the strange role played by the hon. the Minister of Transport. He seems to look at the two groups in the Cabinet and say to them both: “A plague on both your houses”. He goes his own sweet way and proceeds to employ all the non-Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Bantu, that he needs to keep the wheels of his trains turning. Then he tells us that he does so with the agreement of his staff associations. We are in the position that, while the Cabinet seems to be confused and helpless to deal with the manpower problem, the Minister of Transport goes ahead with good United Party policy.

Which policy? Yours or Mitchell’s?

I shall deal with Mitchell’s policy. I will not disappoint the Minister.

I hope not. You normally do.

There is a lot coming to the hon. the Minister still. He does it, because he realizes that if he applies the policies of the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development on his Railways, it would result in the collapse of the transport system in South Africa. Nobody knows it better than that Minister of Transport. I believe the Prime Minister owes the country an answer. Has the point of view of the Minister of Labour, as the prisoner of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development triumphed in the Cabinet, or is there any possibility of a fruitful dialogue as envisaged by the Minister of Finance?

It has already started.

The hon. gentleman says it has already started. Perhaps he will make a statement and tell us about the fruits. Perhaps he will tell us what the situation is?

There was a Press report about it.

There was a Press report that they met, but I did not see any fat plums dropping off the tree for anybody. I am quite satisfied that there can be no possibility of such dialogue bearing fruit if the Government has nothing to offer but the attitude enshrined in the Physical Planning and Utilization of Resources Act, which, as abused or not abused by the former Minister of Planning, is intended to limit and frustrate industrial development in our white industrial complexes. I want to warn the hon. the Prime Minister. I think he knows that where the momentum of any economy is checked by restraints imposed by a government, the danger exists that that momentum will not only be lost, but will build up in the opposite direction. I want to tell the hon. gentleman that I believe that on this labour issue the position is critical for the country at the present time.

The slack in production capacity of existing plants and labour supplies has been very largely taken up. Additional progress now demands innovation. This can only mean the vast outlay of capital resources on automation and mechanization, which we cannot afford, which the size of our market can neither support not justify, and which in any event is only temporarily effective and can only delay inevitable labour adjustments. The alternative to such an impracticable course is to understand the facts and now to make the adjustments which are understandable and inevitable. We have stated our views on this subject in the House before. South Africa will have to make more use of non-white labour, which includes black labour. If we are to grow fast enough to discharge the responsibilities which Providence has placed upon our shoulders, we will have to make use of that black labour in semi-skilled, and in some cases, in skilled jobs as well.

We have stated the conditions in the past in this House under which the labour pattern should be changed. The first principle which we shall uphold, is that whatever development may take place, we shall retain white leadership and control in South Africa. That will be the umbrella under which all change and progress would be organized. [Interjections.] I am well aware of the gentleman’s complaints. Changes will be brought about in the manner that will ensure the protection of the living standards and the position of our white workers. We want to see the progress of others, but not at the expense of our established workers in semi-skilled and skilled trades, and the standards they have achieved over the years. To avoid friction between the races, there will have to be residential and social separation. The general aim must be to improve and raise living standards for all sections of the South African community. Changes in our labour pattern must be effected as the result of agreement between all the organized employers and organized labour, like the hon. the Minister of Transport is doing on the South African Railways. Since 1924 we have had machinery for collective bargaining in South Africa, which has been a model to the rest of the world. We should use this machinery. If we do, we can, provided we negotiate patiently and with open minds, achieve tremendous progress for South Africa. There will be guarantees for our white workers to protect them against any harsh consequences of the changes. So, for example, any workers who feel they have been prejudiced by any change will have the right to appeal to a body like the Industrial Tribunal. Where these can be competition for the same work, the rate for the job will apply. If any white workers cannot avail themselves of the opportunities for progress that will come, because of physical and mental disabilities, they must be specially protected by the State.

In the past I dealt with possible objections to our policy. One possible objection is that the acceptance of our attitude would mean that South Africa would move away from the ideal of separate states for the communities in South Africa. The answer to this objection is twofold: Firstly, what does it matter if one moves away from the unobtainable, from a pipe dream? Secondly, if the ideal is achievable, huge resources will be required to create employment for our black people in or near the homelands. Those resources will have to be produced in our white areas. In order to do this, they will need labour from all available sources in South Africa. The second objection is that the changes in the labour pattern which we suggest, could mean the end of white control in South Africa, because our policy would be immoral and there would be no safety valves for the vanquished. [Time expired.]

Obviously the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has not finished saying what he wanted to say. I should like to afford him an opportunity to do so. Even if he has finished with the aspect he has just been dealing with, to every aspect of which I shall reply in full in the course of this debate, I do not think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will want me and the other members of the House to assume that he is afraid. I do not think he will want that. Nor do I want the hon. the Leader …

You do not know what is coming to you, John.

If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition thinks that he can threaten me with this, I want to remind him of the fact that when I was Minister of Justice I begged him to charge me. I am now begging him again to charge me.

All in good time.

Let him bring his charges. I am rising immediately to afford the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity. Can he not understand what this is about, or does it all mean absolutely nothing to him? Not only did he demand the resignation of a Minister, but he demanded the resignation of the senior Minister and the acting Prime Minister with the ugliest insinuations which could be made against any person. This ugly insinuation in regard to his credibility was not expressed across the floor of the House, but in a newspaper report. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville can lend a hand now and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can hide behind Die Burger, but he did not have the courage to reply to their open letter to him. Now the time and the opportunity is there, before we go further, for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to substantiate the ugliest accusation which can be levelled at a colleague in this House, i.e. that his credibility is in question. I demand from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition … [Interjections.] The Opposition may laugh at this if they want to. I demand from him that he should have not only the courage, but also the decency to substantiate this charge of his, just as I shall substantiate the charge which I levelled at the hon. member for Newton Park and in which I used unparliamentary language—I shall return to this later. I shall avail myself of the opportunity to do that as soon as it presents itself. But I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition owes it to us as colleagues and to this House to level that charge, if he has the courage to do so.

There is a very good naval adage that if you are outgunned, put down a smokescreen … [Interjections.] That is exactly what the Prime Minister is trying to do. [Interjections.] I am not running away; have no fear that I will run away—but until I get satisfaction from the hon. the Prime Minister as to his accusations against a colleague of mine on this side of the House, I will, he can rest assured, conduct this debate in my own way and in my own time. However, I should like to thank the Prime Minister for his kindness to allow me additional time to finish this labour issue. I intend finishing it. Once I and others on this side of the House have fully dealt with the labour issue, we shall go over to other issues, one by one; we shall deal with them in turn. I assure the hon. the Prime Minister that the will not be disappointed.

I was dealing with the suggestion that our policy would be immoral and that there would be no safety valves for the Bantu. Let me say that the answer to that lies in the policy of leadership of this side of the House, a policy which is dynamic, fair and just and which justifies itself morally before the world more effectively, certainly, than a policy which has no hope and no safety valve. Our policy, with our idea of a federal state, will offer to hundreds of thousands of Indians and millions of Coloureds, and to millions of black people who will remain in South Africa as the producers of wealth, far more outlets, hope and justification than the present policy of this Government. It is no good the hon. the Prime Minister running away from the labour issue —it is the fundamental issue before South Africa at the present time. In debate after debate in this House we tried to get answers but one by one hon. Ministers opposite have failed to give us answers, answers which are either satisfactory or hold out any hope for the future of South Africa. One thing is certain—we cannot go on the way we are. If we do we are heading for a position where this Government will never be able to finance anything approaching separate development, where it is going to run the risk of Bantu unemployment, which “the hon. the Prime Minister knows, will be one of the most dangerous situations for South Africa. What is happening is that these Ministers are playing about with ideologies, allowing themselves to be dictated to by the propaganda organs of the Government Press who know that they cannot make a substantiated attack on this side of the House and consequently try desperately to distract attention.

I can assure the hon. the Prime Minister that his Minister of Health will be dealt with in due course and that his Minister of Transport will also be dealt with in due course. Let us first deal with the most important issue before South Africa.

It will be of no use to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to speak of a smokescreen and to try to run away from this important matter. He had sufficient time during the discussion of the Votes of the Minister of Labour and of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development to analyse the question of Bantu labour to the core, but he did not do so.

We did not get a reply.

He did not do so. The fact remains that the Leader of the Opposition accused Minister Schoeman of incredibility and on account of that demanded his resignation. What is concerned here, is the safety of the S.A. Railways as a whole, the S.A. Railways which transports millions of people. Time will not allow me to analyse the speech of the Leader of the Opposition; in any case, I think the hon. the Prime Minister has done so adequately.

What is the background to this matter? On 5th August the hon. member for South Coast made a speech in this House in which he said, inter alia (Hansard, Col. 1118)—

This did not concern safety; it concerned the question of whether the Bantu can carry the responsibility which this work involves. Training is not mentioned anywhere. In the same column he continued as follows—

The United Party must tell us what sense of responsibility the Bantu must have in the sphere of labour which they advocate. The hon. member for South Coast said that they did not have it. The hon. member for South Coast also said that he wanted to go and show it to the railway engineers. I quote again—

During the Third Reading debate, the hon. member said (Hansard, Col. 1274)—

Here he said explicitly that he would be able to show it to official representatives of the Railways. The Minister told the hon. member that he could not fly to Natal to go and look at the rotten sleepers, but that his engineers could accompany the hon. member at any time. In other words, the Minister invited the hon. member to take the engineers with him. But what did the hon. member do? He went there with Press photographers to have photographs taken there. I have in the meantime ad a map prepared of the places where the photographs were taken. I want this House to know what fraud was committed here. The place to which the hon. member referred, and of which a photograph was taken on 8th August, 1970, is on the 754 mile mark. It is 65 miles from Durban. Then they went along and took a photograph which appeared in the Argus on 12th August, of the railway line near Illovo Beach, 23 miles from Durban— i.e. at a completely different place, 40 miles away. Then they came up with another photograph in the Cape Times of 12th August, a photograph taken at Banana Beach at the 69.5 mile mark. They therefore took different photographs of different places and tried to bring South Africa under the impression that the safety of the Railways was not regarded as the primary consideration. The whole of South Africa was being misled. As the hon. the Minister told the hon. member here, the drivers know the line. In a letter on 25th August the drivers expressed their resentment at the fact that the hon. member and his party as well as United Party newspapers had cast suspicion on the safety of the S.A. Railways, that they were sabotaging the confidence which South Africa has in the railway staff. They are sabotaging the confidence which South Africa has in the engineers and the drivers of the Minister, and these drivers are responsible people. They know their locomotives as a good rider knows his horse, and those locomotives reveal to them what is wrong with the line and at every station there is a log book in which they record this.

But the matter goes further. The engineers themselves sent a telegram which reads as follows—

In other words, the engineers of South Africa, on whom the hon. the Minister relies to provide information to this House and to give the assurance that it is safe on the S.A. Railways, say the United Party had wrong photographs taken, photographs which are misleading, in order to try to hide their two-faced policy; because those hon. members blow hot and cold. The one group says, “Make more use of Bantu labour”, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said to-day, “in skilled and unskilled labour”. But the other group, like the Leader in Natal, says these Bantu are not responsible enough; they do not display the sense of responsibility to be able to do this work. I want to ask the following question: If the hon. member for South Coast was so concerned about the safety of that railway line, was it not his duty to bring it to the attention of the station master, the system manager, the General Management or the Minister immediately? As I said in the Other Place, even a Bantu woman takes off her apron and waves it to signal a train to stop; she has a greater sense of responsibility than the United Party in this connection. But now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes along and, on the basis of false photographs, on the basis of wrong information, despite the fact that the hon. the Minister of Transport invited him …

You dance better in Malawi.

I have never danced myself out of two wives, as you did. [Interjections.] I repeat: I have not danced myself out of two wives! On the basis of false reports in a newspaper and photographs, on the basis of the fact that the Leader of the United Party in Natal, after an invitation was extended to him to go and show the engineers where these unsafe places on the line were, did not do so. the Leader of the Opposition, the so-called alternative Prime Minister, comes forward and demands the resignation of the most senior member of this House of Assembly; he demands the resignation of the Minister who for 16 years has been managing the Railways effectively and well. No wonder that I even received a letter from a Bantu in this connection. I want to read it. He says—

Then he goes on to say—

This comes from one of the Bantu on the Railways. He continues—

Not only the white railway workers, of South Africa, not only the engineers of South Africa, not only the drivers, but the public now very clearly realize that the United Party together with the hon. member for South Coast are trying to bluff South Africa; that they are blowing hot and cold. While other members of the United Party have been asking here that more non-Whites should be employed, that hon. member has repudiated them, and in that way they have tried to get out of their difficulty.

Sir. that side of the House undoubtedly worked out a pre-conceived tactical plan in order to try to divert attention from the real problems which our country has to contend with. We by no means intend to react in that way. The matters referred to here, will be raised in due course by this side of the House.

Sir, we need not in the least apologize for raising this extremely important matter of manpower on the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote, because the shortage of manpower is undoubtedly our most important national problem, and in any case we must raise it under his Vote because the hon. Ministers sitting over there are in such a state of confusion that no two of them speak the same language. There is not one Minister who can tell us what the answer is, except, we hope, the hon. the Prime Minister. The charge we want to lay at the door of the Government, is the following:

Is that why his resignation is being demanded?

Then there is the hon. the Minister of Labour, who is specifically concerned in this problem. He has apparently come to the conclusion that the best way of dealing with a problem is to deny its existence. He is not even aware of the figures and the statistics which are collected by his own department, because the other day he told us that the total number of vacancies for white workers in the country was 45,000. We told him that we thought it was 55,000. Over the week-end we read that he had admitted that it was 55,000. There is therefore a credibility gap of 20 per cent. As a result of this the hon. the Minister has lost the confidence of organized labour and of trade and industry as well. The part played by him in this matter has now become a negative and restrictive one, and this does not help us.

Let us take a look at a few of the other Ministers, the former Minister of Economic Affairs and the former Minister of Planning. They also had a good deal to say about this labour question, and where are they now? The former was kicked out and the latter was not kicked hard enough, otherwise he would have been out as well. Then the hon. the Minister of Finance also came here and told us that he had a plan, which now appears not to have been a plan either. He invited commerce and industry to enter into a dialogue with him. But the Government is inviting commerce and industry to commit suicide; so what is this dialogue to be about? Not to prevent this suicide, but rather to determine what kind of suicide it is going to be, whether it is going to be a quick one or whether it is going to be a slow one. Behind everyone there is the ideology of the Government, in the person of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Affairs. Apparently he has not the slightest interest in whether our industrialists are going to get labour or not. Like a Chaka of old he is dreaming up wonderful dreams about the creation of a new black “empire” here at the southern tip of Africa. In these circumstances, who can indicate to us what the standpoint of the Government is? We have to raise this important matter on the vote of the hon. the Prime Minister. We also have immediate doubts as to whether he will be able to offer a solution for it, for he himself is trapped in his own unpractical and impracticable ideology.

Consequently I shall rather state our point of view. We believe that one of the most important matters in South Africa is rapid economic development. If we are economically strong, we can surely deal with all these problems. The most important matter is therefore that we should be economically strong. What does this Government say? It says we can rather be weak, as long as we are white. I now ask this hon. House, where are we white? They say we can rather be poor, as long as we are white. Now I should just like to know, where are we white? Is there a single magisterial district in South Africa where there are more Whites than non-Whites today? If so, we should like to have it declared a national monument and then all our children can go and look at the “wonders” which have been performed over 20 years of government by that side of the House.

Every time we speak of economic growth, that side of the House snaps at us that we are growing as fast as Britain or the United States. I think this business must also stop now. This is a kind of comparison which surely is absolutely ridiculous. Everyone knows that the economic growth in a country can be represented by an S-type curve, and everyone ought to know that if a country becomes economically mature, its growth rate will start slackening off. This even applies to every one of us in this House. If we were to grow at the same rate at which we grew during the first year of our lives, we would weigh more than fifty tons before we are 30 years old. Comparing the growth rate of South Africa with that of Britain and that of the United States is of no use at all; this is a kind of comparison which means nothing. Let persons on that side of the House rather tell us how our growth rate compares with that of Japan, and then we shall have something which is comparable.

We therefore accept that the most important weapon in our armoury is to be economically strong. If we are to remain economically strong it is necessary that there should be optimum utilization of all our economic resources. These, in the first place, include our manpower. In this we are not forgetting about the Whites at all. It is the Whites who have seen to it that South Africa has reached the economic position which we have to-day. If we want to develop this further, the Whites are the very people who will have to serve in the managerial positions and who will be mainly responsible for this economic growth. Experts hold the view that where there is an increase in productivity, 80 per cent of it is due to the contribution made by the managerial levels. While accepting that the Whites must play a leading part in this matter, we should not be blind to the fact that the non-Whites will have to enter industry on a larger scale. Ten years from now, i.e. in 1980, 9.5 million people in South Africa will have to be economically active. I now want to make, the assertion that 80 per cent of them will be non-Whites. If there is anyone on that side of the House who wants to contradict us, he must do so now. In ten years’ time, i.e. in 1980, we shall find that 3.5 million people will be required to carry out highly skilled and semi-skilled tasks in South Africa. All the experts point out to us that the Whites will not be able to contribute more than 1.7 million of those 3.5 million. To put it differently, I can say that 50 per cent of the skilled and semi-skilled jobs in South Africa will be done by non-Whites in ten years’ time. Consequently this is what we accept. In a growing economy there is no danger that the non-Whites will push out the Whites. When 80 per cent of the workers are non-Whites, it means that four non-Whites are required for every one White employment opportunity that is created. This is what it means. This does not mean that the Whites must be pushed out; it only means that enough non-Whites must keep on coming in at the bottom so as to push up the Whites. We are saying that this rearrangement which has to take place, must take place by negotiation between organized labour and organized industry. Why does this Government always want to interfere in these matters? Surely the role of the Government is clear, i.e. that it must create the economic climate and establish the necessary infrastructure and that it must see to it that there is no exploitation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think the time has arrived for the hollowness, the insincerity, and I may almost say the political dishonesty of the so-called labour policy of the United Party to be exposed. The United Party is now launching a great attack on the hon. the Prime Minister because there is allegedly no clarity forthcoming from this side of the House about the labour policy of the Government. However, let us now take a look at the so-called labour policy of the hon. the Opposition. In the first place, they say that more use should be made of Bantu labour, but that all colour bars, both legal and conventional, will be maintained by them. In other words, the colour bar in the Mines and Works Act will be left intact and all the numerous conventional colour bars, for example in connection with the employment of apprentices, will be maintained by them. In addition, they say that they will maintain work reservation, but then they also say: “We are going to solve the problem by holding discussions with the trade unions to obtain their agreement to more Bantu labour being used for doing skilled and semi-skilled work”. This is the labour policy with which the United Party wants to save this country, and about which the hon. member for Hillbrow had such a great deal to say. This is the labour policy which the United Party puts forward, but when they are asked what they would do if the trade unions refused to agree to that, they shrug their shoulders and reply that they would not be able to do anything. This is the labour policy of a party which has the temerity to attack this side of the House on its labour policy. They cannot put forward anything.

In addition to this, there is something worse. Which labour policy of the United Party must we accept? The hon. member for South Coast said explicitly that the Bantu had not yet reached the stage of development where they could accept the responsibility of patrolling a railway line. That is what the hon. member said. Just imagine! The hon. member for South Coast says that a Bantu patrolling a railway line to see whether there is not something wrong, has not yet reached the stage where he can bear that responsibility. In other words, the argument of the hon. member for South Coast is that no Bantu may be employed in a post previously filled by a White, because the Bantu cannot do that work which the white man did. Other hon. members on that side, however, say that more Bantu should be employed! Before reacting to that, I am still waiting to hear what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is going to say in connection with the charge made by the hon. member for South Coast. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that the hon. member for South Coast supported the labour policy of the United Party, but what is that labour policy which he supports? It is very clear that the hon. member for South Coast propagated something here which is directly in conflict with what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has propagated. We want clarity on this.

After we have obtained this clarity, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must go further and reply to the challenge issued by the hon. the Prime Minister. After all, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition demanded my resignation because of my having attacked the hon. member for South Coast on nonsensical assertions he made in connection with the employment of Bantu. He made a statement in the newspapers without being sure of his facts, and he had no factual basis whatsoever for his statement. Subsequently it was proved that everything he had said was incorrect, and not only incorrect, but untrue. However, he sat quietly as a mouse. Surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is a gentleman. One at least expects him to admit it if he has made a mistake and to apologize for the wild assertions which he made in a newspaper and which he cannot substantiate.

†I understand that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must protect the hon. member for South Coast. I also realize that the hon. member for South Coast is continually embarrassing the United Party. He has done so on numerous occasions. I know that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is called upon to try to protect the hon. member for South Coast. We still remember the hon. member for South Coast with a millstone round his neck. We also remember the time when he called on Natalians and asked them whether they are going to march again. We still remember the immortal words of the hon. member for South Coast when he told the Progressives that they can go and “frolic in the surf with the Kaffirs and the Coolies”. Mr. Chairman, that is no reason why the hon. Leader of the Opposition should lend himself to this type of thing, in other words, in his effort to protect the hon. member for South Coast, to demand my resignation. It is based on erroneous facts and hearsay, without a tittle of any fact that he could substantiate. He talks about my credibility, as if we do not even know the Leader of the Opposition. I can only say that if he does not reply to this challenge of the Prime Minister to-day and come forward with facts, his credibility will be worth not a cent. I think we should give him the opportunity now to reply.

Mr. Chairman … [Interjections.]

Order! I want to warn hon. members that I will not have so much noise.

The exhibition being put up by the hon. the Prime Minister and his followers in this debate so far is perhaps an indication of one of the reasons why the youth and the thinking people of South Africa are losing faith in this Government. We meet here as the Parliament of South Africa to deal with the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister, who is responsible for laying down the pattern of policy and government for the running of our country. We as an Opposition have decided, correctly, that the most important problem facing South Africa at this time is the growing crisis in the labour situation in our industry and throughout South Africa. Therefore our Leader correctly has made this the first subject for debate in the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister. Yet the hon. the Prime Minister considers it more important to raise a passing incident in a passing debate in an attempt to district attention from the basic question of the failure of his government. We will deal with this red herring in our good time, because this is our debate. This is where we attack the Government. My hon. Leader and we will decide when and how to tackle the issues before us. At the moment we are dealing with the fundamental problem before South Africa. It is a problem which the hon. the Prime Minister’s own newspaper recently described as a “groter hoofpyn as die Hertzogiete”. That was the editor of Dagbreek, who described the labour issue as “ ’n groter hoofpyn as die Hertzogiete” at the end of last year. It is an issue which every single thinking person and every single responsible organization in South Africa recognizes as basic to the future development of our country and with it, the future security of our country; because if we cannot develop economically, then we lose our whole strength and ability to ensure the security and stability of government in our country. It is not necessary to argue this issue. The proof is there. My Leader has given it. We have given it from this side in the debate on the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Labour, in the Budget debate, as well as in the No-Confidence debate. We bring it now before the Prime Minister, because the hon. the Prime Minister accepts responsibility for his government. His Ministers have failed to deal with it in any of the other debates. There is a simple issue facing the hon. the Prime Minister, a two-pronged issue. On the one hand there is a critical shortage of white manpower, which is forcing a slow down in our economic development.

Prove that.

On the other hand, there is a growing surplus of Bantu labour that will become a danger—will endanger the security and progress of South Africa, unless they can be employed. And, then the hon. the Minister over there interjects and says: “Prove it”. I do not have to prove it, Sir. The hon. the Minister of Labour himself quoted figures which show shortages which exist now, at this stage. He has mentioned a figure of 55,000. Sir, the Minister of Bantu Administration pleads with the mothers of South Africa to have children, but next to him sits the hon. the Minister of Labour who, over the weekend, tells the mothers of South Africa: “Do not worry about your homes. Get out and work to help solve the manpower crisis”. Next to him sits an hon. Minister who says: “You have the babies, but I shall not give you the servants to clean and look after your homes.” The one Minister says that mothers can go out and work in industry. The other Minister says that he will not provide those mothers with servants. And then they talk about white South Africa! This is the Cabinet over which the hon. the Prime Minister rules. It is a Cabinet which does not know where it is going. It is a Cabinet which says: “Preserve South Africa”, and whose Ministers say: “Leave your children to black nursemaids to bring up and look after so that you can go out and help solve the manpower crisis”. And then they talk about governing South Africa!

We have yet to hear from the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Prime Minister an explanation about the repudiation by the hon. the Minister of Labour and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration of the words of the hon. the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance says that he is starting a dialogue to deal inter alia with more non-white labour in the white areas of South Africa. Two of his colleagues say: “You cannot have any Bantu”. Is this a dialogue or a monologue?

Who said that?

The Minister of Labour and the Minister of Bantu Administration said: “Our policy is to reduce the Bantu in the white areas”.

You said “no labour”.

Sir, they said “You cannot have more”.

You said “no labour”.

They said: “You cannot have more labour to fill the gap”. The Minister of Finance says: “more non-white labour”, and the hon. the Minister over there says “no Bantu to fill the gap”.

When did I say that?

The Minister said, “There can be no additional labour”. This is the tragedy. These Ministers try to play with words when we are dealing with fundamental problems. The fundamental problem is that there is a shortage. The Minister of Finance says: “You can have more non-white labour. Let us have a dialogue”. I say that that hon. Minister said: “You cannot have Bantu labour”. Now he quibbles as to whether it is “more” or “none”. He has said that he is going to reduce the number of Bantu labourers in white South Africa. The hon. the Minister of Finance says he is prepared to discuss the possibility of having more non-white labour. Professor Reynders has said that there are 88,000 new Bantu each year who will be looking for jobs. On the one hand we have 88,000 new Bantu every year for whom employment must be found. We have two hon. Ministers who hold the reins in their hands and say that they are not going to work in white South Africa. We have no answer as to where they are going to be employed. We have beautiful words. The intellectuals and the newspapers, including those of the hon. the Prime Minister, with their eyes glued to the stars, chase the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. They see a neat, compartmentalized South Africa with everybody in his proper place. The rest of the Prime Minister’s party, the P.B.I., the rank and file of the party, huddle in their slit trenches, afraid to move forward even half an inch. We have the newspapers saying “forward” and the rank and file saying “duck your heads; there is a black man over the horizon”. The hon. the Prime Minister is the person who has to resolve that conflict. Does he go forward with his idealists and newspapers looking for the pot of gold or does he stay with those who say “no, duck down. If you put your head up you might see a Black man and that will be the end of white civilization”. Mr. Chairman, the effect of this is that the ordinary citizen of South Africa is the person who is paying the price. I do not have time to deal with this but if one looks in any paper any day one finds that the cost of living is rising. You find that housing is up by 13 per cent, that services have increased by 8.3 per cent and other goods and services relating to housing have increased by 12.7 per cent in one year. This is the price the ordinary South African is paying while the Government plays around trying to split hairs, play with words and win debating points. It tries to lead the attention of this debate away from the fundamental issue of labour which we will continue to debate.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition often reminds me very much of the bad-tempered old lady who lived on a farm. One morning her husband asked the maid if the madam was going to town, and she answered “yes”. Then he asked the maid if she knew whether he was going with her. That is precisely the position in which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition finds himself to-day. He does not know if the hon. member for South Coast or the hon. member for Durban (Point) are with him in this debate. I should like to ask the hon. member for Durban (Point) to-day whom he is supporting at this moment: The United Party’s leader in Natal or the national Leader of the United Party? On whose side is the hon. member for Durban (Point) in this debate? Where does that hon. member stand?

There is no disagreement.

Mr. Chairman, the greatest disagreement we have ever had is the disagreement prevailing in the ranks of the hon. the Opposition to-day. Now the hon. member for Durban (Point) says that it is a “passing phase”, when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asks that the Leader of this House and Acting Prime Minister should resign because he has told untruths. Is that reasonable and fair? I think it is the biggest disgrace we have ever seen here. The hon. the Leader will have to come forward. What does the hon. member for Durban (Point) say further? he says the hon. the Minister of Labour said, “Leave your children to the Black nursemaids”. When did the hon. the Minister say that? It is a scandalous, shocking untruth which that hon. member told in this House. It is outrageous that we have to listen to a frontbencher on that side of the House saying such a thing here. Those hon. members must read the speech of the hon. the Minister of Labour. It is a speech I can commend to them. I think it is a disgrace to come to this House and say that the hon. the Minister said, “Leave your children to the Black nursemaids”. That hon. member should apologize to the hon. the Minister of Labour for making that allegation. But I want to go further. When did the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration ever say: “No Bantu will be allowed”? This is another untruth told by that hon. member. He knows that Bantu are taken in on a controlled basis under the Physical Planning Act. He knows that no properly motivated application from any industrialist has been refused. It is the policy of the National Party to see to it that the number of Bantu in the white cities is reduced.

But that side of the House wants to open the sluice gates. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says very explicitly that that side of the House will co-operate with the trade unions. But Mr. H. D. Sterling, an expresident of the Building Industries Federation, said the following—

He then went on to say—

What is your point?

What is the point? The point is that the hon. the Opposition will have to take these artisans into account. Will the hon. member for Salt River tell his white artisans: “I am throwing you to the wolves”? That is what hon. members on that side of the House are going to say. I ask the hon. member for Maitland: “What will the voters of Maitland say? Are you going to throw them to the wolves?” What does the S.A. Engine Drivers’ and Firemen’s Association have to say? They say—

What is your point?

My point is that you must take note of the feelings of the trade unions in this matter. That hon. member is shaking his head; he wants to know nothing about the trade unions. The hon. member for Yeoville is a responsible member. But look at that rattle-brain (malkop) behind him, how he is shaking his head. [Interjections.] Just see how the hon. member for Maitland is shaking his head. I hope the hon. member for Yeoville will turn round and see how he is shaking his head. The Opposition is looking for disunity in the Cabinet. But let me tell them there is no disunity. They think another Minister is going to be kicked out, but on 28th October the voters are going to give you the biggest kick in the seat. An election is to take place on 28th October. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must tell us what instructions he is going to give his voters in places where the Hertzogites nominate candidates. Is he going to tell his voters to vote for those candidates? Or will he have the courage, as our Leader in the Transvaal had, to tell Nationalists not to vote for certain candidates? What will the Leader of the Opposition do on 28th October in cases where there is no United Party candidate, but a Hertzogite? Is he going to tell his voters to refrain from voting? What will his instructions be to them? We are waiting for his reply.

I should like to say categorically that the Govermment is running away from this problem. One would have expected that the Prime Minister would have heard the voice of the country and thus be aware that the country is waiting for a statement of policy from him on this most important matter, a matter which has already been placed before various Ministers …

What is more, you will get it.

… before various Ministers by the Federated Chamber of Industries, Assocom and by every other field of enterprise in this country. At no time during the past five /ten years have we been so aware of the shortage of manpower as we are to-day. But from the Government side we get nothing else than a reaction of hysteria, like we have experienced from the hon. member who just sat down. They try to draw a red herring across the trail of an important issue while we are expecting a responsible answer. The Minister of Finance did endeavour to open the door to some extent by extending some hand of interest to the demands being made by the country by indicating that he would discuss this matter with industrialists. Hon. members opposite immediately followed that up by saying that there would be no shifting from the attitude they have hitherto adopted, i.e. to reverse a trend while they know that is impossible. Almost 50 per cent of the staff of the Minister of Transport are non-whites and he has constantly come to this House to justify the action he has taken and the necessity for it. All that we on this side are asking, is that the matter be dealt with, that there must be negotiations and discussions and that a solution be sought. To continue to have haphazard debates, as members on the Government side are indulging in at the moment, will not enable us to find a solution to this problem. It is not enough for Government members to say that they are dealing with this matter while they are not prepared to face the House and discuss and debate the matter and tell the public just what they are going to do in this particular dilemma. There is no white person in this country who is short of a job. As a matter of fact, the state of the economy is such today that there are enough jobs for whatever manpower is available. There is no question of displacing anyone. All that is being sought is a proper dialogue with the employer in order to determine what intelligent and sound direction we should take to meet the demand of the day and to enable our economy to continue to build itself up so that we can maintain a satisfactory rate of growth and progress in South Africa. This is a very simple request. The question of training which we have discussed here and the question of method which has been discussed are things which can be achieved if intelligently approached and properly discussed. But what do we get? We get statements, such as those made by the hon. member who has just sat down, accusing this side of the House of wanting to open the sluice gates, of trying to frighten the worker in South Africa with a deluge of black unskilled workers from the reserves taking the place of white workers. This is just hysterical nonsense; it smacks very much of the old type of propaganda used by the Government side, the “swart gevaar” in order to frighten the public who to-day are very much more alert to the problem which is facing South Africa, too alert to swallow that type of propaganda. In pursuance of the policy that attack is the best form of defence, the Prime Minister came in to draw a red herring across the trail. He knows well enough that it is a complete red herring, because the issues he raised are issues which could be dealt with in the course of the debate, issues like accusing the Leader of the Opposition of unparliamentary or irregular action. Thereby he avoided something which the country is waiting for. The country wants to know what the Government’s policy is in the economic dilemma in which South Africa finds itself to-day. That is the one cardinal issue. Wherever one goes, in whatever discussions one takes part, no one would ask what happened in the debate between the Minister of Transport and the hon. member for South Coast. What we are concerned with and what the public of South Africa wants to know from the Government is what lead it is going to give in order to bring about the opportunity for everyone to share in an economy which has such tremendous potential as ours but which is being held up and stultified at the moment due to a backward policy on the Government’s part. I want to say categorically also that I think the Government is afraid to tackle this problem. The Government is afraid of the impending election. It has already had a lesson in April this year where the answer to the Government was particularly the fact that the white workers of South Africa themselves, those who are in employment, have not been given the fullest opportunity to enjoy the full potential of the economy of the country. We know that with the introduction of more and more unskilled workers, those workers, who are more trained, who are semiskilled but who have a background which will enable them to be trained more easily, can advance quicker and better. There is no question whatsoever that that is a section of our community in this country which has not had the opportunity of sharing in the advantages of our economy; and they are entitled to that answer and they are entitled to these opportunities.

It is not only this side of the House which is demanding it. We are obviously responding to an appeal from the public itself. The Government knows well enough that this is not a question of politics any more; it is a question of necessity in the country’s interest. One only has to look at any comment in any newspaper, whether it be a Government newspaper or whether it be a newspaper which has a generally neutral outlook, and one will find that comment is being directed towards one purpose only, and that is for the country to become alert and awake to the fact that there are tremendous things happening in South Africa which are being left unattended by the Government. Just to give a simple example, in the debate we had on labour the hon. the Minister of Labour, who I am sorry to see is not here at the moment, did not for instance reply at the end of the debate. He allowed the debate just to complete itself with a speaker from the floor and he left the matter where it stood. Every attempt that was made to appeal to him was ignored, and every attempt to interpret the Minister of Finance’s invitation to the industrialist and what he was trying to convey to the people of South Africa was brushed aside in favour of other matters which were of no consequence at the moment. I do not think there is anything really of greater consequence at the moment than the fact that South Africa has to know on what path it is now going to move in its economic advance. That is the cardinal issue that faces the country.

The hon. the Prime Minister has an opportunity for which everyone has been waiting— the whole country has been waiting. One would have expected that when the hon. the Prime Minister rose to address the House this afternoon he would give the country the policy for which he stood and the lead for which we are waiting, and not to bring before us these extraneous issues. I do not think it takes a political wiseacre to realize that this was merely a red herring that was thrown before us. I want to say that there are many opportunities for our country to-day by which we can ensure that the white worker, of whom the Government feels that it is the only protagonist, can advance. If the Government is, as it says, the only protagonist of the white worker, then it is the Government which is holding back a large proportion of our people from improving their economic position and preventing them from enjoying the good things which the average member of the public is entitled to enjoy. That is the challenge we throw at the Government and I think it is one which they should accept and answer immediately instead of constantly asking for replies on issues which at the moment are extraneous. They know that the whole issue on the South Coast was only a red herring and a smokescreen. They know it, and it will be dealt with and it will be explained, as it has been dealt with. [Time expired.]

Sir, never in my life have I heard the expression “red herring across the trail” repeated so many times. It is as clear as daylight that the Opposition as a whole, and the Leader of the Opposition included, are afraid to reply to the question that was put by the hon. the Prime Minister in the first place. The previous speaker also reminded me of Shakespeare, because his speech was “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”. Sir, it was repeatedly evident, as in the case of the Budget speeches, that every time the Opposition made an attack on the Government they were coming along here with vague proportions, as they are now doing in this debate once more. Sir, the Opposition was given a clear reply to all the questions that have repeatedly been asked here to-day. The replies were given with the necessary seriousness on several occasions and by several Ministers who replied to the debates.

Sir, one thing strikes one about this Opposition, which is the so-called alternative Government, and that is that the second speaker on the Opposition side, who spoke immediately after the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, made a kind of flippant speech here in which he compared the economy to motor cars that got stuck and were driving in the lowest gear. He did so without getting to the essential questions and offering the country a solution.

My reply to the last speaker who asked what our policy is in connection with labour, particularly non-white labour in South Africa, is this: The hon. member said, as other members on that side have said repeatedly, that the Government is engaged in ideological legislation. Sir, the Government, the National Party, is not ashamed to say that we are also dealing with ideals when we implement legislation, not in the sense of “ideological legislation”, as the Opposition defines the term, but legislation that has an ideal in mind. That ideal is clear to everyone that loves South Africa, and it is clear to everyone who wants to serve South Africa. The ideal is that in the first place South Africa must be protected for the Whites, for the Christian civilization and everything it entails, and that all those other matters, mentioned by the Opposition as matters of the greatest importance, are subservient to the ideal one is finally striving for. That is why the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development have carried out this policy as they have done. That is why it has been said, and will be said in future, and that is why we shall ensure that the white worker, as the bearer of white civilization, will be protected, and that, regardless of other considerations, that ideal of always protecting the Whites in South Africa, will be borne in mind.

The whole of South Africa?

But, Sir, that makes no difference to the fact that a serious charge was brought here, by no less a person than the first citizen of the country, i.e. the Prime Minister, against the Leader of the Opposition and others who had a hand in that. The charge is that under the cloak of a policy that has never been clearly formulated, the Opposition asked for the resignation of the senior member of the Cabinet, the Deputy Prime Minister. If the charge is regarded as “drawing a red herring across the trail”, if that is how the Opposition thinks the Deputy Prime Minister should be treated, if they regard a matter of the seriousness and scope of this matter as a “red herring across the trail”, then I no longer know what must be regarded as important in South Africa’s public life. If the Opposition wants to describe the charge as “a red herring across the trail”, then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must not hold it against me if I say that we on this side say that all statements, even statements as serious as the kind he made about the Deputy Prime Minister, will be regarded as ludicrous statements that are just “red herrings across the trail”, because that is, in fact, what it amounts to. If the Leader of the Opposition and other speakers on that side say that this matter is of lesser importance, then we must regard a charge, as serious as the one levelled here by the Leader of the Opposition against the Deputy Prime Minister, as a ridiculous charge. Then the public of South Africa probably has the right to consider that it can expect ludicrous statements even from the Leader of the Opposition. That is what the charge of “a red herring across the trail” amounts to, if one examines it closely.

Sir, neither have we yet come any nearer to a reply from the United Party; in the recent Budget debate we have most clearly, from the Government benches, asked the United Party what their standpoint is in respect of non-white labour, as against the standpoint that has been clearly set forth by the National Party, i.e. that non-Whites will be absorbed into the economy, but in a controlled way. The legislation which has for years been submitted for that purpose, has been opposed by that side of the House every time. Notwithstanding that, those acts have been implemented every time. Thereby the non-white worker was protected, and the protection of the economy of our country as a whole was such that we can be grateful for the growth rate that still prevails. What is the reply we obtained from the Opposition? It is not a “red herring across the trail”; we regard it as of the utmost importance that a decisive answer be obtained to the question of what the Government, in the first place, and the alternative Government, in the second place, think of the labour problem. The alternative Government has given two clear replies. The first reply is that of the hon. member for South Coast. He said that no Bantu should be appointed in white positions; not even in positions with negligible responsibility, such as permanent way inspectors.

That is altogether untrue.

The other reply was given by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, to the effect that non-Whites should, in fact, be employed in the positions of Whites. It is now being said that that is not true, but now I humbly and modestly want to ask hon. members, with the “red herring across the trail”, does the hon. member for South Coast still adhere to what he said? Must I take it to be the truth? Must I take it that he feels that way about it, and that he was speaking about it like that on behalf of his party? Or must I accept that the other standpoint, as formulated by the hon. member for Hillbrow in particular, is the standpoint of the United Party? The alternative Government of South Africa cannot get away from that, and it is not a “red herring across the trail”. It is a fundamental matter.

It is a sardine.

It is possibly a sardine, because the hon. member is a better judge of little fish than I am. With the necessary seriousness I want to say that what the country expects in particular, before a provincial election, is that there will be clarity, not only on the part of the Government—there is that clarity—but that there will also be clarity about the cardinal and vitally important question that an alternative Government must answer. The question involves what that alternative Government is going to do with the white worker? What is it going to do with the Bantu? Is the Bantu going to be allowed to work in the Whites’ areas without control, or is the Bantu going to be excluded totally and completely, as the hon. member for South Coast propagated in this very House.

Mr. Chairman, the question put by the hon. member for Witbank before he resumed his seat, is a very interesting one. He asked what the United Party’s standpoint was in respect of the employment of Bantu in the activities of whote South Africa. I had hoped that the hon. member would proceed beyond that question and that he and other hon. members on the opposite side would state their standpoint with the earnestness and the responsibility befitting them as representatives of the people on an occasion such as this. We had hoped that it would have happened in the debate opened by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as is his right, on this question which had previously been left unanswered by the hon. the Minister of Labour, and that we would have been given clarity as to their standpoint.

When the hon. the Minister of Transport entered this debate and tried to criticize the labour policy of the United Party with great prolixity, I had hoped that he as the architect of the National Party’s labour policy would go further and react to the question of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. This would not have been the first time he would have had to assist in stating the hon. the Prime Minister’s standpoint because of the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister himself was not able to do so. We remember the days of Dr. Hertzog. When he made the controversial speech, the Prime Minister was not able to reply to it either, but the hon. the Minister of Transport did reply. I had wondered whether the hon. the Minister of Transport would not help the hon. the Prime Minister on this occasion as well. If the Prime Minister does not want to reply, will the Minister of Transport not stand up and reply to these pertinent questions put by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? He put the questions to the Prime Minister as is his parliamentary right. We are waiting for the replies.

You have received the replies from the hon. the Prime Minister.

Perhaps you should reply on behalf of your Leader now.

No, I do not want to reply on his behalf; I just want to bring something to the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister must not think that the people are stupid. I have never in my life seen such a clearly calculated piece of running away as that which I saw this afternoon. The hon. the Prime Minister availed himself of his status to rise first. Usually, when an hon. Prime Minister or any other Minister rises at the beginning of the discussion of his Vote, he does so to make a statement of policy or to provide clarity. When the hon. the Prime Minister rose, we on this side of the House expected that he would do what his Press had been predicting since June, and that is give us an important statement of policy. We have been expecting this in every debate of the Minister concerned and especially of the hon. the Prime Minister, which has been conducted up to now. But what have we had? The Prime Minister set out to try to discuss the Vote of the Leader of the Opposition on the Vote of the Prime Minister. My Leader clearly stated that the matter which the Prime Minister wanted to be discussed, would be discussed.

Why does he not do so?

The Leader of the Opposition raised the most important issue facing South Africa to-day and brought charges against the Minister of Labour to the hon. the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, however, ran away from his responsibility by talking about the hon. the Minister of Transport.

In other words, the hon. the Minister tried to run away from his responsibilities by hiding behind the popularity of the Minister of Transport. And why is the Minister of Transport popular among his people? Because he is applying United Party policy on the Railways, which enables him to give increases of R60 million per year to railwaymen. This is thanks to United Party policy. The hon. the Minister of Transport stated our labour policy, fairly correctly in fact, except that he had to correct himself. He said that in terms of our policy we stood by the existing colour bar, statutory as well as conventional. He then realized that it was not quite correct and said that that colour bar could be modified by agreement with the trade unions. Surely this is the whole point at issue. Indeed, he said so himself. Then he asked his $64,000 question, namely: “What will the United Party do if the trade unions refuse?” He is adopting a somewhat different attitude now to the one he adopted in the past.

In the past he said that he, Ben Schoeman, was a white man and would employ Bantu on the Railways and that it did not matter to him what the trade unions said. This Session, however, the hon. the Minister is back to the standpoint of the United Party. He challenged us and asked us what we would do. He said also that if the trade unions refused, he would nevertheless employ non-Whites on the Railways. This Session, however, he says that he will persuade the trade unions only if he were convinced that it would not cause industrial unrest or strife. Why does the United Party say it wants to take the trade unions along with it? Because we do not want industrial unrest and strife. The Minister of Transport is back to United Party policy. Why does he, knowing him as I do, not have the courtesy and the gratitude to acknowledge that he is implementing the policy of the United Party? Why should he take over and implement our policy and then be ashamed to say so? This is what I cannot understand.

It was an attempt on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister to run away and to turn the discussion of his Vote away from the important issues facing South Africa. My leader said the matters in which the Prime Minister was interested, would be discussed. They will be discussed. If he says they will be discussed, it will happen. We now expect the Prime Minister to reply to the first series of criticism which we have on his Vote. What is it the Nationalist Party is trying to run away from? Let us consider this for a moment. They are trying to run away from the facts which were revealed in the recent survey on investment by the Stellenbosch Economic Bureau.

Another survey showed that the cause of this was the labour policy of the Government as well as the uncertainty it caused. They are trying to run away from the fact that investment in the manufacturing industry dropped by 16.4 per cent or by R75 million from 1967 to 1968, and by 11 per cent or R42 million from 1968 to 1969. They are trying to run away from the statement made by Professor Reynders at the Sabra congress at the beginning of August, that the shortage of white labour and other labour, skilled and unskilled, would increase to 75,000 in the next three years, but that in the same period there would be unemployment to the tune of aproximately 100,000 among Bantu workers. This is what they are trying to run away from. It is on record that the Prime Minister warned in a moment of true insight that the greatest danger for South Africa was unemployment among the Bantu. Here we now have clear warnings from authorities from his own ranks, from people who are sympathetic towards him, that in three years’ time we shall have to cope with 100,000 unemployed Bantu. We cannot get a reasoned reply from the Prime Minister on this important matter. This is what they are trying to run away from.

We have heard a great deal about the meaning of the word “non-Whites” in the speech of the Minister of Finance. But a very important fact which has not yet been mentioned, is that that offer from the Minister of Finance includes that there will first have to be a dialogue with industry and that they, in exchange for concessions from their side, can obtain more non-white labour, whatever this may mean.

Surely you are talking nonsense now. They will obtain more labour.

I do not want to argue about that again now. The Minister of Finance must admit that he used the words “non-white labour” in that sense. He will investigate whether it is possible to make more non-white labour available to the people. In reply to the Budget debate he said he extended an invitation to them and wanted to discuss matters with them as to what could be done. If there is development within and at the Bantu homelands which is satisfactory to the Government, which convinces them that their policy is succeeding, why this invitation to a dialogue? l[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Jeppes, the hon. member for Yeoville and others, are trying to fling an accusation at this side of the House, to the effect that we are running away from something, or that we are trying to hide something. If the country and the Press have ever seen a spectacle, if they have ever seen a demonstration of anyone running away from relevant matters, they are seeing it here this afternoon in respect of the United Party. Sir, let me just draw your attention, and that of the Committee to one matter, before this House went into Committee about the Appropriation Bill, the Whips got together and we drew up a time-table for each of these various Votes.

We agreed to allocate four hours to the Labour Vote. The United Party was satisfied with that. Our debates on labour lasted four hours. The hon. the Minister of Labour was sitting there. Hon. members called him to account. This was an organized Labour debate. Hon. members of the Opposition intimated their displeasure with the labour policy by suggesting a decrease in the salary of the Minister. A vote was taken on the matter, and this Committee voted that proposal down with a more than two-third majority. But the point I want to make is that the time allocated and agreed to for the Minister of Labour’s Vote was four hours. The Minister answered fully all the questions put to him and the attacks that were made. The opposition asked for seven hours for hon. members to debate the Prime Minister’s Vote. Here we have come along to discuss relevant matters under the Prime Minister’s Vote.

In the first instance we discussed the senior Minister’s position, and then other Ministers’ relevant positions that were mentioned by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition outside this House. If one ever wants to see a demonstration of people running away from a relevant point, we are seeing it here this afternoon in respect of the United Party. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party that this is contributing nothing towards improving their outward image in South Africa. By their actions here they have very clearly created the impression that they are not game, and that they do not have the courage and the honesty to discuss the matter here in the House where the hon. the Prime Minister can be called to account. Instead, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition runs to a newspaper outside this House with gossip.

The hon. the Prime Minister gave the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity here, but the Opposition wants to escape by speaking about the manpower shortage, because they are prepared to make everything in South Africa subservient to the single additional matter of manpower. No matter how important it may be, they want to make all other matters subservient to this. The Opposition is afraid that we will end up by speaking about relations politics in this debate, because in their disunity they are powerless in respect of their own relations politics. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout may laugh. He knows what his policy is, what he said in the House and what he announced in the Press. We know what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s policy is, but we also know what the policy is that the hon. member for South Coast adopts. In addition, we also know what the policy is of the hon. member for Hillbrow, who accuses us of seeing only black and white through checker-board spectacles, while there can also be grey.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to get away from the all-prevailing matter in a country such as South Africa, i.e. our relations politics. That is why they realize that they have taken an irresponsible step, and that is also why they cannot display the courage to call the hon. the Prime Minister to account here in the House. The hon. the Prime Minister gave them the opportunity. Why did they not make use of it and accept the invitation?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is aware of the fact that he made an accusation against the hon. the Prime Minister during the censure debate. On 20th July he accused the hon. the Prime Minister and his party of isolating the white South Africans in this country, with their race policy, from the great European and Anglo-Saxon powers, and that this could damage us in the military and economic spheres. The other day, when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was not present, I discussed the same matter. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who intimated that he is the future Prime Minister of South Africa, owes it to South Africa to explain the race policies that the United Party would adhere to in this country and that would not isolate South Africa from the big powers of the world. How far is it prepared to go with his race federation policy in order to satisfy the world at large? Can he give us a reply to the question that I want to put to him again, about whether the world and the U.N. are going to be satisfied with 25 non-white representatives in this House?

But will they only have 13 per cent of the surface area?

We answered those questions in the debates. I hope the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will be able to tell us whether he will be able to satisfy the world with 25 non-white representatives in this House to represent 69 per cent of the population, while the white population must have 166 representatives in this House. These are the matters the United Party wants to get away from. They are afraid that they will be called to account in this House, and that is why they are unning back to the Labour debate that has already been completed.

It is, of course, their right to discuss this, but they have a duty towards South Africa, and to-day South Africa is disappointed in the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition and the attitude of the United Party. We know that the hon. member for Yeoville must be called in to help save the United Party when they really get into trouble. The United Party is marring its image and damaging it, because the United Party is not prepared to discuss these matters here, which they discussed in the newspapers outside, now that the hon. the Prime Minister is here. Now that they have a chance to call the Prime Minister to account, they either do not have the courage or they do not have the honesty to do so.

Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of this debate I raised a matter because I regard it as a very serious one. I have come to the conclusion that, as far as this side and that side of the House are concerned, we do not move on the same moral level. What have we had before us now? Before hon. members, when they find themselves in difficulties in a moment, ask me about the labour question, I want to say that I shall deal with the labour question after I have disposed of this matter. They will just have to wait patiently, therefore, until we have first disposed of this aspect of the matter.

To me this is a very serious matter. I am amazed that the hon. member for Durban (Point), for whom I have great respect, tried to pass this matter off as a debating point. I am really amazed at this. It also amazes me that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, for whom I have respect, for whose courage and integrity I had respect, apparently wants to display neither the courage nor the integrity to return to this matter. We could have disposed of it in a few minutes.

Is that so?

Yes.

You wanted discuss this matter for seven hours.

To tell the truth, there are many matters, apart from this matter, which I want to raise of my own accord. There are many replies I have to furnish to questions put to me by hon. members on that side of the House. I intend doing so. As a matter of fact, I want to touch on a wide variety of subjects in this debate. But I say that it is very clear to me that apparently we not only move on different moral levels, but also do not have the same views on courage and integrity. I shall come to that in a moment.

†In this connection I want to address myself to the hon. member for South Coast. He is a member with plenty of guts. There is no doubt about that. I see that during this whole afternoon he has not spoken to his Leader. I wish he would do it once and tell his Leader to show some guts in this debate.

You must be very blind and very deaf.

*The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not call for the resignation or the dismissal of the hon. the Minister of Transport on the ground of incompetence. He did not ask for the dismissal of the hon. the Minister of Transport on the ground that he is incompetent to manage his portfolio. He had the temerity, but without courage, to demand this in a newspaper on the ground of the hon. the Minister’s credibility. Can hon. members now understand why I say that we are apparently moving on different levels? I shall not discuss this matter with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition again.

He will discuss it with you.

As chidren would say, that wil be the day he has the courage to do so. I say that I shall not discuss this matter with him again. As far as I am concerned, it is over and done with.

Oh no! [Interjections.]

But the Leader of the Opposition wil know what I think of him in this regard.

You will hear what we think of you.

The only difference is: I have the courage to say this to you, but you do not have the courage to say it to me.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition put questions in regard to the matter of labour. In this connection he used the word “crisis”. This is a course a drastic word to use in connection with the labour problem. Everyone knows that we have labour problems; there is not one of us who is not aware that there is in fact a labour problem. But for the Leader of the Opposition to make lavish use in this connection of the word “crisis”, is inconsistent with the facts, just as it is inconsistent with the facts to accuse this side of the House of deliberately or by implication through its actions wanting to damage or harm the economy of South Africa. Sir, it is in fact this side of the House which has made South Africa the giant that it is.

It is the result of our participation in the war.

I want to concede to the hon. member that certain industries were established here as a result of the war, industries which should have been established years previously if it had not been for the old United Party policy that industries should not be established here in South Africa. This is also true; surely we know this. We need not go over that history again; after all, every student of the history of South Africa knows that this was the position. I say that it is true that there was a certain degree of industrial development in South Africa as a result of the war. But, compare the South Africa of the forties with the South Africa of to-day! There is no comparison between the two. The facts are there for everyone to see that we have not only developed South Africa. Like other hon. members in this House, I have been in politics for many years. I am saying that we have not only developed South Africa, but that we have been able to do so thanks to the policy we have followed. If it had not been for that policy, we would not have been able to develop South Africa. Let me illustrate this to hon. members. We cannot view the labour problem in isolation; it must be viewed against the background and the pattern of development in South Africa. One cannot, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition once did, argue on this matter as if it is only the economic factor which is the decisive factor in everything and in all development here in South Africa. The economy is indeed important, extremely important, and anyone underestimating it would be making a mistake. Rut at the same time I want to say. in the full realization of my responsibility, that the good Lord must preserve us from measuring everything by the criterion of the economy only. May be spared that. I would be glad if the hon. member for Yeoville would do me the courtesy of discontinuing his mumbling. He sits right opposite me and I find his mumbling annoying.

Let us consider the development that has taken place in South Africa. It is a well-known fact that we came out of the thirties with a 3 per cent growth rate; that we had a growth rate of 4 per cent in the forties, 5 per cent in the fifties and an average growth of 6 per cent over the past decade. Let us consider the forties. It was in that time that the hon. the Opposition left the Government benches and we came in. In those years we not only had little in South Africa, but we had to absorb thousands upon thousands of returned soldiers into the economy. It was no easy task. Surely hon. members opposite are aware that we won the 1948 election principally as a result of two factors. In the first place, the electorate was sick and tired of the policy which was being followed by that side of the House at the time. I also fought an election in 1948, and consequently I am aware that many returned soldiers, hundreds and thousands of them, voted for the National Party because that side of the House was not capable of creating a future for them in South Africa, because that side of the House had failed to keep their promises to the returned soldiers. They had neither the plans nor the initiative and the far-sightedness to provide those people with a livelihood. But we did so we did so under difficult circumstances. But not only did we do this; we also brought about increasing growth in South Africa. It was clear to all, at the end of the fifties already, that the growth rate of 5 per cent maintained in those years was creating restrictions in our economy. We were thoroughly aware of this. Now you may ask, Sir, “What did you do?” If we had done nothing, hon. members opposite could accuse us with pleasure, and we would have to carry the blame.

I said that we cannot view the labour problem as something isolated. The hon. member for Yeoville agrees with me—it must be viewed against its background and against the policy which is being followed. One of the problems which we saw as early as the fifties, just after we had taken over and this thing began to gain momentum, was to ensure that at the highest level, in the first place, there would be sufficient well-equipped people to lead, manage and control the new development in South Africa. Now one can ask oneself: Did we in that connection do what was necessary to make it possible on the highest level of management for South Africa to undergo that development? Then I say to you. Sir, we definitely did so. To settle this argument once and for all, so that we need never again attack one another back and forth in this regard, where do you train your highest managerial staff? You train them at the universities in your country and you train them at your technological colleges. I know of no other place where you can principally train them. And what have we done in this connection? Ours is a small white population of 3.5 million—let us first consider the Whites only —and for that small number of Whites we established no fewer than 11 universities. We can compare this with Switzerland, which is one of the most highly civilized nations in the world, and which has a population of 5.5 million and only 9 universities. You can also compare this with Belgium, which has a population of 9.2 million and 4 universities, the Netherlands, with 12 million and 12 universities, Australia, with 11 million and 10 universities, and Canada, with 20 million and 25 universities. And when you have analysed everything, the figures give you what we have established in South Africa because the Government was at that stage already aware that it would have to do what was necessary on the highest level of management. That is why it organized matters in such a way that the proportion of white students to our white population in South Africa to-day is 1 to 50, while in European countries it is 1 to 300 and while in the U.S.A. it is 1 to 65, but then that includes teachers’ training colleges and junior colleges. If you limit it to universities only, the figure there is also 1 to 300. In other words, we realized that since the leadership would for the most part be the responsibility of the Whites in this connection—and I do not think the hon. member for Yeoville or anyone else will disagree with me on this, least of all the people who profess to stand for white leadership—it has been our task and our function, and you could have expected this from us. to equip the Whites to the maximum; and I maintain that any Government which has made it possible for 1 out of every 50 of its white people to undergo university training, has more than accomplished its task.

But we did not merely leave it at that. We realized that it was not only necessary and good and right to train the Whites, but also good and right and necessary that the non-Whites should be trained on the highest level; and for the information of the hon. member for Yeoville, when I speak of the non-Whites, I am speaking of the Bantu, the Coloureds and the Indians. We realized that you must also train each of these people at the highest level, that you must do for them precisely what you must do for the Whites. It is for that reason that we gave the Indians and the Bantu and the Coloureds university facilities which need not take second place to those of the Whites, and which are of the same standard as those of the Whites. I do not want to level reproaches. Sir. but you will recall that we did this in the face of the most vehement opposition from the hon. gentlemen on the opposite side. Not only did we get the most vehement opposition from them, but they also cast suspicion on those institutions among those groups, among the Coloureds, the Indians and the Bantu, and described them as “tribal and bush colleges”. They were told that these were places where they must not even be seen. But, Sir, we overcame this; we gave those people those facilities because we realized that one must also prepare the non-Whites on the highest level to lead themselves and to play a role in this dynamic develop ment in South Africa. Sir, we did not merely leave it at that. We did not merely say that we were going to train people who could participate in this development. We also established corporations—and I am painfully aware of how hon. members on the opposite side, on their home visits, exploited this fact against us—to put those people on their own feet as far as their own undertakings and businesses were concerned. Not only did we train them, Sir, but we provided them with the financial means to be able to participate in the economy of South Africa. But we went further; we demarcated areas and said: “In these areas Whites with their greater capital resources and initiative may not intrude; they are being reserved either for the Coloureds or for the Indians or for the Bantu to establish and develop their undertakings and businesses there.” I am aware that there was gossipmongering in this regard and that suspicion was cast on this matter. I am thoroughly aware of that. Sir, we went further. We said that not only did we want to do this on the highest level of management, but that we also wanted to afford these people the opportunity to participate in the technological level, But at all times we acted responsibly in this connection. As far as this matter is concerned—it has been debated in this House for hours on end on many occasions—one must develop and cooperate with the trade union movement in South Africa. I do not think the hon. member for Yeoville will argue with me in this connection.

No, I am pleased that you agree with me.

Sir, this is the policy the Minister of Labour has always stated, not only this year, but the previous year as well, and in past years.

And they are imitating it.

When it comes to the question of labour—the hon. member for Transkei quite rightly referred to this in the House the other day—there is one thing one should be afraid of, as I have said on occasion, not to-day, but two or three years ago, when I said that I was afraid of many things in the future, that there were many threats of which we should take note and which we should take seriously, but in a country like South Africa, with its population structure as it is, there is one thing I am more afraid of then all the other, and that is large-scale unemployment, particularly of coloured people in South Africa. This is a standpoint which I have been stating since I took over this position, and before that as well.

What do you mean by “coloured” people?

The Coloureds, the Indians and the Bantu. I say that I am afraid and every person in South Africa who has South Africa’s future at heart, is afraid of this taking place, but there is something else which I am also afraid of. I challenge any hon. member of the Opposition to differ with me on this matter. I am afraid of something else and that is that our metropolitan areas will expand and develop in such a way that it will bring about South Africa’s downfall. The hon. member for Yeoville will concede that this could happen if it does not take place on a controlled basis, and I do not think there is any person in this House who would say that it should take place on an uncontrolled basis. It cannot take place on an uncontrolled basis, because the development of South Africa and the metropolitan areas does not depend on labour only. Let us for the sake of argument take the Witwatersrand as an example. Development in this area does not depend only on labour; after all, there are many other factors which influence its development. There is the water factor, and this is to an increasing extent becoming a problem. This is not something which I am mentioning only now. Hon. members will recall that I stated the standpoint three years ago already that South Africa could only develop as far as its water resources allowed it to develop. It is very apparent, and will be very apparent from what has already been said and what will be said under the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, that we, as far as water is concerned, must not merely consider to-day and to-morrow or the situation in ten or 20 years’ time, but should cast our gaze even further. Of what use is it to establish large metropolitan areas, only to find in 30 years’ time that you cannot supply the people there with water? It would surely be foolish to do that. For this reason the water factor is of great importance there. But there is another factor as well, and this is the factor of land for Bantu housing. Hon. members can ask the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development or the Johannesburg City Council how much land they still have available which can be used for Bantu housing. If one still wants to lay out large Bantu areas to-day, how far will one not have to go in order to do so? How far will one have to go, and what prices will not have to be paid for that land? If that land for housing has now been purchased and is far removed, the transportation of those people still has to be seen to. Hon. members can ask the hon. the Minister of Transport whether his Bantu Transport Services yield him a profit or not. Hon. members can ask him in what cases it need not be subsidized. However, that is not all that counts. Have hon. members ever stood still for a moment and asked themselves what the socio-economic consequences of a large-scale and uncontrolled black influx to the cities are? Have the hon. members never yet asked themselves how this will affect South Africa? Why is the hon. member for Yeoville shaking his head?

We introduced import control in 1946.

Then the hon. member need not shake his head; surely he must then nod it. It seems to me we are now in complete agreement on these factors I have touched upon. Then, surely, it follows automatically that the hon. member for Yeoville and I should not quarrel about uncontrolled influx, because the hon. member for Houghton will in any case quarrel with us both in regard to that matter.

That’s right!

I do not think the hon. member for Yeoville and I need quarrel with each other about whether uncontrolled influx is undesirable. It must be restricted in some way or other. We have taken various measures against this influx. We came forward with the Physical Planning Act. I do not want to try to evade the Physical Planning Act, as hon. members on the opposite side apparently think. I am also aware that doubt exists in certain circles as to whether this legislation will or will not continue to exist. I want to say to hon. members to-day that the Physical Planning Act will remain, and that it is the policy of the Government. I want to consider the consequences of that Physical Planning Act here and see whether it is the bogey hon. members on the opposite side make it out to be. One can look for alternative measures to the Physical Planning Act and as far as I am concerned, I am not acquainted with the Physical Planning. Act simply because it is the Physical Planning Act, but I have only one purpose in mind. I have only one thing in mind, because I have to bear the ultimate responsibility, and that is to ensure to the best of my ability that the development in our cities is not such that the consequences to which I referred will occur. That is why we passed this Act. Until very recently I went into the matter very seriously to find out whether there is no alternative. I am not aware of a single industrialist, unless it is a reckless and unscrupulous one, who does not realize that there must be a restriction. There were people who said in good faith—and they put forward various sound arguments—that we should eliminate the Physical Planning Act and in its stead impose increasing taxation on the employment of Bantu in the cities. That is already an admission that there should be a restriction on the number of black people. In conjunction with my colleagues I studied that alternative and what could be said about it, exceptionally well. I want to repeat that there were arguments which impressed me, but the conclusion to which my colleagues and I came was that this was not the answer. If it is necessary, I will state the arguments on another occasion as to why we think it is not necessary, but at this moment it is sufficient for the purposes of my argument to say that I do not think this is the answer. I want to couple this to what I said, i.e. that if there is one thing I am afraid of, it is unemployment in the future. I am not speaking merely of unemployment among the Bantu now, but also of unemployment among the Coloureds, because their numbers, as hon. members know, are increasing rapidly. When one glances into the future, one realizes that one will have to do a tremendous amount to accommodate Coloured labour. There is no doubt about this.

Let us for a moment consider the question of Bantu labour. What is the situation in respect of Bantu labour, not only in South Africa, and not only in the Bantu homelands which are guided and controlled by my hon. friend, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, but what is the dilemma of the whole of Africa? This is not only the problem of South Africa, but also that of Lesotho, Malawi, Botswana and of every black state in Africa, with the exception perhaps of Zambia, because it has a tremendously high employment figure on its copper mines. This is possibly the only state which can be excepted, and it cannot be excepted entirely either, according to the information I have at my disposal. For generations to come, and when I say generations, I literally mean generations, the principal export of black states in Africa will be labour. I am saying this because it will quite simply be physically and otherwise impossible for them, no matter what is done, to develop in such a way that they are able to employ their own labour surplus. I am not saying this as a reproach to them. I am not saying this because they are incompetent. I am saying this simply because it is a fact. Simply consider our own mines here to-day. If to-morrow we were no longer to employ Malawians, it would do the economy of Malawi untold harm. We could kill Botswana and Lesotho and sorely wound Swaziland if we were to refuse to employ their black people. The same applies in the case of our own black people. Whatever we do, black labour will for generations be their principal export.

While I am on this point, I want to refer to another matter, because I am afraid I might forget to do so. Hon. members on the opposite side are so inclined to say to people, and they are so fond—let me say that the hon. member for Yeoville does it effectively—of saying to people: “Look, once these black homelands have become independent and the labour is foreign labour, just think how vulnerable you are making South Africa’s economy.” Sir, I want to tell you here to-day that I have arrived at the conclusion that we will have much better and more productive black labour when our own homelands are independent. The reason is simple. My hon. friend can put it to the test with his own friends. How many of them have not come to the various M.P.’s and said, “Please allow me to keep my Malawian and my Rhodesian; he is a better worker than any of the others; he is afraid that if he loses his work he will have to return to the country he came from.” That is the argument. But it is only human. I do not want to argue about this, but it is the factual position as one finds it. [Interjections.] What is “shocking”?

It is shocking that people should be made insecure in their work.

Sir, I find the situation to be a fact.

Make them insecure.

No, Sir, you are not making them insecure. It is merely a question of its being so much better here in South Africa than it is in his own country. For what reason does the hon. member think there are hundreds of thousands of illegal black immigrants in South Africa? It is because circumstances are more acceptable and better for them here in South Africa. May the situation change to such an extent that they will be able to say the same of their own countries! For I wish them everything of the best. But, Sir, since it is the position that for generations to come this will be their principal export, and since on the other hand there is the natural growth of the black people in the metropolitan areas where they have settled, what is one to do now? One must, as I have said, not have uncontrolled metropolitan expansion which is in the long run going to land you in difficulties as a result of the factors I have mentioned here. That is why this Government has established border areas. These have been jeered and laughed at by hon. members on the opposite side. Suspicion has been cast on them, not only among ordinary people, but also among the industrialists. To-day they have proved themselves, and it is no longer necessary to influence people to move to the border areas. It is in fact a question of not being able to develop the infrastructure in the border areas rapidly enough to achieve that position. In addition one can enter the homelands on the agency basis, which my hon. friend mentioned here—this has all been debated here—in order to develop them there. The hon. the Minister of Mines, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Bantu Administration have made their standpoint in this regard quite clear in this House. It is not necessary for me to do so again. What did the hon. the Minister of Finance say in this House? He is the person who has to provide the money. When establishment has to take place in the border areas or within the homelands it is the Minister of Finance who has to find the money for that. It is of no avail that I or any other person work out beautiful schemes if the Minister of Finance cannot provide the necessary money to carry out those schemes. What did the Minister of Finance say? He said: “Come and discuss matters with me. I am quite prepared to discuss matters with you.” They did go and discuss matters with him, and I hope that many good things will result from those discussions. What was the basis of their talks? The Minister of Finance stated it himself. He said: “Come and discuss matters with me and let us see whether we can find a solution, taking into account our purpose (our purpose is as I have stated it now, i.e. the policy of the National Party), taking into account your purpose and taking into account our common objectives.” I am not saying this now in a spirit of reproach to hon. members on the opposite side, nor am I saying it in a spirit of reproach towards industrialists; I am saying this simply because it is a fact: Unfortunately there are in our metropolitan areas industries which should never have developed there. I do not think we need argue this matter with each other or become angry with each other in regard to it. It is simply the case that there are industries which are so Bantu-intensive that, seen from all angles, it would have been much better not to have had those industries there. Whether one belongs to the National Party, the the United Party or the Progressive Party, one realizes that this is the case. In other words, certain of the industries which exist in the cities to-day are tied to their locality. They cannot move, even if they wanted to. There are many factors which resulted in this state of affairs, but it is not necessary for me to go into them now.

There are other industries, however, which can move. It is quite possible, even though there are industries which can be moved and which are in fact moving to the border areas or, if possible, to within the Bantu areas, that in the cities you will still have to deal with the natural increase of the Bantu who are there and who have to be absorbed, admittedly taking into account the fact that we want to have this suction force back to the Bantu areas and that we must at all times retain it. We must at all times retain it, but until such time as that suction power is such, it is only logical to realize that we have to accommodate the natural increase here. Against this background, a psychosis was created. The one speaks, and the other echoes his opinions. The one newspaper writes an article and the other wants to write an even longer article on it. Now, suddenly* a psychosis of a tremendous labour crisis has been created. The point of departure is that all the blame must be placed on the Physical Planning Act and its implementation. Sir, what are the facts? I shall now furnish the figures in respect of the period January 1968, when the Physical Planning Act came into operation, to the end of August of this year. In terms of this Act 2,500 factories requested a total of 77,456 additional Bantu. 56,303 Bantu were allotted to them. Can anyone now say that this Act is being applied in an inhuman way and without the economy being taken into account? But let us look at mew industries. During that same period 1,865 new industries applied to be established. Altogether they required 52,961 Bantu. After the Committee of Seven went into this matter and it had gone through the machinery, 38,486 Bantu were allotted to them. Surely it is quite clear from this that we have dealt with this matter with the greatest circumspection. In respect of the 4,445 applications we have received since 1968, 94,789 Bantu have been allotted. This was done after all the circumstances were taken into account. I again ask whether hon. members think for one moment that this National Party Government would go and destroy this growth which it has been guiding and managing in South Africa all these years with an Opposition that in this connection was an encumbrance to it? If I were now to be asked what my reply to this labour problem is, I would say that it is easy for me to furnish the reply to it We train as many people as well as we can to the highest level in order to participate in that development. On the technical level we have established schools. On the unskilled level we have dealt with labour as we have in fact dealt with it here. This will be our policy in the future, because there is not a single one of us on this side of the House who wants to bring about unemployment. I cannot lay sufficient emphasis on this. But one cannot, after all, go to work in a haphazard way, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to do with his “crash programme”. All we would get from that, is that the “programme” would “crash”. That is all that would have remained of that. Absolutely nothing would have been achieved in that regard. Under the circumstances it was quite impossible for something to have been achieved in terms of that, for the entire plan was too half-baked to have in fact achieved anything. But it is not merely a question of labour. It is also a question of productivity. I see my hon. friend is shaking his head, this time in the right direction. This is a question in regard to which the hon. the Opposition keeps on asking us what we have done about it. Precisely as a result of our training programme, precisely as a result of the fact that the Minister of Bantu Administration established schools for the training of Bantu, precisely as a result of the fact that the Minister of Coloured Affairs established schools for the training of Coloureds, and precisely as a result of the schools which have been established for the training of Indians, all our people are more skilled to-day than they have ever been in the past. Do hon. members know what the facts are? The facts are that between 1963 and 1969 our productivity increased by 3 per cent per year. I want to ask you to show me any comparable country where it increased so consistently under these circumstances. I say that we foresaw all these problems which developed, and what do the facts tell us now? The facts tell us that between 1963 and 1969 the number of Whites in the labour market increased by 200,000 persons, or 33,000 per year. This represents a growth of 2.7 per cent of the white labour force, which is 70 per cent higher than the natural growth, which was only 1.6 per cent. If one is confronted by this figure now, I do not know how one could still make such an accusation. In the same period one succeeded, as a result of the steps which were taken, in bringing 25,000 women into productive employment.

But let us consider the non-Whites, the non-Whites in the sense the hon. member for Yeoville would very much like. As far as these people are concerned, 700,000 came into employment between 1963 and 1969. If one considers all these facts, is it not a little ridiculous to speak of a crisis? We know there are hitches, and I know there are problems, but I want to say that there is no single problem which we will not be able to iron out in future. We cannot do the impossible. We have been supplementing with our immigration scheme, and with our training scheme as well. I have a great deal of respect for the white workers of South Africa and for the trade unions of the white workers, let there be no mistake about that; they are some of the most responsible and well-controlled people we have in South Africa, and we as a Parliament can express our gratitude and appreciation when we see what is happening in other countries of the world. Then we cannot express our gratitude and appreciation often enough for the sense of responsibility of the white workers of South Africa. But since we must on the one hand face up to these socio-economic problems, and since we must on the other hand face up to the development of South Africa, and since all of us are agreed that one cannot have unemployment, I believe the development will be led in such a way by the Government, and that we will be supported in such a way by the trade unions controlling and managing the trade union movement in South Africa, That this future growth of South Africa can safely be left in the hands of the National Party. And let me say this: It is there for the next five years, and whatever the oracle of Hillbrow may say about my health, it will be led by me during these five years.

I have certainly listened with a treat deal of interest to the hon. the Prime Minister and I want to say at once that some of the things he has said are very questionable. I should like to take up the point he has just made about the labour position, where he has been telling the House that large numbers of white people and non-Whites have been brought into the labour market over the last few years. He then said it was laughable to talk about a labour crisis a manpower crisis. Well, may I point out to the hon. the Prime Minister that the numbers of people who have been brought into the labour market are quite irrelevant in this regard. The only relevant situation is to compare demand and supply. If one compares the demand for skilled and semi-skilled labour with the supply of skilled and semi-skilled labour which is forthcoming, there is indeed a crisis. If one compares the demand for skilled labour in the building industry, in the iron and steel industry, in the mining industry, and in practically every major branch of our economy with the supplies of skilled and semi-skilled labour that are forthcoming, we know there is a manpower crisis. That is the first thing I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister. His education figures are equally irrelevant. The fact that the Government has created a large number of universities for non-white students is irrelevant when one considers that the vast majority of non-white children do not even get to upper primary school, let alone university standard. The vast majority of African children leave school in Std. 2, unable to be trained for anything because they do not have the basic education that is necessary for training them really even in semi-skilled work. So the Prime Minister should not pride himself on the achievements of his Government as far as education is concerned.

The Prime Minister made two very important assertions to-day. The first thing he says he is most frightened of is the development of large-scale unemployment in South Africa, and I would say that is probably one of the most sensible things the hon. the Prime Minister has ever said. Large-scale unemployment for all our races is indeed a major threat in South Africa, but surely the very attitude of the Government in trying to send people back to the homelands before there is employment there for them is projecting the very factor that the hon. the Prime Minister is frightened of. Sending these people back to the homelands to face unemployment does not solve the problem of unemployment: it simply pushes it out of sight. For the Prime Minister to think that people are going to remain in the homelands is. I think begging the question entirely despite influx control regulations and pass laws and policemen. For him to think that he is managing to curb the influx of Africans into the urban areas simply by maintaining this legal structure is pure self-deception. The fact that also points this out to him is the thousands upon thousands of pass arrests that take place in this country every day, and the things that ought to be worrying him are the gaols that are filled to bursting point with people who have gone to prison for the crime of seeking work. Those people are unemployed, whichever way you look at it, and those are the things which ought to be worrying him. Unemployment is going to come about if we do not maintain our growth rate and unemployment is going to come about if we do not train and increase the productivity of our people. The hon. the Prime Minister has admitted that.

You said that before.

Yes, I said it before and the hon. the Prime Minister has also repeated things he has said before.

You prophesied that the banks would close and the unemployed would walk the streets.

I never prophesied that the banks would close. You are confusing me with some hon. member on the Opposition side. I do not talk in hyperbole, and the hon. the Prime Minister knows me well enough to know that. But he has said something else. He said that he is as scared of metropolitan development on an uncontrolled scale as he is of unemployment. Now I do not know where he sees any signs of uncontrolled metropolitan development in South Africa. He talks about the Witwatersrand. Well, that is absolutely laughable. Johannesburg is a vast industrial area with something like a million people in it, or perhaps 1¼ million, and no doubt more if we include all the people who are there illegally. But to consider this uncontrolled metropolitan development is sheer nonsense. Does the Prime Minister realize the size of metropolitan cities overseas? Johannesburg is a minor city compared to metropolitan development elsewhere. He talks about water as an inhibiting factor. Sir, if we compensated every single farmer on the Vaalhartz Irrigation scheme very handsomely and closed down that scheme, we would have more than enough water for the whole industrial complex of the Witwatersrand. The Vaalhartz irrigation scheme actually produces agricultural produce worth about R2 million to R3 million, per annum, which is an absolute drop in our entire economy compared to what the Witwatersrand produces in industrial and manufactured goods. If it is water that is worrying the hon. the Prime Minister then he has an easy solution; he can compensate those 2,000 farmers on the Vaalhartz irrigation scheme and then he will have all the water that is necessary for the development of the Witwatersrand. As to ground, this is the first time …

Your solution to the water problem is no solution at all.

I would like the hon. the Prime Minister to tell me why.

You can take it up with the Minister of Water Affairs and he will tell you all about it.

Other experts have said other things, and they have pointed out that this scheme uses far more water than the whole of the industrial complex and the domestic householders of the Witwatersrand. Sir, the excuse that there is no room for the housing of Africans is really ludicrous. There are thousands of morgen of ground on the outskirts of Johannesburg which could be bought up or expropriated for the necessary housing. I cannot see that there is any difficulty at all. We have no problem at all about paying white farmers in South-West Africa hundreds of thousands of rand as “verdriet” allowances when we buy up their farms in order to consolidate the Bantustans, and we could do equal planning for housing schemes on the Witwatersrand.

I want to say this to the hon. the Prime Minister. He is frightened of metropolitan development in an uncontrolled way; he is frightened of unemployment; I am frightened of another thing. I am frightened, Sir, of people with grievances; that is what frightens me. Instead of the hon. the Prime Minister’s travelling abroad, although I am all in favour of it, I think it is time he took a good in-depth look at what is happening in his own country because despite the fact that we talk about independent homelands, which are not here yet, the hon. the Prime Minister at present and for the foreseeable future is the Prime Minister of a country with a population of 20 million people. It is time he looked around him and saw the grievances that are building up amongst those people. Sir, I see these grievances; I see them all around me; I see grievances on the part of South Africans who are sitting in gaol for the crime of seeking jobs. Sir, there are grievances amongst the Coloured people; there is a tremendous backlog of housing amongst the Coloureds of the Cape and elsewhere. Thousands upon thousands of Cape Coloured families are living in disgraceful conditions and these conditions are not being offset by the Minister of Community Development. There are grievances amongst the Indian people who are being moved under the Group Areas Act out of their homes and out of their businesses …

You are talking nonsense.

The Minister of Community Development should go and talk to some Indians instead of just to his officials who tell him what he wants to hear because they are frightened of the way he will bawl them out if they tell him anything that he does not want to hear—like the ancient potentate who cut off the arm or cut out the tongue of the messenger who brought him bad news. Let him go and see for himself and talk to the people themselves.

I have been there and I have seen everything.

I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that serious grievances are building up amongst Indians. Africans and Coloured people who are denied the right to use their inherent potentialities. Sir, those are the things that he ought to be looking at instead of talking in this dreamy fashion about the. homelands which he is going to create and to which his Government is going to send people. One cannot move industries just like that. The hon. the Prime Minister knows that there are certain industries that are bound by locational factors to being exactly where they are; he has said so this afternoon, but he talks very glibly about moving other industries. There are industries which cannot move because of the market factor. because of the labour factor and because white people are not prepared to move—the so-called top echelons who would have to move to the border areas in order to administer these industries. [Time expired.]

If one was listening to the speech of the hon. member for Houghton, and analysing what she said in the light of the recent dicision of the World Council of Churches, then one is not surprised that there are international organizations taking such decisions against South Africa. What the hon. member said here about grievances among the South African population is simply shocking. Anyone who has made a thorough study of what the National Party has done in respect of the non-Whites in South Africa, is simply dumbfounded to see that a party which had to govern under such difficult circumstances, as the National Party had to do during the past 22 years, could have done so much for the non-Whites in every facet of their pattern of life. It is simply amazing. The National Party not only made provision for every facet of the non-Whites’ pattern of life, but the population peace we have in South Africa is unheard of in most parts of the world. I can refer the hon. member for Houghton to the United States of America, England and almost any Other country of the world. In my opinion, however, what the hon. member said appears in the worst possible light when it is seen in relation to a report that appeared in Die Burger in 1962. When the hon. member for Bezuidenhout came to the fore with his National Union Party, the following was said, inter alia in the aforementioned report (translation):

I think that this is a reality that we must accept in South Africa, i.e. that a large portion of the United Party’s composition is so orientated in its philosophical-political thinking that in the consistencies of its policy it can do nothing else but follow along the Progressive Party’s road. One of the important factors in this debate has been that our Official Opposition has built into its composition an essential characteristic that will cause a large portion of its composition to become Progressive in the long run.

I want to come back to what the hon. member for Durban (Point) said, i.e. that the youth of South Africa would specifically follow the United Party and leave the National Party. In the recent election there were two pronouncements. The one appeared in August of last year, and the other in April of this year. These two pronouncements pointed to the two differing voices with which the United Party speaks. When the hon. member for Hillbrow spoke in front of the Natal students, who are much more progressive in their composition, he said the following, inter alia, in respect of our race situation:

In other words, when hon. members are speaking to the progressive element, or the more liberal element, among the young people, they place emphasis on the fact that the non-Whites will have control in South Africa’s political system. When we come to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and hear what he had to say in Rissik in front of the students of the University of Pretoria, in other words where he was dealing with conservative students, we find the following:

What about it?

I just want to draw the attention of hon. members to the two clear standpoints with which this United Party approaches the young people of South Africa. The youth of South Africa are only divided into two groups whether the hon. member for Hillbrow likes it or not. The one group is the progressive element that is prepared to accept Alan Paton’s standpoint in the long run, and the other is that of the conservative youth, i.e. that of the National Party, that supports the National Party’s separation policy. I want to ask the hon. member for Durban (Point) to mention a single youth organization in South Africa that endorses the United Party’s standpoint of race federation. Perhaps he will mention the junior United Party, but that hardly exists.

Get along with you, you do not know what you are talking about.

I want to tell that hon. youthful member on that side of the House that there are two youth organizations among the students, one of them being Nusas and the other the Afrikaanse Studentebond. I think the hon. member will agree with me that Nusas, as an institution, does not support the policy of the United Party. I least of all want to drag these two organizations into party politics, but the Afrikaanse Studentebond in no way supports a race federation policy. Hon. members are free to ask the hon. member for Christiana. He was an ex-president of the A.S.B., and hon. members are free to ask him. I want to tell hon. members that when the youth of South Africa has to make a choice between the National Party, the Progressive Party and the United Party, the majority of them will choose the standpoint of the National Party. If there is a leader in South Africa who has, at least fom the middle fifties to the present day, fired the imagination of the young people, it is not the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but the Prime Minister of South Africa.

I want to come back to a speech that the hon. member for Zululand made earlier this year. I want to tell the hon. member that I very readily take cognisance of his arguments. He said, among other things, that the National Party’s policy of separate development arises from, inter alia, and I quote (translation):

I now want to tell the hon. member that he is making a huge mistake if he thinks that the foundation and basis of National Party policy lies in the fact that there is a majority of non-Whites in White South Africa. That is the point of departure of the United Party, and I want to refer the hon. member to his party’s yellow booklet. On page 17 the following is stated:

In my estimation this is a shocking pronouncement, because the use of the word “primitive” simply does not tally with what the hon. member for Hillbrow said in front of the Natal students.

Repeat what he said in front of the students, please.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) is always making such interjections. He is one of the hon. members in this House who is the least prepared of all. It is a disappointment to listen to the speeches of that hon. member. The point is that the United Party wants to ascribe their basis for the reality of the South African situation to the National Party. They are the ones who see South Africa as an integrated nation, as “one nation” or as a so-called “multi-racial society”, since their point of departure is that the reason why we have a policy of separate development lies in the fact that we have a majority of non-Whites in South Africa, i.e. it is a question of numbers.

I shall now quote further what the United Party has to say on page 17 of their yellow booklet, i.e.:

I just want to tell the hon. member for Zululand that I shall refer him to certain scientific works, for example to Van Biljon’s “Grensbakens tussen Wit en Swart” and to Rhoodie, and his work “Die Ontwikkeling van die Apartheidsgedagte in Suid-Afrika” … [Time expired].

Mr. Chariman, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Rissik and I am sorry that he was not able to conclude his speech, because if the philosophy of the National Party does not stem from the notion that there is danger in numbers, then I do not know what the philosophy does stem from. I was hoping that the hon. member would have time to tell us about that [Interjection.] If it is a question of maintenance of identity, as the hon. the Minister now appears to suggest, then that can only be in danger if there are numbers greater than one’s own group, as I stated originally. The hon. member for Rissik seems to be perturbed about the fact that, as he put it, the United Party must eventually go Progressive. He then went on to say that there are only two groups among students, namely a conservative group and a progressive group and that the United Party does not really fit into this picture. I do not know how anyone who reads the leading articles of Die Burger every day, as I do with great interest, can suggest that the National Party is really a conservative party. There is no concept in the South African scheme of things more radical than the idea of carving up South Africa into a number of independent states. That is not conservative thinking, but radical thinking. I am surprised that that hon. gentleman who has rightly or wrongly in the past been thought to be flirting with the more verkrampte element in South Africa, should suggest that that thinking is conservative.

But let me come back to the hon. the Prime Minister. I listened with considerable interest to the hon. gentleman’s speech. For the greater part he painted a picture of the factual situation in South Africa in regard to employment of labour in the different races, with which I think most of us will agree. He did paint a picture of the facts as they stand.

But whilst he did that, before I come to his conclusions, he made one or two interesting remarks. He quoted the figures of the establishment of universities in Switzerland for a population of five million and the figures for the universities in South Africa for a population, as he put it, of 3½ million. I think there is great significance in those figures, namely nine universities in Switzerland and 11 in South Africa. I do suggest that the significance is that there are nine universities in Switzerland for a total population of 5 million, which is the population of that country. We here in South Africa require 11 universities, possibly more. But I agree that we have done very well to establish those 11 universities, because although we have a white population of only 3½ million, they are in fact, as it were, an aristocratic intelligentsia. They are the upper part of the population which provides the skills and the enterprise for a population far in excess of the 3½ million which is their number. Then the hon. gentleman came to the crux of the problem, which was “How are we going to fill the vacant places which cannot be filled in our industries in the white areas if we are not to use Bantu labour?” We must bear in mind that the problem arises at the present time in the white areas where Coloureds and Asiatics can, by and large, be employed. The hon. gentlemen did not answer that problem, which is the key problem of this debate. He did suggest that we could in some measure overcome our problems by transferring to the Native areas, the reserves, the labour intensive industries. But it is not only in the labour intensive indusries …

Bantu labour intensive industries.

I beg your pardon. I understood it in that form. It is not only in the Bantu labour intensive industries that the shortages and the difficulties arise. It is in every other sphere, virtually, of economic enterprise as well.

In spite of that, we managed a growth rate of six per cent.

But it is that very growth, Sir, that brings about the shortages and the distortions which the hon. Leader of the Opposition outlined. Are we now to understand that the policy is to move to the Native areas in South Africa as many of the Bantu labour intensive industries as we can? If that is the intention and if the Government is serious in going ahead with its policy of independent states, we are to reach the stage where we are deliberately placing the majority of our Bantu labour intensive industries beyond the control of the South African Government. I cannot believe that that is the thinking of any wise government.

The hon. gentleman then went on to deal with the question of how much better it would be to have in our employment people who are citizens of an independent state. He quoted Malawi and one or two other countries to suggest that people prefer to employ persons who Were domiciled in those states? Now, Sir, I do not follow the argument at all. He put it on the basis that these people work better, because if they lost their job, they would have to go home. But that is precisely the situation of every Bantu in South Africa at the present time, whether he lives in an independent state or in a South Africa native reserve. If he loses his job in a metropolitan area, he stands to be endorsed out back to the Native reserve. It is really an argument which carries us no further forward at all. Now I want to come from the general to the particular. I wish to deal with a question which arises in its acute form in Zululand. I raise this not because it is my constituency, but because Richard’s Bay is regarded as one of the major growth points of South Africa at the present time. It is specifically mentioned by the Government in all its literature as one of the major growth points in South Africa at the present time. How does this very shortage arise in the area north of the Tugela? It is Government policy to get rid of the Coloured and the Asiatic labour force in that area. Those people have to leave Zululand in due course. At the present moment both the Coloured, who is indigenous to that area, and the Asiatic can be employed there only under a permit. Because it has been stated as the policy of the Government that these people are eventually to go, they are already moving from that area. What is going to fill that gap? White workers are simply not available in most of the categories of semi-skilled and skilled employment. They are simply not available in the requisite numbers to fill the vacancies which this major growth point is going to create, let alone those vacancies which already exist at the present time. This development is taking place in the white areas north of the Tugela. The hon. the Minister’s Deputy a short while ago produced two proclamations, the object of which was to prevent Bantu being employed in those very categories in which one would normally employ Asiatics or Coloureds. How on earth is industrial development to go ahead in that area if you are to move out the two important elements which occupy the jobs between the White and the Bantu, namely the Coloureds and the Asiatics, and at the same time prohibit those very jobs from being done by the Bantu labour force? There is a provision in the proclamations I have just mentioned that they will not apply to the border industrial areas. When you try to find out, as the chambers of commerce in the area tried to find out from the Department of Bantu Administration, precisely which areas are regarded as border industrial areas, so that one can establish in which areas Bantu can be employed to fill those vacancies left by the departure of Coloureds and Asiatics, one comes up against a completely blank wall. No precision can be obtained from the Department of Bantu Administration as to which areas are border industrial areas, in which that particular exemption applies. There is our first problem. This is not a problem which can be dealt with at the level of high political philosophy. This is the real problem which the entrepreneur in South Africa faces. When he tries to keep a business or a factory going, he cannot find the labour for that enterprise. This is the problem at its first level. This is where the hon. the Prime Minister has not plugged the gap, which was pointed out in argument by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. It is one thing to say that the Bantu labour intensive enterprises are to be moved to the Native reserves. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has referred to the application of the Physical Planning Act. As one who represents industrial areas in this House and who has some experience of the way the Physical Planning Act is being applied in practice, I want to state to-day that when investigations of this nature are carried out, the relevant committee consiting of seven members under the chairmanship of Mr. Hoek, who has now been promoted out of the Department, acts most cautiously and sympathetically, particular as far as the application of section 3 of the Act is concerned. As has been said by the Prime Minister, it is a fact that when it comes to the development of the metropolitan areas, we are dealing with an enormous shortage of water and all the other requisites essential for a proper infra-structure. It is essential that there should then be proper planning. When we are dealing with labour-intensive industries, adequate provisions should be made that when labour is provided for the industries, it should not be done in such a way that the metropolitan areas are flooded by those industries to such an extent that a shortage of the necessary resources arises. We know that water is one of our main problems. When one makes a careful study of the water report we have received recently, it is evident that South Africa should have had the Physical Planning Act and the implementation thereof many years ago. We should have had it long ago.

The hon. member also referred to the employment of Bantu from their homelands. I want to refer him to the year 1856 when Bantu came from the Transkei territories to work under contract here in the Cape Province. Those of us who have studied history, will find that that labour was among the best we have had in South Africa. I hope the day will come when the Bantu will leave their homelands to come and work in South Africa as citizens of those homelands, just as the people of Malawi, Botswana and Lesotho come to work in South Africa as citizens of those countries.

As regards the question of labour mentioned earlier to-day, I want to repeat that the United Party has levelled the accusation that there is a shortage of white labourers in this country as a result of the policy pursued by this Government. A typical case I want to refer to, is that a city such as Johannesburg in particular has, to a certain extent, a shortage of white, labour. In this regard it was pointed out to us in the course of these debates that we should change our policy of assisting Johannesburg and particularly the City Council of Johannesburg, to employ more non-Whites, One of the complaints they had, was that the bus transport in Johannesburg could not function properly because there was a shortage of workers in that sphere. For that reason they want to employ more non-Whites, particularly Coloureds. As a result of that instructions were issued by the hon. the Minister of Labour for a proper investigation to be carried out by the industrial tribunal. The tribunal sat in Johannesburg. In the course of the proceedings of the tribunal a certain Mr. Vermooten, the representative of the Transport Workers’ Union, called Mr. Olivier, the president of the Transport Workers’ Union as a witness. Mr Olivier referred in the industrial tribunal to the possible appointment of Coloured bus drivers for white buses and said that he was convinced that sufficient Whites would be found to do the work. As a result of inadequate salaries, unfavourable working conditions and the fact that too many applications are unnecessary rejected, a shortage of labourers was being experienced in that particular department at that time. He said he was convinced that the City Council could find and keep enough bus drivers. However, he said that circumstances would have to improve and that facilities were inadequate. For example, the workers had to have their meals standing while toilet facilities, such as washbasins, were in a very poor condition. This is one of the reasons why a city council such as the City Council of Johannesburg cannot get sufficient white workers to do this work, because their facilities are inadequate. He went further and stated (translation)—

The Whites refuse to drive these buses, because the buses are not in a proper state of repair and because they are dangerous. For that reason they resign from the service. This is one of the reasons why there is a labour crisis in that department of that city council which the United Party are constantly referring to, and for that reason they want us to change our policy.

I want to come back to another matter. Much is being said, and written these days as regards the political integrity, the credibility and the morality of hon. members and Ministers on this side of the House. To me it is quite clear that this forms part of the strategy of the United Party as laid down by the American consultants who advise them in this respect as to how they should fight elections. This is the idea of the prophet of Hillbrow.

Madam Rose.

In the application of this strategy it is not only the spoken word that is used, but the entire English Press in South Africa is being used by the United Party. The whole philosophy of this strategy of theirs is: Repeat a statement as frequently as you possibly can, even if it is not true, and then finally you will always have a communal corps to follow you. The other method is that of character assassination, which was referred to by the hon. member for Sea Point the other day. During the last election this strategy was used by the United Party, the Progressive Party and the Hertzog group to attack us. That was their whole strategy and the English Press participated freely in this. Certain of our Ministers, including the hon. the Prime Minister, were attacked, debased, besmirched and degraded in terms of this plan of theirs. But if these high priests of morality only want to be politically honest, we want to tell them: Are they not applying these very same tactics? As regards these references to labour shortages and labour crises, the hon. the Prime Minister gave a clear elucidation to-day of the fact that there is no labour crisis in South Africa. In a developing country one always has labour problems. [Time expired.]

The hon. ex-member for Benoni, the present hon. member for Langlaagte, apparently forgets that he is no longer a Johannesburg city councillor, and every time he stands up in this House he makes the speech of a Johannesburg city councillor.

He must be homesick.

Yes, he must be homesick, and it will not be long before he is back there. He referred to some mythical American consultant employed by the United Party. He was obviously thinking of the Progressive Party, but I should like to ask him which party it is that has had to employ a public relations officer, a glorified advertising agent, to try to give them a better image? Sir, if it is his advice which has guided the hon. the Prime Minister in planning the tactics of the Government for this debate, then I suggest that they should sack him pretty quickly, because what has been our problem, Sir? Our problem in this debate has been to try to get the Government out of orbit to face the realities of the problem which we are trying to debate. But, Sir, how do you debate a solution to a problem if the one side will not admit that there is a problem? The hon. the Prime Minister spoke here at length and said: “Daar is ’n paar knelpunte …”

No, you did not understand him.

There are “knelpunte” but there is no crisis.

He referred to hitches.

I said there were problems.

Very well, he admits that there are a few problems.

I said there were many problems.

Sir, now we are getting on; now it is admitted that there are many problems. Now it is not a crisis, it is not a few problems but many problems. At least we are half-way towards acceptance of the existence of the difficulties. Sir, I want to quote from Volkshandel of last month.

You are quoting from an advertisement.

This is a leading article by the editor, an article not only written by him but signed by him, and his advice to the Government is the following—

In other words, exactly what my hon. Leader has said. That is exactly the advice that this side has given throughout the long debate on Labour. But the hon. the Prime Minister indicates this afternoon that there is nothing really to worry about; we have a few problems which then became “many problems” but they are not serious. In fact, he went out of his way to show how magnificently the present Government is doing. All his supporters cheered and everybody says, “What a good fellow he is; there is nothing to worry about”. The whole approach of the Government is, “Don’t worry, everything is under control”. Sir, what happened then? The hon. the Prime Minister went on to give globular figures running into thousands and thousands in respect of Bantu who have been permitted to work in terms of the Physical Planning Act. In other words, having said that he is going to keep the Act, he went out of his way to show how that Act was being used to go against Government policy by granting exemptions.

You are talking nonsense now.

Sir, I have here Die Beeld of the 9th November of last year. The heading of this report is “Rand Verloor 100e Fabrieke” and then it goes on—

This was written by the political correspondent of Die Beeld. Sir, where do we stand? Is the Physical Planning Act designed to give employment to Bantu or to keep them out of the white areas? The hon. the Prime Minister made a big issue of the economic development of South Africa and said that this was due to Nationalist Government policy. I want to suggest, Sir, that the development has taken place despite the alleged Government policy and because of the Government’s exemptions from its own policy, because wherever development has taken place, it has taken place because Government policy has not been applied. Here we have the example, quoted by the hon. the Prime Minister himself, that the Physical Planning Act had allowed thousands upon thousands of Bantu to be employed in white areas. That Act has not been applied in Natal at all. The very Act which he quotes to show what development there is and what Bantu are being employed, is the Act that was introduced for the purpose of keeping Bantu out of the white areas and that is quoted by his own newspaper as the reason for the fact that the Witwatersrand is losing hundreds of factories.

Sir, another measure of the Government’s designed to protect the white worker and to keep non-Whites out of certain occupations is job reservation. Yet the hon. the Minister of Labour accepts that only about 3 per cent, if as much as that, of the total white work force of South Africa is affected by job reservation, and where whole jobs have been proclaimed as white jobs, in one case 96 per cent of the employers in that occupation are exempted from the reservation proclaiming it as a white job. sir, we have the Physical Planning Act; we have job reservation; we have the policy of the Government to return the Bantu to the Bantu areas, each of them being used as the basis for Government by exemption, government by permit, government by favour. If the Government grants you a favour of exemption from a rule, then you can expand your factory. If you can persuade the committee of seven, then you can get a permit. If you can get a permit from the Department of Labour then you will be able to employ people. In other words, Sir, it is a case of government by permit and by favour. You must persuade the Government that they should grant you the favour of exemption. Sir, when I talk about government by favour, I am not suggesting illegal favour, but I am suggesting that it is by the favour of the Government that you can employ people, expand and build new factories.

We have reached the stage to-day where we are being governed in the economic sphere by permit and regulation and officials. We have now reached the stage where they can control the whole economic development of South Africa. The Government which claims to have one policy now brags about the failure of its own policy. Sir, is it any wonder that there is an air of unreality when one deals with the Government. We have put our point of view and yet constantly, time and again, we are asked what our policy is. Let me repeat the answer to one question which has been put here umpteen times and which we have answered before. That is what we will do if the trade unions refuse to allow the replacement of Whites by non-Whites in certain jobs. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Durban (Point) referred to what he called a “glorified ambassador”. He spoke sneeringly of the fact that the Nationalist Party found it necessary to use a so-called “glorified ambassador” to present its image. I want to ask the hon. member if he can tell me which party has a so-called “brains trust”.

It is certainly not yours, because you have no brains to trust.

Sir, there sits one of them; he is hiding away. What is the purpose of the so-called “brains trust”? The hon. member for Yeoville used the words “planned escape” when he referred to the hon. the Prime Minister. Heaven only knows how one is to understand that. The hon. the Prime Minister confronted the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon right from the beginning. Up to this stage he has still not had the reaction he wanted. It is like the case of the two boxers who went into the ring, and while the one swiped left and right at the other, his opponent stood still and said that he would strike a blow when he thought it necessary. That is the reaction we have had. I want to come back again to the hon. member for Durban (Point). In his previous speech this afternoon he particularly emphasized the fact that what the hon. the Minister of Finance said, according to him, did not accord with what the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the hon. the Minister of Labour had said. He saw much evil in this.

I would like to just remind the hon. member, when he suggests that there is double-talking here, that the United Party speaks with two voices. I am going to prove it. During the short session, when the general election was at hand, we listened to many speeches and there were also many reports in the newspapers. In The Argus someone wrote and asked the United Party to tell him what they would do if they were returned to power. The person who reacted to this was the hon. member Wynberg. It is a pity that she is not here at the moment. She has made so many objections already. She then thought it necessary to reply to this and to say what they were going to do. She said, inter alia: “Immediately on return to power, the party will examine and repeal all legislation which is discriminatory, offends the rule of law or infringes on the dignity of the individual.” That is what she had to say. She laid special emphasis on discrimination. At the same time the hon. member for Green Point held a meeting at which he attacked the Progressive Party. He then made a statement which amazed me. He said: “There is nothing unethical in discrimination as long as it is just”. He therefore maintained that one may discriminate as long as it is just. This is a sort of irony, namely just discrimination. The hon. member for Wynberg rejects discrimination completely, and here the hon. member for Green Point says that one can explain it away as long as it is just. Surely that is a contradiction on the same matter? The hon. member for Green Point went further and said that if they were returned to power, there would be separation in the social sphere and in the political sphere. Then we have the hon. member for Hillbrow, the hon. member who ever so often gets the urge to go from platform to platform and to stand on his political toes and gaze far into the future and then to tell us what he sees. He was dealing with the Progressives. As I said, it all depends whom they are opposing and where they are making the speech. He said the following: “He went on to say that the United Party desired peaceful co-existence of Whites and non-Whites on social, economic and political levels”. I do not know what meaning he attaches to that, but if we begin with “political levels”, we come to their policy regarding the non-Whites. Their policy is that the non-Whites must be represented here. That is how they see it and I have just compared it with what the hon. member for Green Point said. But we go further. On 9th May, 1962, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said at De Aar that “the United Party policy will eventually lead to a mixed Parliament, but power will remain in the hands of the white group for the foreseeable future”. But when this “foreseeable future” has passed, power will pass into the hands of the non-Whites. Of course, the hon. member for Yeoville is always close by and is a very handy man. In 1963 the hon. member, speaking over the B.B.C. in England, said the following—

There we have it. I would like to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to reply to something which we said here recently, and with which he agreed. In regard to sport, the hon. the Leader said that he was against mixed participation in sport. I believe the hon. member still adheres to that view. However, here it is said that the non-white representatives in this Parliament may eventually be non-Whites. Now I want to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, when he is sitting here with non-white representatives in this Parliament and they agitate for mixed sport, what he is going to say to his colleagues sitting here with him? What is he going to say to them? This double-talk of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition makes no impression on us. It makes even less impression on the electorate outside. I should like to ask the hon. the Leader, or any other hon. member on the other side, when the United Party decided to discard the policy of the late Gen. Smuts and to label it as incorrect. I have always believed, and I still believe to-day, that the late Gen. Smuts was really the formulator of the policy of the United Party. To-day the United Party rejects that principle completely. In Hancock’s biography of Gen. Smuts he states quite clearly that in 1919, when Gen. Smuts addressed a specially selected audience in Britain, he said quite plainly that “instead of mixing up Black and White in the old haphazard way which, instead of lifting up the Black, degraded the White, we are now trying to lay down a policy of keeping them apart as much as possible in our institutions”. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will pardon me for not following up everything he said. I just want to give the hon. member the assurance that where the United Party says there will be white control for the foreseeable future, it means that there will always be white control as far as we can see into the future, and after that as well. There is not a shred of truth in this attempt to interpret it as meaning that there will be non-white control after that.

However, I want to return to the hon. the Prime Minister. I want to congratulate him on a very interesting speech and on the way in which he refused to reply to several of the questions put to him. What exactly did we get in the Prime Minister’s speech? The Physical Planning Act will probably remain on the Statute Book, despite the fact that 62 per cent of the industrialists in South Africa mentioned it as a source of uncertainty as far as investment and progress for the future are concerned. Secondly, although I am not sure, it seems from the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister that when the Minister of Finance referred to non-Whites, it did in fact include Bantu. May I infer this from the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech?

In the sense I put it to you, yes.

I accept that. Then the hon. the Minister of Labour was wrong.

No, he was not wrong. You misinterpreted him.

He was wrong when he unequivocally said that it did not apply to Bantu at all.

He did not say that.

No, Sir, this question still remains unanswered. Then it is quite clear, according to what the hon. the Prime Minister said, that the number of Bantu in the white areas is going to continue increasing. But the Minister of Labour said that it was still his policy to reduce the number of Bantu in the white area.

If you had listened to me, you would have understood what I said.

I listened very closely. If the policy of the Prime Minister is applied, there is no doubt that the number of Bantu in the white areas will increase. No mention was made of this 5 per cent annual decrease of the Minister of Community Development.

Then I once again referred to the action of the former Minister of Planning in connection with Mr. Oppenheimer and the Anglo-American group of companies, as I also did in my first speech on the motion of censure. There the hon. the Prime Minister ignored it. This evening he also ignored it.

It has already been dealt with by the Minister of Health.

It is no more than right that I should point out that I have received no reply as yet.

But there is also something else. There is no question of reconciling the policy of the Minister of Transport with the policy of the Government as enunciated by the Minister of Labour. The hon. the Prime Minister just leaves it at that. The Minister of Transport carries on as he pleases. He does what he pleases. He is applying United Party policy.

I shall spell it out to you again.

I would appreciate it very much if the hon. the Prime Minister would spell it out, but there is one matter which is very clear.

But you need not flatter the Minister now because you are running away from the charge.

I shall not run away from my charge. My charge is that the hon. the Prime Minister has not replied. He gave a fine exposition of the development under his Government and claimed all the credit for that development for himself and his Government. But who laid the foundation for that development during the war years? Was it not the United Party which even during the war years planned for the time of peace? But the one disturbing fact which has become clear here, is that the employment of Whites has been increasing more rapidly than the population is increasing. Then the hon. the Prime Minister takes it amiss of me if I say that a serious situation is developing as far as the labour position in South Africa is concerned. At some time or other we are going to reach the stage where the increase of the Whites will no longer be sufficient to meet the demand for labour. This is precisely what was referred to by Mr. Klopper, the President of the Transvaal Chamber of Industries. This is what he said—

These are not my words; these are the words of the President of the Transvaal Chamber of Industries.

I say there is no crisis.

I continue—

What solution have we been offered here this evening by the hon. the Prime Minister? No policy was set out. Few if any questions were answered, and the whole position is still as vague as when the debate started.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to answer the invitation of the hon. the Prime Minister, which he made during the censure debate when my hon. Leader was speaking. He asked my Leader to raise those matters relating to the Minister of Health which had not been answered during the debate by the Minister of Health. These matters have received a stony and unconcerned silence from the hon. the Prime Minister ever since all the events concerned with the credibility of the Minister of Health first arose. There is the Marendaz case and the case of Die Beeld. I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will bear in mind that there are two issues involved in the Marendaz case. The one is whether or not the hon. the Minister made a statement, on oath or otherwise, to the effect that he was not a director of the company and that if anyone had put his name in form “J” under the Companies Act, it was done without his knowledge and consent. That is he first point. The second point is the question of the settlement of the civil case arising out of a prosecution in that regard. The third point is the question of Die Beeld.

The circumstances are, I think, by now well known to hon. members. Capt. Marendaz was the managing director of a company called Marendaz Diesel (Pty.) Ltd. On the board of directors of the company was also a person who was then Dr. Carel de Wet, M.P. In terms of the Companies Act, Capt. Marendaz, as managing director, was obliged to fill in form “J” and state to the Registrar who the directors of the company were. He put in the name of Dr. Carel de Wet, M.P. Then, later on, the company was charged with certain offences. As is normal, the persons who were charged were the directors of the company. One of the charges against Capt. Marendaz was the well-known charge, which I am afraid that I must once again read out. The charge reads as follows—

The charge continues—

Sir, that is well known. Now this is the point. How could such a charge have been preferred against Capt. Marendaz unless there had been a statement from the Minister concerned? I should now like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question, not just as a lawyer. He is a lawyer who has practised both as an advocate and as an attorney.

How would you prove that charge except with evidence from the hon. the Minister of Health? Who else could say that he did this without the knowledge or consent of the hon. the Minister of Health? Who else could say that? How could you prove it unless the hon. the Minister of Health has in fact made a statement to that effect and would have been called as a witness? That was withdrawn before plea. That charge was withdrawn before Marendaz was called upon to plea to it. The information is there. We have dealt with all this. There are letters of resignation from the hon. the Minister of Health as a director of the company, at the same time expressing his appreciation of the happy association that has been. When the matter was first raised the hon. the Prime Minister was overseas. It was significant that the hon. the Minister of Health was not overseas at the time.

Then the matter was raised again in the Sunday Times. Again comment was repeated by the hon. member for Yeoville. Other information was produced. Throughout the whole issue there has been the insinuation that the hon. the Minister of Health has made a statement which was not true. In other words, following the Beeld episode it was suggested publicly that the hon. the Minister was untrustworthy. The hon. the Prime Minister remained silent right throughout, both in respect of the Beeld matter and in respect of the Marendaz matter.

You are exploiting the accusations …

No. There it stands without an explanation. Immediately after this matter of Marendaz was raised in this House during the Censure debate, the hon. the Minister of Health got up to answer. And what did he say? He said this—

This is something which was later denied by Marendaz as published in the Sunday Times and not denied again by the hon. the Minister. Then he went on to say that he was not going to express an opinion on legal matters. In any case, he said, it was the prosecution of another person and he was not going to say anything. He would not answer. He would not say whether or not he was a director. He would not say whether or not he had made a statement causing the prosecution of Marendaz. Those are the two things we would like to hear. The insinuation was allowed to appear in the newspapers and from reports of the debate in this House, with no answer whatsoever from the hon. the Prime Minister. Surely this is a matter of great importance, namely the veracity of one of his Ministers. I quoted in the Censure debate the dictum of the hon. the Prime Minister. The dictum of the hon. the Prime Minister was that if one of his Ministers had done something improper then he would not have him in his Government.

Most certainly.

Most certainly. Now, here is this position unexplained. The hon. the Minister did not say whether or not he has made a statement. The hon. the Prime Minister has allowed all these things to continue up till now. I hope he is going to answer. If there is any doubt about this, let me say that the hon. the Minister of Health himself has not said anything. But in the very first Sunday Times article about Marendaz on 7th June, 1970, it was said—

That was a statement of fact on 7th June, 1970.

A statement of fact by the most disreputable paper.

The hon. the Prime Minister says “by the most disreputable paper”. Now, does the hon. the Prime Minister not agree with me that that by itself, considering all the other allegations, would found a very good action for substantial damages on the part of the hon. the Minister of Health? Does the hon. the Prime Minister not agree? But he has done nothing. No one has done anything. The hon. the Minister’s name, his integrity has been allowed to be impugned without one word said by anybody else. [Time expired.]

The hon. member has not finished with his accusations and allegations and I should like to give him the opportunity to proceed.

I am grateful to the hon. the Prime Minister for his courtesy. I do not think I need go into the facts very fully in respect of the Marendaz matter, as to whether or not the hon. the Minister of Health was a director and whether or not Marendaz should have put his name in Form J. I think that is quite clear. We have his letter of resignation and the fact that he was talking about “our company” and “our engines”, etc., and indeed the affidavit which was filed by Capt. Marendaz when he laid a charge against the hon. the Minister for falsely making a statement on oath under the Companies Act, section 225, in which he alleged, when he laid this criminal charge, that he had made a false statement by saying that he had not been a director. He then instituted a civil action. Here is where the hon. the Prime Minister of course is himself involved, as he himself was then the Minister of Justice. He instituted a civil action against Dr. Carel de Wet, M.P., as he was then, in his private capacity and against the Minister of Justice in his official capacity. He also, as I said, laid a criminal charge against the hon. member. Now, as one knows, one cannot proceed with a private prosecution unless the Attorney-General has issued a certificate of nolle prosequi indicating that he is not prepared to prosecute at the public instance. And it took some time before he could decide whether he would or whether he would not. It took nearly eight months and he had not yet decided when the case was settled. Then the civil case, in which Marendaz claimed as an individual against Carel de Wet, M.P., in is private capacity and against the Minister in his official capacity was settled. He claimed R50,000 and R200. It was settled after Marendaz had been found guilty in the magistrate’s court of several of the offences with which he was charged. The settlement was usual in two respects, namely that the State said, or the defendant said: You withdraw your action; withdraw all your allegations.

Who said what?

I say this is the normal settlement in terms of which the plaintiff withdraws his allegations and the defendant, in this case being the State, paid him R3,750 in lieu of damages. But then there were two unusual things. I may say in passing that it is normal to settle a case where you do not believe that in all probability you will succeed. Knowing the hon. the Prime Minister as I do, he would not settle a case unless he was quite sure in a matter of this sort that he could not succeed. However, never mind; that is a normal settlement, but the unusual aspects of this settlement were that Marendaz had to withdraw his criminal charge against Dr. Carel de Wet, M.P., in his personal capacity, and undertake that whether or not any certificate was given by the Attorney-General he would not take the matter any further. And then there is the most extraordinary condition, and that is another part of the settlement. In a letter written the very same day—and I have it here —the State Attorney says he is now authorized by the Minister of Justice to give an indemnity to Marendaz against his deportation in respect of the offences of which he had just been found guilty. I may say that on appeal, at a very much later stage, he was found not guilty by the Appeal Court in respect of those offences, but at that stage prima facie he was a person who was undesirable, having been found guilty of these offences. But he is given an indemnity against deportation, in respect of those offences. One wonders why? And the other quid pro quo was that he would withdraw his criminal charge against the hon. the Minister in his private capacity. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will indicate what happened in this regard.

But the Prime Minister must appreciate that there are two issues in the Marendaz matter. The one is the settlement and the other is the question of whether or not Dr. Carel de Wet, M.P., as he was then, made a statement on oath or otherwise which resulted in that charge being laid and then being withdrawn when the evidence made it apparent that it was not so.

The last matter I want to deal with—and I do not have much time to deal with it—is the question in respect of which the integrity of the hon. the Minister was raised in the first instance by Die Beeld. In April of this year Die Beeld had a report about Lilongwe Air port in Malawi. It does not matter what he said; it does not matter what they reported. I do not want to go into the details of it, but the fact of the matter is that they said he had made such a statement and they had an interview with him, and two days later the hon. the Minister denied not only the content of the report, but he also denied having had an interview. He said, inter alia, that the report was entirely Die Beeld’s own speculation, and he denied emphatically having had an interview with anyone on this matter. One wonders whether at that stage on the basic facts there was no difference between them. Would one think that? No, Sir. The following Sunday, on 5th April, Die Beeld said they had lies exact words and they repudiated his statement, and they gave it out to Sapa as a news item. Then the following week Senator Horak, Prof. Roux and others made an attack upon his credibility in the Sunday Times and said he should not be allowed by the hon. the Prime Minister to remain in office so long as his credibility was allowed to be impugned in this matter without any repudiation. And they drew attention again to the silence of the hon. the Prime Minister. If there was no basic difference, as they now say in terms of the settlement that they reached just before the Prime Minister’s Vote came on, one would wonder. One would have expected Die Beeld to have rescued the Minister. Then came the censure debate and the matter was raised again and then he replied. He repeated his allegations and on the following Sunday Die Beeld said he had a chance to clear up the situation and the editor wrote—

And then he says, most significantly—

In other words, Dr. de Wet, the hon. the Minister, has impugned the veracity of that newspaper and it is better for him to have remained silent, and yet there is the evidence for everyone to see. Do not worry about the settlement. But what in effect is the result of this settlement? The Minister indicates that he has twice denied, once in this House what Die Beeld says he said and he now agrees, in terms of the settlement, conveniently just before this Vote, that he was correctly quoted. Sir, have a look at that settlement. But the thing is this, that since March these allegations have been publicly made and not repudiated by the hon. the Prime Minister. He has not done this hon. Minister any good by not repudiating those reports and by not settling the matter. He has remained silent right throughout. For five months at least he has allowed these statements to be made without repudiating them and without settling them. Sir, that is not good enough. I want to refer the hon. the Prime Minister to his dictum, which I quoted in the censure debate. Will he now assure the House that nothing improper was done, as indicated to us; will he tell us how he knows that there has been no improper conduct and will he also indicate to us why he has not felt it necessary up to this stage to say anything in respect of the impugning of the veracity of a senior Minister who sits in a front bench?

How was he made an ambassador?

Before replying to the hon. member for Durban (North), I just want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this favour: He said that in his main speech during the debate on the motion of no confidence he had referred to this case, the case of Dr. De Wet. I could not find it in haste, and I cannot recall it either. I would appreciate it very much if he would furnish me with the column of the English Hansard, which I happen to have before me.

Columns 22 and 23.

Columns 22 and 23?

That is the Oppenheimer case.

But I referred specifically to the Marendaz case; everybody understood it that way. [Interjections].

Of course, he did refer to that case.

Whereas I specifically referred the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to that case, I shall leave it at that for the moment.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition thought it fit to attack the integrity of a Minister, in this case the Minister of Mines. He thought it fit to make use of the hon. member for Durban (North) in this regard. I notice, Sir, that although, in the course of the no-confidence debate, I invited the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to raise this matter personally on my Vote, and he accepted my invitation, he is using the hon. member for Durban (North) for that purpose. Therefore, I must turn now to the hon. member for Durban (North). The hon. member for Durban (North) is not only a senior member of this House, but also a senior member of the Bar. He has been practising for many years, and if he had not come to Parliament, I want to assume that he would already have been a senior advocate at the Bar. His standing would have justified that. Sir, when a senior member of this House, a member who is, in addition, a senior advocate, rises to speak here, one would expect him to make sure of his facts. Accordingly, before I proceed to replying to the hon. member. I want to ask him whether he availed himself of malicious gossop, whether he gave ear to the hon. member for Yeoville. or whether he merely relied on what was published in the Sunday Times?

May I answer that question?

The hon. member is a senior advocate. The court records are available. Now the hon. member is very quick to ask whether he may reply; I shall now afford him the opportunity to do so. I should like to know from him whether he consulted the court records in this regard or whether he did not do so.

I have seen parts of the record, but I based my case on the uncontroverted evidence which has been published.

In the Sunday Times.

In other words, the hon. member has now told me that his charges are based partly on the court records and partly on the report in the Sunday Times. Is that correct?

That is very obvious.

Is that correct now? I do not want to accuse the hon. member, who is a senior advocate, wrongly. In certain respects he based his charges on the court records, and in certain cases he relied on the Sunday Times. Is that correct?

You have heard my case.

The hon. member, who is a senior advocate, came along here and bandied the word “liar” across the floor of this House.

I am not getting any reply.

The hon. member will get it now.

Don’t squeal.

In the first instance, this hon. member made this statement in the censure debate.

†I refer to his speech as it appeared in Hansard, column 189, and I quote:

That is a positive statement of fact made by the hon. member. He is an hon. member who thought fit to bandy the word “liar” across the floor of this House. I want to say to the hon. member that that statement which came from him is untrue in every respect. There is not a word of truth in that statement which the hon. member made in this House when he saw fit to besmudge the character of the hon. Minister.

Why did he withdraw?

The hon. member will get an answer to each and every question. In passing I may say that I think the hon. member will be sorry that he raised the matter in the way he did. There is no doubt about that.

You are pre-judging the case.

I will argue the case and the hon. member for Vereeniging will be one of my chief witnesses.

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I referred to the hon. member for Yeoville under his maiden name. The hon. member for Durban (North) made the statement that in the light of the letter of the 12th February, 1960, the prosecutor withdrew the charge. And I want to repeat that there is not a word of truth in what the hon. member has said.

Did he not withdraw the charge?

Yes, he withdrew the charge, but not in the light of the letter of the 12th February, 1960. If the hon. member who is an advocate and an officer of the court, referred to the court documents he would have found that that was not the case, because the Attorney-General at the time, Mr. R. W. Rein, wrote as far back as the 29th December, 1964, the following. However, before I quote, the hon. member will recall that the matter was mentioned previously not only in this House, but also through the columns of the Sunday Times. All hon. members will be interested to know how it came about to be made in the columns of the Sunday Times. Be that as it may, this is what the Attorney-General, Mr. Rein, said in this regard on the 20th December, 1964, and I quote:

Good heavens!

It was the Attorney-General’s decision and I may say that the charge was the twenty-first charge of twenty-one charges. As hon. members will know, Dr. De Wet left for London in the same month that this case was commenced. Whether the hon. members want to argue about it or not, makes no difference to me. The Attorney-General—and whether hon. members opposite want to argue about it or not, it makes no difference to me—in his discretion decided that this charge had to be abandoned. We will canvass that.

On what grounds of merit concerning the charge?

The pleas. I have told hon. members that I will give them all the explanations they want, and more, they must make no mistake about it. [Interjections].

Order! I call on hon. members not to interrupt.

I am now reading from the documents in the file. Apart from the Attorney-General’s statement to this effect, this is what the prosecutor, Mr. Wilkin, had to say in connection with this matter on the 22nd December, 1964. He writes as follows:

I have read out the full report drawn up at that time, because as far as I am concerned I have nothing to hide from hon. members or this Committee. At that stage, naturally, I did not know anything about Marendaz or of any charge against him as all. But here we have an hon. member, a senior advocate, who if he had only looked at the criminal record of the case, would have seen …

Were those letters part of the criminal record?

No, they were not part of the criminal record.

Then how could he find them?

But if he had looked at the criminal record, he would have found that the charge was not withdrawn, as he said, as a result of the letter of the 12th February, 1960, not at all.

Were the reasons given in the criminal record as to why the charge was withdrawn?

No, Sir, but it was mentioned in open court. It was said at the time in open court. But the hon. member makes the allegation as a senior member of this House and as an advocate that the charge was withdrawn as a result of the letter of 12th February, 1960.

Was there anything in that record to show that his assumption is wrong?

Yes, Sir.

What is in the record?

We will argue that. The hon. member can take part in the debate if he wants to. I am talking now to the hon. member for Durban (North). [Interjections.]

Order!

But let us go on. In column 191 of Hansard, 22nd July, 1970, the then hon. member goes on to say—

This is in column 191. In column 192 the hon. member goes on to say—

This is a civil action which Marendaz instituted and which was settled later on. Now I come to the point where the hon. member for Yeoville comes in. When I was absent overseas, apparently the Sunday Times also had an article. They asked the hon. member for Yeoville to comment on that article. This is what the hon. member for Yeoville said—

One notices the word “when”—

It is a fair deduction.

No, Sir, it is not a fair deduction; it is a total untruth. It is a blatant untruth told by the hon. member for Yeoville. But I want to go further.

Disprove it.

I will. Then the hon. member for Yeoville went on to say the following—

We note the words “became part of a settlement”—

Hear, hear!

Order! I warn the hon. member for Yeoville. I asked hon. members not to make interjections. They know the rules and they can rise if they want to put a question to the hon. the Prime Minister.

But “Hear, hear!” is not an interjection.

It is an interjection. I warn the hon. member now.

Both the allegations that firstly it was part of a settlement and secondly that it was to keep a Nationalist member of Parliament out of court, are untruths. The hon. member for Yeoville told the Sunday Times and its readers blatant untruths. [Interjections.]

What was said in open court as to the reason for the withdrawal of the charge?

In open court it was said that this charge was withdrawn because Dr. De Wet had to take up his position as Ambassador in London. I continue. It is a serious statement to make against a senior member of the Opposition that he told two blatant untruths to the readers of the Sunday Times because, if I may refer to the last one first, the hon. member says that the settlement was to keep a Nationalist member of Parliament out of court. He did not worry about the truth of the allegation. The sole object was to smear the National Party and a member of Parliament of the National Party. The hon. member for Durban (North) who, unlike the hon. member for Yeoville is a practising lawyer, makes this very same allegation in this House: “He was just an ordinary member of Parliament in those days but my point is, that the action was against the hon. Minister personally as a member of Parliament.” Now, the hon. member has told us …

Is that not true?

No. it is absolutely untrue. What is more, the hon. member said that he consulted the court records in part; if he did in fact take the trouble before smearing an hon. member in this House under the privilege of the House, because he had access to those records …

I said I had access to some of the court’s records. Let us put the matter straight.

Why did you not consult all of them? The hon. member was not concerned about that. All he was concerned about was to create a scandal. The position is that, at the time that the civil action was instituted and the hon. members for Yeoville and Durban (North) said that Dr. De Wet was an ordinary member of Parliament, he had already been Ambassador in Britain for one year and five months. Far from being a member of Parliament at the time he was Ambassador in Britain. What is more, if he had only taken the trouble to look at the summons, he would have seen that the summons was addressed to Dr. Carel de Wet, a male Ambassador of the Republic of South Africa, care of South Africa House, Trafalgar Square, London, Great Britain. The summons was served there on the 6th of May, 1965, at 11 a.m. But the hon. member said to this House that the summons was against him as a member of the National Party.

At the time that the criminal charge was laid against him, was he the Ambassador then?

I will deal with that. Then again, the second blatant untruth which both the hon. members for Yeoville and Durban (North) told, is that it was a condition of settlement that Marendaz will not be deported: Both of them said that. There again it is a blatant untruth. I say this for the simple reason that I have here the terms of settlement in that case. It is part of the court’s record. It was signed by Marendaz on 1st April, 1966, and by the State Attorney on the 13th April, 1966.

I have it here.

The hon. member had it in his possession. Did you have it when you spoke first?

I will tell you later.

I must therefore infer that the hon. member had it when he spoke. If he wants to correct me now he can do so. The hon. member does not want to correct me. I therefore must infer that when he spoke he had these terms of settlement in his possession.

Just as we inferred when Carel de Wet did not speak …

I am putting it to you now. Did you have the terms of settlement when you accused the hon. member in this House?

I had the letter of the State Attorney …

I am coming to that. I am now referring to the terms of settlement. Did the hon. member have the terms of settlement in his possession when he first spoke in the House? It is a simple thing. Either he had it or he did not have it. I am assuming now that he in fact had it when he spoke in the House. In spite of the fact that he had it and read it and knew that there was nothing in the terms of settlement about the deportation—and the terms of settlement were filed with the court and are part of the court record—he comes to this House and makes use of the privilege of this House to accuse the hon. the Minister. There is not a word in the terms of settlement about the deportation. Not a word whatsoever. I go on. The hon. member in column 191 goes on to say—

Is that what happened?

That is what he says were the terms of settlement.

What happened?

No, that is a lie, if I may use that word. [Interjections.]

*Let us set out the matter now, and then we shall see who told the truth in this regard and who abused the privilege of this House.

†He went further and in column 191 he said the following—

And then he blames me for having commenced this settlement. That is what I gathered. This summons, as I have explained, was issued against the Minister of Justice in his official capacity. I was the Minister at the time. It was also against Dr. De Wet, as Ambassador in England at the time. Appearance as entered on behalf of Dr. De Wet and naturally on behalf of the Minister. Pleadings in the case were filed and then on 15th December, 1965, the advocate appearing for Marendaz approached the State Attorney for a settlement. The approach came from Marendaz’s advocate.

Normal procedure.

Yes. They then discussed the matter, but one must bear in mind that it was over the holiday period and at that stage I knew nothing about the settlement whatsoever.

We accept that.

You cannot do otherwise. Then on 27th January, 1966, I received the following telegram—

I endorsed that telegram: “Privaatsekretaris, stuur vir Justisie.” I signed it on 28th January, 1966. Then it came about, as the result of the approach of counsel for Marendaz and this telegram which Marendaz sent me, that the matter was ultimately settled and the settlement was handed in to court. Now comes the hon. member and he says you settle cases when you are the defendant when you know you have not got a chance or when the probabilities are that the person suing you will succeed. But did the hon. member, when he spoke like that in this House, know or did he not know that Marendaz was an insolvent at the time and still is? He does not know, Sir.

What has that to do with it?

I will tell you what it has to do with it. Here is a man who is insolvent and who instituted action against the Department and against the Minister. It would have been a prolonged case and I will tell the House why, and in the end you can get nothing.

So you paid him damages.

I am coming to that. It was cheaper—and that was counsel’s advice—to pay him than to fight a prolonged action and then to find you cannot recover costs.

*The fact of the matter is that Marendaz was insolvent, and one could not recover anything from him at all. If hon. members were to ask me now whether the State was the only one to settle matters with him, I just want to tell you for a moment, in respect of court cases, who and what Marendaz is. Then hon. members will understand the circumstances. From 1952 to 1959 Marendaz lived here in Somerset Strand, and during that period of seven years he was involved, as the defendant, in no fewer than 90 civil cases. In 90 civil cases he was the defendant. Subsequently he moved to the vicinity of Vereeniging.

To Meyerton.

Yes. He is a highly qualified person who knows how to make a very good impression, who is very cunning and who has done in more than one person. If you were to ask me now, as you have in fact done, then it makes it necessary for me to say: Go and ask the Chase Manhattan Bank out of how many thousands they have been done by him, and ask Barclays Bank out of how many thousands they have been done by him. Then they will tell you. Sir, the same Marendaz did not only institute an action against the Minister and Dr. De Wet. Let us just see what his movements were in that regard since the year 1963. On 26th July he laid with the Attorney-General a charge of fraud against Mr. A. H. Gunn, who was the curator in his insolvent estate, and against Magistrate McKay. The Attorney-General refused to prosecute in both cases. On 18th January, 1964, he instituted an action for fraud against Dr. De Wet, and the Attorney-General refused to prosecute. Once again on 14th February, 1964, he laid a charge of fraud against Mr. Gunn, his curator, and against Barclays Bank. On 21st September of that same year he laid a charge of fraud against Mr. R. J. J. Wells, his curator in the case concerning his company. The one was his curator in his personal insolvency case and the other was his curator as regards the company. On 23rd October, 1964, he laid a charge of fraud and theft against his former attorney, Dr. P. J. Coetzee, and against Mr. Stern, another curator in his estate. On 28th April, 1965, he laid a charge of theft against Mr. Gorgel Jnr. and Mr. Gorgel Snr., and in February, 1970, a further charge of fraud was laid against Mr. Gunn. In none of these instances did the Attorney-General see any cause for instituting legal proceedings, as the charges were without any substance. Sir, Dr. De Wet was not the only person against whom he issued a civil summons; he issued against Barclays Bank a summons, in which he, employing the same modus operandi which he did in the case of Dr. De Wet, as we shall see later on, sued them for £73,000 and £30,000. If hon. members want to take the trouble, they can go to the bank in question, if the bank wants to give them the information, and the bank can then tell them exactly how much it cost them in this regard.

Now we are coming to the settlement and the deportation. It is totally false to suggest that the undertaking that was given to him, i.e. that he would not be deported, formed part of the settlement agreement, for this is simply not the case.

That was simply a gift.

No, I shall tell you how it came about. In terms of the Insolvency Act the decision in regard to the deporation or otherwise of an alien convicted in terms of the Insolvency Act, rests with the Minister of Justice. In this regard he acts on the advice of the Attorney-General through the Secretary for Justice. It so happened that when Marendaz was convicted on some of the 20 charges of which he had been accused, his advocate, who is a Judge at present, made representations to the department to the effect that his client should not be deported. He made those representations as a result of the following considerations, and I am now going to read out from the submission made at the time by the department to me as the Minister in question (translation)—

An additional consideration was that if he lodged an appeal (which he did) and were successful, he would in any case not be deportable, and he did succeed in his appeal. The following was another consideration—

There was an appeal pending, and therefore one could not do that to him at that stage. But the department went further—

These were the reasons which the department put forward to me, partly on the strength of information they had received from the advocate for Marendaz. Under those circumstances the department made the recommendation to me that he should not be deported. That undertaking was given by me on 17th February, 1966, after I had received a submission from the then Secretary, Mr. Greeff, in which he said—

That basis is set out in this document which I read out here and in which not a word is being said about deportation—

In other words, the question of deportation or non-deportation does not have anything to do with the settlement as such. These matters ran parallel to each other. On the contrary, Marendaz signed the settlement agreement— as is very apparent from this document and as the hon. member would have discovered if he had only referred to it—on the first day of April, 1966. The Attorney-General only signed it on 13th April, and on the same day on which he signed it, the Attorney-General gave an undertaking that he would not be deported. [Interjection.] On the same day when the file containing all these things, came before him, he gave his attention to the matter and signed all these various documents. [Interjection.] No, Sir, these matters ran parallel to each other; after all, I have explained to hon. members how it came about.

But that is not right; it was not on the same day. The letter of indemnity was after they had both signed the settlement.

What was the date?

The 13th of April.

He said it was the 13th of April.

Of course I said it was the 13th of April. That was the day on which the State Attorney signed the agreement. The hon. member has the agreement in front of him.

He cannot read.

Mine says the 1st April and the 13th February.

Well, mine says the 1st April and the 13th April.

Well, mine is a photostatic copy and it says February.

So is mine and it says April.

*Now, this question may rightly be asked: Where did that charge come from? The charge came about in the following manner. On 5th July, 1963—the date is important—a police officer went to the then hon. member for Vanderbijlpark and asked him for a statement as to whether or not he had ever been a director of a company known under the name of Bamzam (Proprietary) Limited. I just want to tell hon. members who are not informed, that originally Marendaz had a company which was known under the name of Marendaz Diesel Engines, i.e. the company to which reference is made in that charge sheet. Later—apparently in April, 1960—it was to appear that the name of that company had been charged. That is to say, after the letter of 12th February, 1960, the name of the company was changed from Marendaz Diesel to Bamzam (Proprietary) Limited. Notwithstanding the fact that he had changed the name, and notwithstanding the letter of 12th February, 1960, he once again filled in on Form J, which was sent to the Registrar of Companies, the name of Dr. C. de Wet as one of the directors. On 5th July, 1963, the police visited Dr. De Wet and asked him whether he had ever been a director of the company known as Bamzam (Proprietary) Limited, or whether he had ever functioned as such. He quite rightly told them that he did not know of such a company and that he had never had any dealings with it. He had never seen their books and he knew absolutely nothing about them. Then they left. On 16th August they came back again and told him that they had visited him before in connection with a firm by the name of Bamzam (Proprietary) Limited, and that since then they had come across another company by the name of Marendaz Diesel. Once again the answer was the same. Now I want to say something, and I do not say it because it is I who say so, but because it is a senior advocate, a Judge at present, who said so. He appeared in this case for the defendants. Having investigated the case, that advocate as well as the junior, who is a senior at present, arrived at the conclusion that there was no case against Dr. De Wet at all, and that he had never been a director of that company. These are the facts of the case. Marendaz suggested that on 15th September, 1959, Dr. De Wet had been present at a directors’ meeting, at which he was invited to become a director and where he did in fact become a director. He was not present at such a meeting and he did not attend any such meeting. If one looks at the attendance roll signed by directors, and in this case it was signed promptly, one will find that, in spite of the fact that there was a meeting of directors on the 15th, only Marendaz and his wife signed as directors of that company. The signature of Dr. De Wet, who was supposed to be a director does not appear anywhere in that regard. If one looks more closely, one sees that on the next day, the 16th, there was another directors’ meeting, at which Mr. Marendaz and his wife, and no other director at all, were once again the only people to sign as directors. Furthermore, there were several directors’ meetings subsequent to that one, up to the time the letter was written on 12th April, and Dr. De Wet’s signature did not appear on the attendance rolls once. The standpoint of the defence was that he had never been a director, in spite of the letter of 12th February, for the simple reason that Dr. De Wet, acting on advice, had written that letter at that stage in order to get out of the mess. That is the truth of the matter.

Did he resign from something he did not belong to?

Yes, that is the case. It may seem stupid to hon. members, but this is the advice which he received and on which he acted.

If he had not been a director, why, then, was he in a mess?

Because he was up against a rogue. Now I want to ask hon. members who find it so easy to talk now that this matter is something of the past, whether Dr. De Wet, who, according to the charge made against him, was a director of that company from September to February, a question of less than five months, would have resigned for any reason. What other reason, then, would have induced him to resign? If he had only just become a director, why then would he have resigned if something had not been wrong in that regard?

We want to know, too.

Surely, I have given hon. members the answer now.

He resigned because he was not a director.

Because he wanted to extricate himself, without any problems, from the situation in which he had been involved by this fellow. He was not the only person to be involved in such a manner. These are the facts.

Now we come to the matter on which the hon. member apparently wants to attack me now, i.e. in regard to the settlement. We concluded that settlement, as the Department quite rightly said here. The Department pointed out that if we had had to fight this court case, we would have had to pay the costs of senior and junior advocates. We would have had to incur the costs of having Dr. De Wet brought here from London, and we would have had to carry on legal proceedings for months, for there is simply no end to a case in which Marendaz is involved. Under those circumstances the Department recommended that the case be settled in the way it was done. I want to repeat that I find it astonishing that a senior advocate, who had access to the documents and could have obtained access to them, could, under the cloak of his privilege, have made these attacks on the integrity of a person whilst he could have discovered the truth of the matter. If he could not have discovered it in that way, there was nothing to prevent him from placing on the question Paper questions in regard to this matter. If he had done that, he could, if he had wanted to do so at all, have obtained the truth in regard to this case and this matter. However, the hon. member preferred not to do so. He preferred to make use of blatant untruths in order to launch an attack in this regard. As far as the rest of these matters are concerned, I shall deal with them later.

Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that the hon. the Prime Minister says that the Minister of Health resigned from the company to get out of the mess after five months. But it is somewhat remarkable also in that case that when he sent in his letter of resignation as a director, which he apparently never was, he said:

If that is so, let me refer to the contents of the affidavit of Capt. Marendaz when he laid the criminal charge. Perhaps someone will tell us about what he says:

The reasons that were given I think are unnecessary to mention. Despite all the interesting information that the hon. the Prime Minister has laid before us—I must say that a lot of it is information that I did not know before—it all revolves around one simple issue which has not been answered, namely the charge against Marendaz despite the changing of the name to Bamzam (Pty.) Ltd., and so on. Despite all that, there is one simple issue unanswered after the hon. the Prime Minister sat down. Marendaz was charged as follows:

That was on the 15th September, yes.

The charge relates to Marendaz Diesels (Pty.) Ltd., that he was a director of it after that charge was laid. The hon. the Prime Minister says that in the end Dr. Yutar told him to withdraw the charge, so that it was unnecessary for Dr. De Wet to give evidence. I might say, Sir, in the interest of Dr. De Wet at the time, this was perhaps a good thing if he was going to be the Ambassador, because his evidence would have been false, would it not?

No, certainly not.

Surely, Marendaz on that charge would have been found not guilty and discharged. Is there any other alternative?

His evidence would not have been false.

But was he a director of the company? This is the whole point. I am very interested in the question of deportation. The information on my document indicates that—and this may not be correct—the terms of settlement were signed on the 1st day of April by Marendaz and on the 13th Day of February by the defendant.

That makes your case worse if it is true.

But now the hon. the Prime Minister says that it is the 13th April.

According to the documents before me, yes.

The hon. the Prime Minister knows as well as I do that terms of settlement incorporated in court are not always all the terms of settlement. Let me say that it is a remarkable coincidence for the hon. the Prime Minister to say that the deed of settlement filed in court was signed on the 13th April.

That is according to my copy of the document.

Yes, that is correct, and on the same day a letter from the State Attorney ot Marendaz’ attorneys stated:

On the same day, namely the 13th April, in the same town a letter was sent by Marendaz’ attorneys to the Attorney-General of the Transvaal. The letter from the State Attorney gives the undertaking contained in the deed of settlement, on the same day that a reciprocal undertaking was given by Marendaz’ attorneys, as follows:

There it is, Sir. This all happened on the same day. The one undertaking was given for the other. The fact that Marendaz was an insolvent and the lurid history which the hon. the Prime Minister has given in this respect, makes it even more remarkable in the first place that this was one of the hon. the Minister’s business associates, and in the second place that he was at that time the person to whom the hon. the Minister could give an indemnity.

For reasons I have given you. This was done on representations from his counsel.

Yes, and I am sure that the hon. the Prime Minister has had representations from counsel very often, but the fact is that the gravamen of the matter has not yet been answered. The hon. the Prime Minister has not yet dealt with the question of Die Beeld. I shall not go into that any further. He says he will answer that point later. In point of fact, the Minister was or was not a director. Was he a director or was he not?

He was not.

Why did he resign then?

There is another point I should like to have answered. The hon. the Prime Minister makes the point that we said that at the time he was just an ordinary Member of Parliament, whereas at the time he was an Ambassador. At the time that is referred to he was in fact a Member of Parliament. The civil action was served upon him …

You and Marais Steyn referred to the date of issue of the summons.

These are technicalities from the hon. the Prime Minister. When he received the summons he received it because he was Carel de Wet. He will remain Carel de Wet all his life. He has been Carel de Wet all his life so far. The fact that he becomes an Ambassador does not alter the situation. In suing Carel de Wet as a Member of Parliament or as an ordinary person, as an individual, the summons has to be served, whether he is an Ambassador or whatever he is. This is a technical point which does not affect the matter at all. What was he at the time when the criminal charge was laid against him?

He was a Member of Parliament.

He was not yet the Ambassador.

Then he was suddenly made Ambassador.

Yes, and the kernel of the matter is …

He was Ambassador when it was laid.

Yes, when it was drawn and served on him, but the cause of the action related to the time when he was in fact a Member of Parliament. Surely, Sir, these technicalities are not going to help the hon. the Minister. If that is the Prime Minister’s answer in respect of the Minister of Health, I must say that it leaves us perhaps even worse off than we were before. The action was apparently withdrawn for the sole and simple reason that he was appointed Ambassador.

The criminal action, yes. At the time he was not available. He was on his way to England.

Oh, he was actually on his way to England and therefore unavailable?

He was not available at the time because he had to go to Britain.

Sir, … [Time expired.]

As a senior advocate, the hon. member for Durban (North) ought to be ashamed of himself for the way he acted in this House this evening. I shall just mention the last point the hon. member raised. How many times, in his professional career, has he not approached a prosecutor and asked that a case against a client of his be withdrawn as a result of the fact that he was, for example, a specialist who had to operate that day, or for some or other personal reason.

To ask for a postponement.

Not to ask for a postponement. How many times has he not asked for a case to be withdrawn when the merits justify it. Here it has been explained to him that the case was withdrawn as a result of the inconvenience involved. The inconvenience resulted from the fact that Dr. De Wet was appointed as ambassador in London. Now he must be brought back from London to Vereeniging in order to give evidence at great cost to the State. The complaint lodged against him did not justify this. Now hon. members opposite want to imply that Mr. Marendaz was almost being accused of high treason. Worst of all is the fact that the hon. member was not even ordered by Marendaz to state the case in Parliament. You are running after a lot of Sunday Times stories.

Gossip.

A lot of gossip. In view of that the hon. member comes along and makes a lot of fuss here, thinking that he will force the Government and this side to be stampeded about this case which is not worth giving further attention to. The hon. member based his whole argument on a question of credibility in public life being involved. According to his speech in the no-confidence debate, this is supposedly of the greatest importance. He annot but deduce that what is stated there is the truth, and that Dr. De Wet, the hon. the Minister of Mines, did not speak the truth. He also said that it must be accepted that the hon. the Minister is a liar. These are all accusations he made here. Then he addressed the Prime Minister and said—

And then, what did the hon. member do during the Second Reading debate of the Egg Control Bill? I quote—

Are you a millionaire, Mike?

No, I am not a millionaire. If I were sitting over there I might be, but I am not.

Order! What does the hon. member mean by that?

I just mean that I might have more opportunity.

What opportunity is the hon. member speaking of? Does the hon. member thereby want to imply that one can enrich oneself on the Government side? If one is in the Government benches, can one enrich oneself? And if he were to have the opportunity of sitting on the Government benches would he come and sit here and get rich? Is that what the hon. member wanted to imply? And then the hon. member speaks of credibility in public life! He said that if he were given the opportunity to sit in the Government benches he would show how one enriches oneself to become a millionaire.

But let us look a little further. The Prime Minister was being frank and he openly revealed all relevant documents and facts. The Prime Minister then put a reasonable question to the hon. member which he, as an experienced legal man, ought to have had no problem answering. But the hon. member sat there like a small boy in Std. 6 who had stolen sweets. He did not have the courage of a mouse to say whether he had the settlement deed in his possession or not. But then this is the gentleman who, on behalf of the Sunday Times and Mr. Marendaz, said of an hon. Minister of this House …

I said so.

You did not.

I sat looking at the hon. member. You did not tell the Prime Minister whether you had those documents in your possession or not.

I did say so.

At a later stage, when the member was pressed, he said that he would say something at a later stage. It was a simple matter that he could not reply to. You do not have the decency to reply to the question, in the debate across the floor of the House, by saying that you had the settlement deed in your possession when you made that statement.

I did say so.

Oh no, you said that you would say something at a later stage. But then he wants to come along and, across the floor, push around an hon. Minister of this House. He ought to be ashamed of himself about that.

Let us look at further accusations the hon. member made, because he supports his case on what appeared in the Sunday Times. In column 188 of his speech in the no-confidence debate, he said that the directors of such a company are subpoenaed in such a case; in other words, in a case such as this all directors must be subpoenaed. He then said, just in passing, that the hon. the Minister’s name was also mentioned as a director. But as a legal man the hon. member surely knows that it is not necessary, in the case of such a company, for all the directors to be subpoenaed. He knows it, so why did he say that? He said it so that the fact that this man was a director could be published. Because he is a Minister of the State, or a National Party member of the House of Assembly, he was not subpoenaed, and only the one other poor director was subpoenaed. That is why that insinuation is being made.

But what is more, he also made the accusation that the hon. the Minister was not subpoenaed, and then he wants to draw this conculsion from it, but the charge to which the hon. member for Durban (North) referred is count No. 21, but he referred to count 14 in his no-confidence debate speech. There it was specifically the hon. the Minister who would have had to appear as a witness according to the argument of his own case. But why does the hon. member not tell the public that one cannot call one accused as a witness against another accused while both are charged in the same case in which they were pleading? But this insinuation is left in his speech. Then he speaks of honesty and morality, and of the credibility of public figures. What insinuations did he, as a legal man, make in his argument in this House? In addition, I want to ask: Are you making this accusation because you want to imply that the State acted irregularly in protecting Dr. De Wet? Is that why you made that accusation in your speech? But let us look at column 192 of the Afrikaans Hansard. There it is indicated that Marendaz submitted a document in which it was indicated that he was, in fact, a director of the company, and that the hon. the Minister attended a directors’ meeting. The hon. member for Durban (North) said that Marendaz also submitted the minutes, and he spoke so authoritatively, as if he himself had inspected the minutes, but he does not say so. I therefore do not want to charge him with that unnecessarily. But he also submitted the minutes, and what is the situation now in connection with those minutes? We have copies of them in the Sunday Times, and the hon. the Prime Minister gave additional particulars. Those minutes were not signed by Dr. De Wet. There is not proof that Dr. De Wet was even present. Sir, I want to intimate that this document in the Sunday Times is a forgery, but I do not charge the hon. member for Durban (North) with that; I charge Marendaz. I say that this published document, which was before the directors, is a forgery, because here it is implied that three people were present.

[Inaudible.]

You are the big gossiper.

On a point of order, Sir, may the hon. member for Brits say that an hon. member on this side is a big gossiper.

The hon. member may proceed. That expression has not yet been regarded as unparliamentary.

Then you are all gossipers. [Interjections.]

I say that this document is a forgery, because it professes that three directors were present, while only two directors signed it. [Interjections.] Keep quiet now, please. It was, of course, only signed by Marendaz and his wife, but now the hon. member wants to draw the conclusion that because it reads “Meeting of directors”, Dr. De Wet was present at that meeting.

But there is also something else, in connection with the matter, that is relevant here, and that is the wording. The wording reads as follows—

If one looks at the wording, it strikes one why the past tense is used here. Does this not also indicate his absence? The hon. member went further and referred to the letters, inter alia, the one of 29th January, 1960, and from that he tried to draw certain conclusions. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman …

Where are the United Party members?

A serious charge is being levelled at the Minister, and this charge is based on a deduction. Together with the Committee we must investigate this and then see whether we can justly draw the conclusions which the hon. members on the other side have, in fact, drawn. Mr. Chairman, you have heard the charge laid against Marendaz, and the hon. member for Durban (North’s) deduction to the effect that this means that the hon. the Minister made a false statement. According to column 189 of Hansard, the hon. member for Durban (North) said the following—

Why did he accept shares?

The case against the hon. the Minister is based on deductions. I now want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville just to keep quiet for a moment, and we shall see whether he will not perhaps agree as well after I have finished.

The problem arose here, in my opinion, as a result of a shortcoming in the Companies Act. A person can, to wit, be made a director of a company “without his knowledge and consent”. The hon. member for Durban (North) is an advocate, and I take it that he is also aware of these facts. The method of appointment to a directorship is a procedure regulated by the statues of individual companies. Section 67 of the Companies Act only provides that, in order to become a director, the written permission of a person is necessary in the case of the registration of a prospectus and a statement in lieu of a prospectus. In the statutes of private companies it is, however, customary not to lay down as a requirement that the “knowledge and consent” of any person be called for before he can become a director, and this is not required either in “Table A”, which is appended to the Companies Act. It is highly unlikely that such permission would have been required in the statutes of Marendaz Diesel Engines (Pty) Ltd., and I accept specifically, and I think rightly too, that that was not the case.

But what is the relevance of all this, you may ask? The relevance is this—and I now turn my attention in particular to the hon. member for Durban (North)—that the hon. the Minister and everyone in this House could become a director of a company “without his knowledge and consent” and then formally be a director, although he is not a director as far as he himself is concerned. In other words, on 15th September, 1959, the hon. the Minister —and this is my respectful submission to this Committee—was legally made a director of this company “without his knowledge and consent”.

The date 15th September, 1959, is important. It is the relevant date, and the hon. the Minister’s knowledge is relevant to that date, 15th September, and nothing more. The hon. the Minister would therefore have been justified in saying in a statement, if he were to have made such a statement, that as far as he was concerned he became a director “without my knowledge and consent”. Now the Minister, and any other person in such a position, finds himself in something of a dilemma. As far as he is concerned he is not a director, and he knows nothing of the company, but formally, and perhaps also legally, he is in fact a director. I can say that in such a case a person, who is made a director in that way, shall in no way be liable, because he had no knowledge of his appointment.

The problem now simply revolves around how he consequently ceases to be a director; to use the words of the hon. the Prime Minister, how does he get out of the mess? There is one of two ways in which he can resolve this problem. There is only one way in which he can cease to be a director, and that is by resigning, and he must do so in writing, according to the statutes of all private companies. But how does he resign? The nature of his resignation depends upon the relationship between the hon. the Minister and Marendaz. We must now remember, and the hon. the Minister also said this to us, that at the beginning of 1960 the relationship between the Minister and Marendaz was not a bad one; it was a good relationship at that stage, just as Marenda’s relationship at that stage with Barclays Bank and Chase Manhatten Bank was also a good one. If the relationship between the hon. the Minister and Marendaz had been a bad one, the hon. the Minister would perhaps have resigned in the following way. He would have sent him a telegram and told him: “I resign as a director of your useless company. You are a rogue. Rude letter follows”.

But if the relationship between the Minister and Marendaz was a good one, as it was, the Minister could have written a short letter to Marendaz that read as follows: “Dear Sir, would you be kind enough to accept my resignation as director of your company as from to-day? I am enclosing share certificate No. 8. May I state that our association has been a very pleasant one”, not “association” as directors, because the hon. the Minister told us that he had known the person for a considerable time and had helped him because he was a shareholder in this company. One then writes him this friendly letter and sign it “Yours sincerely, Carel de Wet”.

I say that it was the logical thing for the hon. the Minister to have done in these circumstances. The fact that a man resigns as a director does not mean that he became a director with his permission. His resignation results from a legal dilemma that existed, and I hope and assume that the hon. member for Durban (North) will accept my statement.

The charge brought by the State was therefore, in my opinion, abortive from the start. The State could not succeed with this charge, and that is why the State rightly withdrew count No. 1, while a trifling amount was paid in damages on count No. 2. The conclusion being drawn here against the Minister is superficial, improbably and absolutely unfair.

I am regarding the facts here as a legal man, and if I investigate the facts in this way I can understand the hon. the Minister’s actions in every respect, and I want to tell this Committee that I do not have the slightest doubt about the integrity of the hon. the Minister, and I believe that his actions were correct in the circumstances and altogether above any criticism.

We have listened now for some hours to a discussion of the case of the hon. the Minister of Health. You know, Sir, when one has heard the torrent of words which have fallen in this debate, principally from the hon. the Prime Minister, one tends to forget that since June of this year when this case was first raised, there were only two simple issues and they were these. Was the hon. gentleman a director of the Marendaz Company, and did he lay the complaint upon which the charge was laid? That is all, and for three or four months, despite positive challenges to the hon. gentleman to state the facts, straight challenges across the floor of this House challenging him to say whether he was a director of that company or not, we have never once had a reply from the hon. the Minister himself, and now for the very first time, nearly four months later, we get an extended plea from the hon. the Prime Minister which amounts to the fact that he was not a director of that company. Well, I am going to ask this House to-night to be a jury. I am going to put to the jury tonight four factors and ask them to make up their minds whether on that evidence one is entitled to deduce that the hon. gentleman was a director or not. What is the evidence, Sir? Firstly, he gets a 1,000 shares for which he does not pay; secondly, he writes two letters, the first of which is dated the 29th January, 1960, and is signed by the hon. the Minister and addressed to Capt. Marendaz. What does it say, Sir? Amongst other things it says this—

“our”—

And then modestly he goes on to reject the notion that his photograph ought to appear in that brochure.

That would have wrecked it.

Finally he says—

Then he goes on to convey personal felicitations to Mrs. Marendaz. Sir, does any man in his right senses, in respect of a company of which he is not a director, use the collective “our” and “we”?

How did he become a shareholder?

Then he writes a second letter in which the hon. gentleman says—

In addition to that, the fourth piece of evidence is this: He returns the share certificate in respect of 1,000 shares which were presented to him upon his being appointed as a director, so it is alleged by Mr. Marendaz and so the evidence suggests. Sir, if he was not a director why were these shares allotted to him in the first place and why did he accept them; and if he did pay for them, why did he not claim his money back when he returned the share certificate and resigned as a director? Sir, the situation is this: For the first time today, after this case has been bandied about in this House and outside for four months, we hear, not from the hon. gentleman himself, but from the hon. the Prime Minister, that in fact in law, despite what he might have done, he was not a director. Sir, does anyone write two letters, firstly saying “I resign as a director”, secondly referring to the company as “our” company and use the term “we”; thirdly, accepting 1,000 shares which were given to him for nothing, and fourthly, not paying for those shares? Can that evidence suggest anything other than that the hon. gentleman throughout this course of events believed himself to be a director.

The next point is this. After nearly four months during which this case has been bandied about and despite positive questions put to the hon. gentleman across the floor of the House, we hear for the first time to-night, not from the hon. the Minister of Health, but from the hon. the Prime Minister that the hon. the Minister made a statement to a detective that he had not been a director of Marendaz Diesels. Sir, why does the hon. gentleman himself not stand up here and tell us that he was never a director of that company and that he made a statement to the police, upon which no doubt the charge of fraud against Marendaz was based, to the effect that he had never been a director of Marendaz Diesels. Sir, I find this quite incredible and I must say that despite all the evidence which is available to us after the long speech by the hon. the Prime Minister who did his best to put shoal after shoal of herrings across the carpet of this House and clouds of smoke to confuse the issue by using the well-known smear technique, which I have known the hon. the Prime Minister to use on occasion, the hard elements of this case are those that I have outlined here. It matters not the slightest what sort of a bad fellow Marendaz was; that is quite irrelevant to the issue. It matters not in the slightest how many charges he has brought against this or that person. It matters not in the slightest what errors may have been made, through lack of information, by the Government itself or this side of the House. The bare facts of the matter are that we now hear for the first time …

Do you call untruths errors?

I know the hon. the Prime Minister referred to one or two statements which can be called inaccuracies, but when you have clear evidence, which we challenge the Government to clear up, and they refuse to do so, then, as I have said at an earlier stage, we are entitled to draw the only inferences which reasonable people can draw from the facts that are known to them.

Now, Sir, let me deal with one or two of the other statements which the hon. the Prime Minister made. Firstly, he said when referring to the alleged untruth uttered by the hon. member for Durban (North) in saying that the charge was withdrawn because of the letter of 12th February—and I must say that until the hon. the Prime Minister spoke one could think of no other reason why the charge should have been withdrawn—that it was because the hon. the Minister of Health was then going overseas as ambassador. Sir, this is no reason whatsoever for withdrawing a case.

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Sir, not a few months ago the ambassador to Belgium was brought back here to give evidence in the case. There is nothing unusual about this in the least in this day of air travel. Then, Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister referred to the question of the settlement of the case. I must say that I have heard of some surprising reasons in my time for settling a case and the reasons given by the hon. the Prime Minister come pretty close to them.

Then one comes to the final point with which I have already dealt and which to my mind requires an explanation even at this stage if any credence is to be attached—no, I should not say that; let me rather put it this way—if one is to be able to swallow even the explanation given by the hon. the Prime Minister, and that is the question of the shares. Sir, does any man accept 1,000 shares for which he is not going to pay if he does not believe that he is a director of the company concerned?

Why did he not give them back?

Sir, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Durban (North). He set out the issues as being of two kinds. In the beginning he said: “The issues are (1) whether there was a settlement and (2) did Dr. Carel de Wet make a statement which resulted in the charge being withdrawn?” These were the issues as set out by the hon. member for Durban (North). The hon. the Prime Minister explained fully what has happened in connection with the settlement, and in spite of his full explanation, in spite of the fact that that settlement had been made on the basis of departmental reports and those of lawyers, the hon. member for Durban (North) came to this House and insinuated to the Prime Minister that the idemnification was part of the settlement, in spite of the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister went out of his way to explain in a friendly way what the circumstances were. Sir, I wish the hon. member for Durban (North) would pay attention when one speaks to him.

No, he is in a dilemma.

He did not attend a finishing school.

If the hon. member wants me to ignore him, I shall, but if he wants to listen to a reply to his argument, I shall reply with pleasure. It is for him to decide whether he wants to be a gentleman or not; it does not matter to me. I can also take the debate to a lower level if he wants that.

Sir, I say that the hon. the Prime Minister explained this settlement fully; he laid the file open for inspection; he read out the departmental reports, and in spite of that, the hon. member for Durban (North) insinuated that the idemnification was part of the settlement when he knew that this was untrue.

Was it part of an agreement?

It was not part of an agreement. The hon. the Prime Minister read out the departmental submission to hon. members very clearly. The submission by the Department came from the advocates of the claimant; in it they said that the man was 68 years old, that he did not have much longer to live, that his wife had already been at Tara, and that the idemnification had then been given for humanitarian reasons. It related only to this specific charge in connection with which an appeal had already been lodged. Sir. let us look at what the hon. members put forward here. I say that the hon. member for Durban (North) raised only these two matters. He said that the two issues were whether there had been settlement and, secondly, “Did Dr. De Wet make a statement which resulted in the charge being withdrawn?” This was also explained fully. Then the hon. member came back and said that there was another “issue” which he had forgotten. After the hon. the Prime Minister had explained these two issues, he raised a third issue: “Did he consent to being a director?” He said that this was the real issue; the other two had been disposed of. He forgot about them because they had been explained, and he then asked: “Did he consent to being a director?” The hon. member for Zululand then came with another issue: “Was the hon. gentleman a director of the company? Did he lay the charge?”

Was he or was he not?

I am quite prepared to reply to that. I have the charge here in my hand—

The term “at any time”, as the lawyers in this House will know, is later attached to a date in the charge sheet. Am I right or am I wrong?

Let us see what happened when the investigating officer approached Dr. Carel de Wet. He said to him: “Here I have form J, which was sent in and on which your name appears as a director; here I have the minutes of that meeting; only two signatures appear on the minutes, namely the signatures of Marendaz and his wife. Obviously, if you had become a director on that day, your signature would also have been there if you had been present. We are now investigating whether, when this form was filled in, you were appointed as a director that day, yes or no.” The lawyers on the other side must please be fair now, if it is possible for them, and tell me what any person must reply to that. Let us for a moment imagine that the hon. the Minister was not present at that meeting, as I know he was hot. What should he have said? Should he have said, “Yes, I heard subsequently that I was a director and I wrote a letter and therefore I was present at the meeting?” That would surely have been a lie. The hon. the Minister had no other choice than to reply to such a question: “No, I was not present at that meeting”, and this is the representation which Marendaz made; it stands here—

Sir, but this is not correct. If the person is not present at all and knows nothing about it, what other statement can he make than to say to the policeman: “I was not present; I know nothing about it”, whatever happened later. [Interjection.] Sir, we are talking about this charge and the investigation of this charge. Every lawyer in this House knows how this sort of charge is investigated. The police come to you with form J on which is printed “15th September” and then the question is put to you: “Were you at that office on 15th September and were you appointed as a director on that day?” What other reply can you give to that than to say, “No, I was not there?” But now hon. members come here with one slanderous story after another which they pick up in the newspapers, and then the hon. member for Yeoville comes here with this other small one …

They want to run away from the Land Bank.

At whose expense did he drive there?

This is a question to which that hon. member himself cannot reply, because it is a nonsensical question. Why does he ask such a nonsensical question? It is typical of the nonsensical questions which the hon. member for Durban (Point) asks. He asks such a question out of sheer stupidity and because of sheer ignorance. If he had known anything about this charge sheet, he simply could not have put such a question.

He knows nothing about law.

Who paid for it?

What concern is it of yours?

Sir, the position is simply this: If Dr. Carel de Wet had replied that day, “Yes, I am a director”, he would in reality have told a lie, because he knew nothing about that whole business. He replied in his statement that he had not been a director on that day.

Let us now come to the withdrawal of the charge. Do the lawyers in this House want to say to me this evening that they do not know that a charge can very easily be withdrawn without the person having pleaded? This is the technical difference. If I go overseas and there is a charge against a person in respect of which I have to testify, the prosecutor will tell me that it is very easy; all he will do is to withdraw the charge before the man has pleaded and then summons him later when I come back from London or wherever I was. The man has not yet pleaded and therefore is not found not guilty at that stage. The charge is withdrawn and the State may continue with it on a later occasion. Now hon. members come here with, one can say, a lot of nonsense and gossip from the newspapers to try to impress us here. If hon. members had examined the charge sheet and given some thought to the matter, they would have known better and would have found out that it is a quite innocent case about which they are making a tremendous fuss for no reason. Now I just want to say to the hon. member for Durban (North) that after the mistakes which he had made here in his initial statement in this House by alleging that the charge had been withdrawn in the light of the letter of the 12th February, 1964, I really expected him to apologize. The hon. member for Durban (North) stated it as a fact and he now knows that it is absolutely untrue. I had expected the hon. member to apologize immediately in his second speech this afternoon. I expected that in view of the good explanation which the hon. the Prime Minister had given hon. members, he would express his gratitude and said to the Prime Minister: “Now we understand your position. Your position is quite clear. You showed us what the departmental submissions were, you presented a motivated case for the withdrawal to us, and we understand it”. Hon. members on the other side, however, continue with their gossip. One is disappointed, because as far as I have examined this matter, it seems to me that the statement which the hon. the Minister of Health made was a completely innocent one, which had to be made in that way. He had no alternative.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with the matter that was last dealt with here on the 7th August and in respect of which I have had no parliamentary opportunity to deal with until to-day. I want to emphasize this fact because of what has been said by hon. members opposite. I want to come back to that speech right away. What I said on that occasion was, I think, very aptly summed up by my hon. Leader when referring to the attitude adopted by the hon. the Minister of Transport. My hon. Leader, and this is the line I take to-day and it is the line that I took then, said that: “For the sake of political expediency, Mr. Schoeman sought to turn an issue affecting the safety of a specific railway line into a political controversy”. That is the position. The hon. the Minister of Transport took a case dealing with a specific railway line and attempted to turn it into a political controversy. What was the attitude of the hon. the Minister? I had five minutes to speak and when I sat down, the hon. the Minister immediately jumped up and followed me. He did not have my Hansard in front of him and had had no chance to read it. All he had heard was what I said and I say now that he believed that that was a golden opportunity to get away from the position of the railway line which I referred to and its lack of safety, in my opinion, and to turn the whole matter into the political controversy which my hon. Leader referred to. He summed up his attitude in this way: “The real issue was the outburst of Mr. Mitchell that a black man should not be employed in a job which was formerly performed by a white man. That is the real issue and that is the principle we are concerned about.” May I say that the hon. the Minister left this House and went to the Other House where he made two speeches in my absence. He insulted me there and being absent I could not reply to him. When he left the hon. the Deputy Minister took over and carried on. The hon. the Minister went bawling and shouting the phrase that I have just read over and over again. The hon. Deputy Minister said that I never once referred to the safety of the line. Now, this is inherent in what is usually referred to as my five minute speech. Let us look at it again, because it has now come back to the point where I can face the hon. Minister of Transport without his making allegations about me behind my back at the Other Place. The point I want to make is that the hon. Minister made a slip in the Other Place in dealing with the status of a certain official. In that regard, my hon. Leader is going to come into this debate later on, which I think is very fitting indeed in view not only of the position that he holds, but also in view of the position the hon. Minister of Transport holds. The hon. Minister of Transport took the question of the safety of the line which I was dealing with and attempted to turn it into a short cut to a political victory, which had nothing at all to do with the safety of the people in South Africa on the railway lines. When he was pulled up in regard to the slip he had made, he alleged that not I, Mr. Mitchell, had made a slip, but he said, referring to me, that my policy was that a black man should not be employed in a job that was formerly performed by a white man. That allegation is not only completely untrue but it was a rank impertinence for the hon. Minister to go to that Other Place and make a statement like that behind my back. I had never referred to policy from one end to the other of my statement. I challenge the hon. Minister to show me in my five minute speech where I referred to policy. Now, let us deal with the five minute speech. [Interjections.] I hope hon. members will give me a chance to put my side of the case. I have been hammered by their newspaper, Die Burger, for over two weeks. Die Burger has been talking the biggest lot of “cock” that I have had the misfortune to read for a very long time. They had my Hansard in front of them and when the hon. Minister made his speech in the Other Place he had an opportunity to study my Hansard. He found he was wrong, but then he would not back down. He would not admit that he had made a mistake. What I said is as follows: “I want to deal with the question of manpower and the use of non-Whites. On my railway line from Durban to Port Shepstone there are Bantu doing the work of white gangers.” I repeat, Sir: “on the railway line from Durban to Port Shepstone there are Bantu doing the work of white gangers”. Within the four corners of that statement follows the whole of what I said during the next five minutes. On five separate occasions I referred to the fact that the line in my opinion was unsafe and I invited the hon. Minister to send an official with me, so that I could show him where I believed the sleepers were rotten and the dog spikes were not holding. But what did the hon. Deputy Minister have the temerity to say in the Other Place? It is no wonder that there is a big credibility gap in regard to Ministers to-day. The hon. Deputy Minister was not involved in the argument and it had nothing to do with him. He said that Native women were waving their aprons to stop trains and other such nonsense. I accept that his knowledge of such matters is far better than mine. He is probably very well informed about Native women waving their aprons.

He dances with them.

He has the temerity to say that I refused the invitation of the Minister of Transport to go with an engineer to have a look at the line. He said that I refused the invitation. I extended the invitation to the Minister and I pressed him five separate times …

Where did I say you refused it? I said you did not make use of the invitation.

That is right. What does that mean? Does it not mean that the Minsiter extended me an invitation? How can I make use of an invitation if one is not extended to me? Do not talk rubbish, man. The position is that I put within the four corners of that opening statement of my speech precisely what I was coming to and what I was dealing with. Then it follows, and I repeat: The hon. the Minister in the Other Place had no right whatsoever to refer to policy. Two days later I made my 20 minute speech, the second speech, to clear up some of the points which had apparently come to the fore in the mind of the hon. the Minister because I had then listened to his speech and had time to examine his Hansard. That is why I came back on it. I repeat. He had not seen my Hansard when he made his first speech. I want on to deal with the ganger who at the present time takes a gang of Natives, not by trolley as the old-time ganger did, but by means of a motor lorry, along the road. He then leaves a group of Natives on the railway line to do certain work. At this stage the hon. the Minister interrupted me. I give an extract of Hansard of that day as follows—

We have patrolmen on the line itself.

How do they travel?

They walk along the line.

Are these white patrolmen walking along the line?

No, Bantu.

Mr. Chairman, what were we talking about? Bantu walking along the line from Durban to Port Shepstone. These were Bantu doing the work of gangers. [Time expired.]

I did not expect that the hon. member for South Coast would venture to enter the debate again. I expected the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to enter the debate. He was the one who had brought the charge and demanded that I should resign. I expected the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to substantiate that charge and to say on what grounds. The poor member for South Coast is still putting his foot even deeper into this. He complained that I had allegedly gone behind his back and had attacked him in the Other Place. What are the facts? I informed the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I would deal with his statement in the Other Place and that I would be pleased if he could be present.

I, not he.

I asked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. That hon. member was not here. He had left for Natal with Press photographers. The hon. member had made haste to that line with a crowd of Press photographers in order to take photographs of places on that line which had nothing to do with the place to which he had referred here. How could I have invited that hon. member?

There was more than one place.

There was not more than one place. The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. He should rather keep quiet now. The hon. member for South Coast made haste to the line with photographers in order to take photographs of a section of the line which had absolutely nothing to do with that section of the line he had discussed here. I could not have invited him to be present.

I had nothing to do with the photos.

Did that hon. member have nothing to do with the photographers? Does the hon. member for South Coast want to tell me that he did not ask the Press to send photographers to inspect that line with him?

†If the hon. member does not understand it, I will repeat it in English. Does the hon. member deny taking Press photographers with him to inspect the line on the South Coast and to take photographs?

Make your speech.

But now the hon. member has said that I attacked him behind his back in the Other Place. I never attack anyone behind his back. I attacked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. But I had said to him, “Come, I want to attack you”. He was conspicuous by his absence.

What reply could I give there?

No, but the hon. the Leader has the opportunity to reply here. He has been sitting here with sealed lips since quarter past two this afternoon. The Prime Minister challenged him to reply. He has not yet replied. It is twenty minutes past ten now and still he has not replied.

There is still a lot of time.

I wish he would reply. I am waiting for his reply and I am looking forward to it.

But let me deal with the hon. member for South Coast again. On 5th August the hon. member for South Coast made a speech. In that speech he made certain allegations. I shall read it now, as I did before. He said (Hansard, column 1117)—

Then I said—

Then the hon. member said—

There are continual patrols on the line.

Then the hon. member went on to deal with the whole matter. After that I again said: “We have patrolmen on the line itself”. I do not have the time to quote everything. I have already done so.

†The hon. member then asked: “Are these white patrolmen walking along the line?” This has nothing to do with gangers. Here the hon. member was talking about patrolmen. In reply to the hon. member’s question I said: “No, Bantu”. The hon. member then said—

“Those Bantu”.

… in respect of that job …

It does not matter if it is “those Bantu” or any other Bantu. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, those hon. members are making themselves look foolish. Whether the hon. member was talking about those Bantu on the South Coast line or those Bantu on the main line to Durban, the fact still remains that Bantu are doing patrolmen’s work. Why should the position of Bantu patrolmen on the South Coast line be any different to that of Bantu patrolmen on the Natal main line? The hon. member must not be silly. The hon. member said—

That was the hon. member’s argument. Whether he was referring to patrolmen on the South Coast line or on the Natal main line, the fact remains that Bantu are doing patrol work. Why sould we have white patrolmen on the South Coast line and Bantu patrolmen on the Natal main line? It shows how stupid hon. members are when they make interjections like that. That was the gravamen of the hon. member’s charge when he attacked me. In the hon. member’s second speech on the Friday afternoon he suddenly spoke about the safety of the railway line.

*I accused the hon. member of having repudiated the whole policy of his party, and this is true. While they argue that the Bantu should be given more responsible work, that hon. member is not even prepared to allow a Bantu to do the ordinary unskilled work of a patrolman. That was my argument and my point of attack. This is the position. After the hon. member had spoken that Friday, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, without checking the facts, made a statement to the newspapers the following Monday while the hon. member for South Coast was still in Natal with the press photographers. In that statement, he alleged that I was playing politics with the safety of the Railways. This is scandalous, and the hon. member cannot prove it. I challenge him to prove it. To-morrow he will have an opportunity to speak. I have all his allegations here. He made the allegation that I was playing politics with the safety of the Railways, and this is a blatant untruth which he cannot substantiate. I am telling him this to his face. This just goes to show the integrity of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He does not have the courage to stand up and apologize for that blatant untruth. I think he ought to be ashamed of himself. This is a man for whom I have always had great respect. I at least thought that he was honourable and that he would admit when he had made a mistake. After his performance in this House, and specifically after the statement which he made, he ought to be ashamed of himself. He has altogether lost the respect of this House and the public outside.

That is what you are hoping.

The hon. the Leader will still have an opportunity to speak to-morrow. This debate will not be concluded before he has had an opportunity to speak.

You will not get away with that.

He is going to speak …

You are going to speak …

I am speaking now. I am saying that I have all the proof to show that what the member for South Coast said in connection with the safety of that line, is blatant untruth. I have all the proof that that line is safe and that there is nothing wrong with that railway line. I have that proof in my possession and I want to quote it here in this House. That hon. member must produce proof that I have spoken an untruth. He must prove that the engineers who are responsible for the maintenance of that line, have deceived me. He must prove that they have told me an untruth. This will be his task to-morrow and I am waiting for it.

State your demands, I shall state mine.

I hope so.

When?

Yes. a full day has passed and the hon. the Leader has not yet stated his case. I just want to say one thing. I am sorry for the hon. member for South Coast.

†As I have already said, whenever he opens his mouth he puts his foot in it. As I said on a previous occasion, the trouble with the hon. member for South Coast is that as soon as he gets to his feet his brain stops working, and he says irresponsible things. As I have said before, I do not know whether it is age or not, but whatever the reason, I think he should come to terms with himself and be careful of what he says. He should not make wild allegations that he cannot substantiate. By doing so he causes his Leader and his party the greatest difficulty. He embarrasses them. The hon. member for South Coast cannot prove his allegations. He has been down that line and he has had his Press Photographers there. They are absolutely misleading the public, as my Deputy Minister has said, by taking photographs of a line that has absolutely nothing to do with that particular section of the line he dealt with in this House. But the hon. member even went further. On the Sunday he again went to the South Coast line in his motor car. According to a report I have here, one of my officials went up to the car—it was a Mercedes—and wanted to know what they were doing there. Mr. Mitchell then said that he was taking down numbers of the trucks to show that Ben Schoeman was telling a lie when he said that they were not working on that line on Sundays. Does he deny that?

Absolutely.

That was on the Sunday. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we have now heard a personal vilification of me by the Minister of Transport. We on this side are used to it. I could answer him back in like language. I have been in the Army and I can tell him what I think of him. Sir, that is a senior Minister of this House who talks like that. What an example! It is all in Hansard. Let me tell him what he had to say when I asked him about his patrolmen that he has now been talking about. I asked him a question, and what was the answer he gave me about these patrolmen? He said:“No Bantu is employed exclusively as a patrolman”.

Where did I say that?

It is in Hansard of the 14th August, in reply to a question. The Minister said “No Bantu is employed exclusively as a patrolman”.

On the 14th August?

Yes, column 1719. The reply was given by the Minister’s Deputy. The Minister said that these patrolmen had been with the Department for 20 years, and so on. I asked for their names and the dates on which they had begun work. Every one of them took on that job in 1969. This was according to the Deputy Minister, if we can believe him.

You wanted the names of the existing patrolmen on the line and I gave them to you.

Yes, that was the answer to the question, but the Minister had told me that they had been there for 20 years. Sir, I asked a further question, namely whether, when the Minister handed out the control of this line on contract in May, he laid down any conditions regarding the labour to be employed by the contractor. It is very interesting, because the Minister said that he could not get white men. But what was his answer to this question about labour on 14th August? The answer is: “Yes”. In other words, there are conditions which were laid down in regard to the class of labour to be used by the contractor. The reply continued: “The work must be carried out under supervision of suitably qualified white supervisors with adequate non-white labour”. The white contractor could therefore get hold of white supervisors or gangers, call them what you will. The Minister says that he could not get them. The hon. the Minister knows perfectly well that the gangs he was talking about had an induna doing the ganger’s job of a white man. He had six weeks training for a job a white man has to train five years for.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.