I think the hon. member for Simonstad will understand that in the time at my disposal it will be impossible for me to reply fully to all the points and complaints he raised here. However, I should like to deal reasonably fully with the most important of the matters he mentioned here. Right from the start I can tell him that many of the facts on which he based his deductions, are inaccurate. Later in my speech I shall furnish more examples of this; at the moment I want to touch upon just one example. With reference to the appointment of a commission of enquiry into the fishing industry in South Africa, he said right at the beginning of his speech—

There were two particular features, the first being that there is no mention in the terms of reference of that commission of enquiry to the South-West African commission of two years prior to that date, and there was no intention of incorporating the findings of that inquiry into the findings of the South African enquiry.

Let the hon. member now look at the Government Gazette of 20th June, 1969, and there he will find that the terms of reference were amended …

That is two years later.

There is a good reason for that. In that Government Gazette the terms of reference were amended by the addition of the following—

A second charge made by the hon. member, reads as follows—

That provision the hon. member can also find in that very same Government Gazette. The reason for these amendments only being effected in June, 1969, is obvious. At that time jurisdiction over fisheries in South-West Africa were still vested in the Administration of South-West Africa—until 31st March, 1969. But even before March, 1969, the relevant Minister of the Republic started conducting negotiations with South-West Africa on the appointment of a representative of South-West Africa to that commission. In fact, by that date the negotiations had been in progress for quite some time.

In the main the criticism levelled by the hon. member amounts to there having been neglect of duty on the part of the Government of the Republic over a considerable number of years. Last year, while the Economic Affairs Vote was being dealt with in this House, I on my part tried to show, in the light of the experience I had gained in regard to this matter, how difficult it was to determine the real potential. I indicated how inadequate research in this regard still was—not only in our country, but also all over the world—in enabling the authorities to determine the optimum production, that production which everybody who has the interests of the country at heart, would try to aim at. Last year I dealt with this matter in detail, and therefore I do not wish to come back to it again.

Furthermore, the hon. member also commented on specific matters, things that had happened here in the Republic prior to my being associated with the Department and of which I consequently do not have the necessary intimate knowledge to be able to discuss them authoritatively. I could go and read up the documents, but they can never reflect everything, for instance, conversations conducted, motivations for steps taken, etc. Consequently it would be wrong for me to try to pass judgment on things that took place during that time. For instance, the hon. member referred to the Paternoster case. I do not know what the circumstances of Paternoster are, but I may say that I have also been informed in this regard by other persons, and that the information I obtained from them, is totally different from that of the hon. member. Consequently I am not going to give an opinion on this situation.

But, surely, you are evading the matter now.

No, I am not evading it; I am merely being honest. Later on we shall have the opportunity of testing the Opposition’s honesty in this matter. As far as the hon. member for Simonstad is concerned, I have concluded from his speech—I may be wrong—that he is under the impression that the commission of South-West Africa, of which I was chairman, also inquired into the fishing industry on the West Coast of South Africa. That is not the case. Wherever references to the West Coast may occur in that report, they were made for a purpose of referring to what had happened.

The hon. member also pointed out that our fish was still being exploited by foreigners. This very same matter was also discussed here last year, and at the time I tried to reply to it to the best of my ability. I can only advise the hon. member to read the debate on that matter again. What I can in fact tell the hon. member today, is that up to the present stage the onslaught of foreigners on our pelagic fish has not been worth speaking of, something for which we can feel very grateful.

Then the hon. member actually speaking with his tongue in his cheek, referred to licences granted in South-West Africa in 1963 and 19.68. As far as 1963 is concerned, I can immediately tell the hon. member this: At that stage there was no doubt in the minds of either our research officers or the authorities over there that there was any danger of over-exploitation. At the time those two licences were granted, and the years that followed proved that it was possible to grant those two licences.

Then the hon. member said that two licences had been granted, one to Trust Bank, Luderitz, and the other to Volkskas, Walvis Bay. I should like to know from whom the hon. member obtained this nasty piece of information. If the hon. member would tell me on some occasion or other, I would appreciate it. What I do know, is that when these two licenses were granted, there were allegations of irregularities in South-West Africa, made there by the local opposition party, and what I also know, is that that opposition party had been given the opportunity to prove its allegations in court, and instead of proving them, it preferred to pay a few thousand rands. No licence was granted to Trust Bank, Luderitz. The background is that when the Executive Committee decided on these two licences, the Executive Committee indicated a few points to which it said it would pay special attention in considering applications for licences. I think there were five points, and those points were made known to everybody who had wanted to apply, just as it was made known all over the country that applications would be awaited. One of those points is relevant here, i.e. that the Executive Committee wanted to know from the applicant what capital resources he had at his disposal other than his share capital which he would be able to raise for that undertaking. The reason for this was that we, as the hon. member knows, were threatened with trade boycotts all over the world. The Executive Committee wanted to make sure that it was bringing in organizations which were backed by sufficient capital and which would be able to stand such a blow; in other words, which would be able to stand the strain on its own if necessary. The group that applied at Luderitz, was a small group of inhabitants of Luderitz. Their application was treated very sympathetically by the Executive Committee, as they were the same people who had done a great deal of spadework in order to convince the Executive Committee that a pilchard licence at Luderitz could be justified. Subsequently that group entered into an agreement with Trust Bank, an agreement with which the Executive Committee had absolutely nothing to do. In order to obtain the strong capital backing required by the Executive Committee, they entered into an agreement with Trust Bank. That group, in conjunction with Trust Bank, lodged that application as a new group that had been formed. These are the facts in that case.

As regards Volkskas, Walvis Bay, what happened there is that various organizations in South-West Africa, as well as in the Republic, formed groups and lodged applications. Three persons in Windhoek —they were not from Walvis Bay—had formed a group, and they did not approach Volkskas for that strong financial backing that was required, but as far as I can remember—my facts may be wrong here— they liaised with Federale Volksbeleggings. I am sure that it was not Volkskas, much less Volkskas, Walvis Bay. They, too, liaised with that financially strong institution for the sake of meeting that reasonable requirement set by the Executive Committee.

Then the hon. member dealt with the other licences granted in 1968. The facts at that stage were that scientific observations had shown—and the present commission of enquiry still confirms this—that at that stage the industry in South-West Africa could safely bear approximately one million tons a year. The commission on which I served, arrived at the same conclusion. To this the hon. member linked the fact that two licences had been granted in spite of the granting of licences to the factory ships in the Republic. The hon. member then read from the report about the goose that laid the golden egg, but if the hon. member had read the motivation in that report, he would have understood very clearly why South-West Africa had adopted that attitude. In short, it is simply this: Those resources are South-West Africa resources; they are situated in the territorial waters of South-West Africa, and consequently South-West Africa cannot accommodate itself to ships coming from other places, whether from the Republic or from abroad; that would be untenable. For that reason South-West Africa decided to permit these resources to go up to a million tons, and two very valuable and useful licences were granted, the one with a view to the development of Sarusas and the other with a view to the development of the white-fish industry.

This brings me to the factory ships. The history of the Willem Barendsz is as follows: The then Minister of Economic Affairs, the present Minister of Finance, came to South-West Africa and conducted negotiations with the Executive Committee on the envisaged allocation to the Willem Barendsz. The Minister put forward reasons which satisfied the Executive Committee that it ought not to oppose this step. But the Executive Committee felt that it had to make conditions, conditions which in themselves would imply a considerable measure of protection for the fisheries of South-West. Africa. Those conditions were made and such an agreement was reached with the Minister, and one of those conditions was that the catches would not take place within the 12-mile zone.

Had there been a previous application to the South-West Africa Administration?

There had been a previous application to the South-West Africa Administration, and it was refused. The Minister came and put forward other considerations—which are not relevant in this debate—which made the Executive Committee feel that it could agree, subject to these specific conditions which, in our opinion, would provide adequate protection. Subsequently it happened that additional allocations were made to two other ships which would also come to South-West Africa as factory ships.

Mr. Speaker, in that regard I wish to state here today, for the purpose of putting the record straight, the position as it really is. The Executive Committee of South-West Africa was not happy about those additional allocations, and no secret was made of that fact. A few days after the allocation had become known—there were two allocations at that stage—I paid a visit to the hon. the Prime Minister. I want to state here today that although at that stage the hon. the Prime Minister had only been in his office as Prime Minister for a few days, he gave up hours of his time to me, and that I received from him all the sympathy which, I could expect to receive. Arising from those talks and talks which followed subsequently, the following things happened: Restrictions and quotas were imposed on factory ships; legislation had to be piloted through by South-West Africa, for which the consent of the State President was needed; this was drastic legislation, and we obtained that consent; we also received Police assistance with the patrolling that was to follow later on, even to the extent that in 1970 there were no factory ships opposite the coastline of South-West Africa. In other words, at that stage the South-West Africa Administration received from the Prime Minister all the co-operation that could reasonably be expected from him, i.e. for the purpose of trying to protect the industry there. In addition there was the problem that the factory ships did not adhere to the conditions, and I have no hesitation in saying this, for the evidence is there. The factory ships remained outside the 12-mile zone, but according to my estimate their catchers caught between 80 and 90 per cent of our fish in the territorial waters of South-West Africa; in other words, the entrenchment we envisaged with those conditions, miscarried.

What about the patrol service?

South-West Africa immediately started taking steps to introduce a patrol service. A patrol service is not as simple as it sounds; it has to be organized and boats have to be acquired. One has the position that at times boats are operating over a distance of 200 miles of coastline. One has the position that they make their catches at night. In other words, patrol services present many problems. But that was all that could be seized upon at that stage, and that was done.

Now I want to admit to the hon. member that I accept at this stage that over exploitation did take place. The indications are there, under these circumstances. The hon. member wanted to know from me what was going to be done in connection with the Willem Barendsz. Attempts were made with the two factory ships, the Suiderkruis and the Willem Barendsz as well as the one factory ship that was also to have come, but at the time this project was shelved by the hon. the Prime Minister and consequently it never came. In an attempt at reaching a reasonable compromise, the two factory ships were allocated the equivalent of one land-bound quota, which would then be processed by the existing factories in Walvis Bay. At this stage I do not know what the Suiderkruis is going to do; it has not accepted this as yet. The Willem Barendsz so we are told is going back to the coast of South-West Africa. I am told that at the moment it is catching fish somewhere off Gansbaai, fish which I believe the South African waters cannot really afford to have caught. We the State can only do what we can do within reason to protect our resources there. These people have rights which cannot be ignored just like that.

Who granted the licence to the Willem Barendsz?

But, surely, I did say that it was granted by the Minister of Economic Affairs in conjunction with the Executive Committee of South-West Africa. [Interjections.] I cannot see my way clear to supporting the idea that those two factory ships, with two land-bound licences, should be granted more than in fact they lawfully have at present. If they are unlawfully making catches in the waters of South-West Africa, they are probably getting more than a land-bound licence. If they adhere to their restrictions, they really do not have the equivalent of two land-bound licences. For that reason this cannot be granted. The Willem Barendsz is now going back. Let us accept it that way. Can more be done than the steps already taken, i.e. that patrolling will be done as effectively as possible? In this respect I may say that the hon. the Minister of Defence has agreed to the services of the Navy being employed in so far as it can be of assistance. Furthermore, depending on the need, it will be possible to make use of boats which we have at our disposal for research purposes. The Willem Barendsz must be kept outside the territorial waters of South-West Africa; otherwise it is going to break the sardine industry. What is more, at the moment attention is also being given to additional legislative measures for making prosecutions, in cases where catches are made in the territorial waters, more effective. It is being considered that provision will be made for escorting to the harbour any boat which trespasses and is caught in the act.

Is it not possible to suspend the licence?

That is a question to which an answer is still being sought. The position is that the factory ship itself does not trespass. The trespasses are committed by the contractors working for that ship. They work on contract. The penalty on them is very drastic. The intention with the legislative measures being considered, is to make it possible for that boat to be arrested and escorted to a harbour and then to institute legal proceedings as soon as possible, because the procedure that had to be followed in the past, proved to be very ineffective.

I am now going to deal with conservation measures that have been taken up to this stage. In South-West Africa the research quota of 60,000 tons was done away with because of the way the position appeared to be after the catches of 1968 and 1969. The Sarasas quota of 90,000 tons, which was provisionally processed in Walvis Bay, was done away with. The anchovy quota, which also amounted to approximately 90,000 tons, was done away with. Weighing instruments were made compulsory so as to prevent the possibility of factories accepting more fish than the quantity to which they are entitled. Provision was made for reciprocal exchange in order to make the exploitation of fish more effective. As far as possible measures are being taken against dumping, which was taking place on a large scale in respect of the factory ships in particular. They left behind in the sea dead fish by the ton whenever they got more fish in the net than was possible to process. The number of inspectors who will be employed, is being increased from three to ten.

The hon. member also raised the question of crayfish. In this regard I want to tell him that in 1969-’70 the quota in South-West Africa was 5.5 million pounds of tail weight. This year that quota was reduced to 3 million pounds of tail weight. We shall have to see how this position develops with these new measures. Up to now the restrictions in respect of pelagic fish in the Republic have amounted to the restriction of the capacity of the factory and as regards the capacity of the catchers. The Du Plessis Commission, which has not completed its task as yet, recommended that a quota of 450,000 tons be introduced this year. After consultation I reduced that quota to 400,000 tons. The future will have to show us how this position will develop in the Republic.

In respect of South-West Africa I can say that initially, at the end of last year, it was decided to curtail the catching season by one month and that sardine catches would be cut by 50 per cent. The remainder will, if possible, be made up with anchovy, but the catches are to stop once 45,000 tons of pilchards have been caught. During the latter months of last year we carried out a crash research programme. The report on this programme has been submitted and is very unfavourable. Pursuant to that unfavourable report, it was decided to curtail these restrictions further. In respect of pilchards these restrictions are now toeing reduced to 30,000 tons, after which catches are to cease, together with the anchovy caught up to that stage. For that reason the catching season, too, was curtailed by another month. The season will now close at the end of August.

In other words, Dr. Lochner’s theory is correct.

I am coming to that. In other words, whether or not Dr. Lochner’s theory is correct, we, in pursuance of the scientific observations of our researchers, find ourselves virtually on the course Dr. Lochner’s recommendations amount to. Dr. Lochner is a good friend of mine, and, as far as his theory is concerned, I may say that we have already discussed his theory for hours on end. I cannot repudiate his theory, but I cannot accept it either. We do not have in the Department people capable of assessing his theory. Apparently agreement cannot be reached between him and the Department on the assessment of his theory. I do not know whether his theory is correct, tout if it is correct, or if it proves to be correct in due course, it is a very significant scientific breakthrough for South Africa. That Is something the future may show us. I do know that a very prominent British scientist, an authority on this aspect of fish, also has misgivings about Dr. Lochner’s theory. In other words, we cannot simply take measures exclusively on the basis of a theory which we do not know to be correct.

But is it not possible to submit this theory to local experts?

Apparently agreement cannot be reached between the Department and Dr. Lochner on those experts.

The hon. member also cast a reflection on South-West African members of Parliament because they had not raised the whole matter here. Actually, it did not come within their jurisdiction. It was a matter which, until March, 1969, legally rested with the South-West Africa Administration. They would have been able to raise it, but then they would in fact have encroached upon the province of the Executive Committee. Consequently that accusation is an unfounded one.

But what has the Opposition done? All the hon. member could mention to me yesterday, was that he had proposed a commission of enquiry a few years ago. What has the Opposition done in regard to this matter which, as the hon. member suggested yesterday, has been going on for a number of years? Does the Opposition, too, not have a duty in this regard? Now that the obvious results are there, proving that a mistake was made somewhere, the Opposition are levelling accusations. But it is easy to realize now that a mistake was made. However, when at that stage it had to toe judged whether a mistake was being made, it was not so easy. At that stage the Opposition remained silent. But it will not be popular to plead for restrictions while one’s voters who are fishermen want to have more and more fish. Is the Opposition going to support us in all these unpopular steps—and they are unpopular with the fisherfolk—which must be taken in an attempt to protect the industry? What is the Opposition doing? Having remained silent all these years, they now raise this matter in a no-confidence debate, whereas it could have been thrashed out so much more effectively in the calm, peaceful atmosphere of a discussion on the Economic Affairs Vote. They are coupling their own neglect to a motion of no confidence in the Government. If there had been neglect on the part of the Government, there had also been neglect on their part. They remained silent. When I up there in South-West Africa started feeling very upset about the fish, the Opposition’s spiritual associates over there took it amiss of me in their Press. Today we find the opposite attitude being adopted here. When I take all these things together, it seems to me as though there is now an ulterior motive behind it! Now that it is obvious that there are problems, political scavenging is being indulged in, but when the problems were not as obvious, they remained silent. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I am not rising to reply to the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to the problems of the South-West African fishing industry. There are other members on this side who have prepared themselves specially for that, and they will deal with it further.

Few governments have the courage to admit that they or their predecessors of the same party made a mistake and are prepared to rectify that mistake. Only a government which is intrinsically strong can do that. A weak government usually flinches. A strong government never flinches from calling upon its electorate to reconsider matters should circumstances require.

The speech made by the hon. the Minister of Justice yesterday in reply to the speech of the hon. member for Durban North on the consequences of the Immorality Act proved two facts very clearly. One is that we have to deal here with an intrinsically weak government which flinches from tackling a difficult problem. It is clear that there is an ever widening front in respect of which the Government is adopting the attitude that our children must pay the score and must simply find their own solution to the problems created for them by the Government. There is a second matter which is clear from the attitude and the reply of the hon. the Minister of Justice, i.e. that it is an illusion that we are going to get any significant reform from the present Government. I am mentioning this because there are many people in the country …

Does the hon. member want a little more or a little less immorality?

I shall come to that in a moment. I am saying this because I have come across many people in the country whose continued support of this Government is based on only one remaining consideration. This is that they have a vague belief that the Vorster Government is a government of reform and that he will apply something of the outward-looking attitude which he is trying to adopt in regard to the outside world in the country itself as well. I personally have always believed that this expectation which many people have and which causes them to remain with the party although there are already so many points of difference between them and the Government, is an illusion. Very little will eventuate in the way of reform and the rectification of matters which are wrong in the country. Time will show to an increasing extent that there is no other solution for South Africa than a definite change of government.

In the course of this session we will certainly make use of further opportunities of discussing section 16 of the Immorality Act with the hon. the Minister of Justice. All I want to say about it now, is that it is most alarming that the Government adopts the attitude that there are no problems in regard to the matter; problems which it ought to face up to. We are all aware that the average White person in South Africa has fairly definite views on colour. At the same time there is, after all, not only one way in which all the problems in the country can be dealt with. I am convinced that if we as Whites want to survive in South Africa we will have to be prepared to see whether some problems cannot be tackled less crudely, I almost want to say less brutally, and can rather be handled with a greater measure of sophistication than is being done at the moment. One thing we know very well, and that is that there are few things which have such a devastating effect on our foreign relations as the publicity given abroad to Immorality Act cases, and especially to the way in which people, as it is viewed, are totally undressed in court, as it were; the way in which the most intimate of all intimate matters, sexual intercourse, is exposed and investigated in the finest details in front of their children, their families and the world. In my opinion it is this aspect of the matter which drives people to suicide, rather than the colour line aspect involved in it.

The Government’s attitude is as if there is no problem. Any misgivings are summarily dismissed, as the hon. the Minister of Justice dismissed them. Yesterday I put a question to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs in regard to the accommodation of diplomatic staff in South Africa. His reply as to what has been done in Cape Town, and in Pretoria as well, boils down to this, that millions of rands are to be spent by the Government in order to accommodate non-White staff from other countries, from Africa and the East, on an integrated basis among the Whites. This will not apply only to diplomats. We already have air connections with Lesotho, Malawi, Swaziland, Botswana, and Madagascar and others will follow. Staffs and offices of the air services and of tourist bureaux will be established on both sides. Recently we attended a conference on tourism in Malawi. It was attended officially by the Government. Did the Government attend it in order to tell the people of Malawi that they cannot come to tour in South Africa? Business interests will develop on both sides between us and Black countries in Africa and coloured countries in the East as well. What earthly hope is there that there can be any normal human relations between our people and people of other nations who come here as guests, if we have taught our people to poke their noses into other people’s private affairs continually and to send a policeman to see what is happening inside whenever people of different nations walk in through the same door? While questions of this type are becoming increasingly problematical for South Africa, the Government’s attitude is that there is no problem and that the position will simply remain as it is. The time has arrived for the Government to examine problems of this nature which are arising, and to reconsider the situation.

I do not want to make predictions, because I never do so. I prefer to deal with matters as one can see them. All the signs are there today that there is going to be a repetition on the Government side of what happened in the case of Dr. Albert Hertzog. Members here will recall that even when Dr. Verwoerd was still alive, it became clear that profound differences were developing on the Government side. We, as outsiders, could see it, and we said so, too. What is more, newspapermen and some of the best observers on that side of this House started warning the Prime Minister and encouraging him to act in good time. I do not want to minimize the difficulties which the hon. the Prime Minister had, because they were great, but he remained standing somewhere in the middle and allowed the situation to develop until it exploded under him and he had to call out an election in order to resolve his party-political difficulties. Now there are signs that he is again standing in the middle of a new complication. Already there are signs of a new division, much more drastic in nature, within the Government party. This new division consists on the one hand of those who want to retain minor apartheid or petty apartheid or “crude” apartheid, as professor Jannie Moolman calls it, irrespective of the consequences it has for South Africa. On the other hand there are those who openly adopt the point of view that minor apartheid should be abolished and that attention should be concentrated on major territorial separation, geo-political separation between the white people and the various Bantu peoples, after which people will be able to associate with one another on an equal basis on the personal level.

What is minor apartheid?

I find it remarkable that a Minister and a leader of the party asks me what minor apartheid is. Has he never taken the trouble, when he reads his own newspaper and his own editors, who are intelligent adults, talk about minor apartheid, to ask them what they are talking about? Why does he not ask Die Burger or Rapport what the minor apartheid is that they are talking about? If he does not understand it he must not ask me about it. His own party talks about it, and I do not think it is a term that we coined. Crude apartheid is a term that was coined by National Party supporters.

May I put a question to the hon. member? Does the hon. member regard the Immorality Act as petty apartheid?

I would say it is one of the pettiest aspects of petty apartheid. [Interjections.] Yes, I should have said it is one of the crudest and coarsest aspects of crude apartheid.

As it is being applied.

Of course, we are talking about its application.

As regards the division taking place in that Party in the ranks below the hon. the Prime Minister, there are, on the one hand, those who are opposed to minor or crude apartheid; who want the emphasis to be shifted away from negative apartheid on the basis of colour to a position where a political balance will be found between the various population groups which will prevent the one from dominating the other politically. Not all of them will admit it, Sir, but I want to say to you that what these people are in reality striving towards is some or other form of multi-national federation with fewer compulsory personal prohibitions between people. My considered opinion is that this division that is taking place is going to assume larger proportions than the clash which occurred with Dr. Albert Hertzog.

It is very interesting to see how the two sides are beginning to form laagers. On the one side there are men such as the hon. the Minister of Labour. When I say this, I do not mean it in a personal sense. I am dealing with the political outlooks of people. With him there is a man like Dr. Andries Treurnicht, who is openly in favour of minor apartheid. There they stand. One appreciates the fact that they at least admit it openly and are honest. One finds that a man like Dr. Andries Treurnicht uses his newspaper openly in order to interpret everything which the Government does, in such a way that it fits into the verkrampte framework. With him there are several members of Parliament who are identifiable.

But on the other side there are men like Prof. Jannie Moolman, Prof. Nic Rhoodie, Prof. Wimpie de Klerk, Prof. Hennie Coetzee and a host of academic leaders. There are as many church leaders on this side. I am thinking, for example, of the militant leaders of the Afrikaanse Calvinistiese Beweging in Potchefstroom. On this side, too, there is every important political writer and newspaper editor, with the exception of Dr. Andries Treurnicht. As I have said, the impression we gain is that the Prime Minister again prefers to remain standing in the middle and not to pronounce upon this obvious division in the party. This has already led to thinkers in his party beginning to express themselves in a manner that is causing many of their own people to catch their breath. Take the case of Mr. Willem van Heerden, one of the most influential intellectual thinkers in the National Party. When I quote Mr. Van Heerden, I am not in the same position as the Minister of Economic Affairs, who quoted what Mr. Otto Krause had said in News Check about the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Krause is entitled to his opinions, but he is an outspoken Nationalist, and one must expect him to adopt a critical attitude towards this side. In passing I want to say to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, however, that he is quite off the mark if he thinks he can undermine the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. If one were to have a secret vote on leadership in the United Party caucus tomorrow, and one allowed every man to send in a free ballot-paper to say who he wanted as leader, I will tell hon. members what the reply would be. There would not be one blank ballot-paper. There would not be one ballot-paper with any other name on it. One hundred per cent of the votes would go to the present Leader of the Party. I wonder if that side can say the same.

But I want to say that when I quote Mr. Van Heerden, I am quoting a man who was recently appointed to the extremely responsible position of head of Rapport to manage the affairs of the newspaper. Recently, in a very frank article in “Standpunte” (August, 1970), he described the political position in South Africa as “an archaic and unrealistic party division” which “has become a totally useless instrument in dealing with the problem of future political and human relations in South Africa”. He went on to say that he was not unaware of the Government’s difficulties, but then quoted a statement, attributed to Frederick the Great, that “the best monument a great man can build for himself is to recognize a few facts and to rectify a few mistakes”. This then was his advice to his own party. To that he added (translation)—

It is a prominent man from that side who wrote this. But if I were to say this, I would suddenly be a liberalist. What is more, Mr. Van Heerden is not the only person who talks in this vein. Unfortunately I do not have the time to read too much to you now. Take a man like Mr. Schalk Pienaar, an outstanding person occupying a high position on that side. Just recently, before Die Beeld was incorporated in Rapport, he wrote (Die Beeld, 14th June, 1970) (translation)—

This is the attitude which commentators within the Party are adopting in regard to the party we see there on the other side. I can quote others as well. For example, Prof. J. H. Moolman recently said (translation): “South Africa should announce to itself and to the world that crude apartheid has been rejected and that separate development is the policy for the future”. (Die Transvaler, 23rd October, 1970). There can be no doubt as to what division in regard to principle is arising under the hon. the Prime Minister.

The Government has been in power for as long as 22 years; at the end of its present term it will have been in power for 26 years. That is a long time. And the question I want to put is this: During that time, what problem of human relations can it in all honesty say it has solved? What has the Government solved after 22 years in power? Nothing! On the contrary, during most of this time South Africa was plunged into some crisis or other. It is even misleading to say that its Bantu policy is a success. To say, as the hon. the Minister of Information said somewhere, that “every Bantu nation has its own area where it can realize itself” is misleading. They have completely failed to develop the Bantu areas in such a way that the majority of the Bantu have any hope of making a decent living there. According to statistics, there are approximately 8 million Bantu in our cities today. If we were to send all of them to their respective homelands tomorrow, they would all die of hunger. And this is a cardinal aspect of their policy, in respect of which they had a commission which studied it for years and then clearly told the Government what it should do—in this respect, too, it cannot nearly be said that there is any question of success. In last year’s session, the hon. the Prime Minister said here that, no matter how unclear the picture was, he gave the Bantu areas the right to come to him and ask to become independent. But is there one Bantu leader who has reacted to that? Is there one Bantu leader who has stood up and reacted to that, or even given an indication that he wanted to come and discuss it with the Prime Minister? Not one. Why not? Because as matters now stand, the Bantu regards South Africa as his fatherland just as much as the white regards it as his fatherland. I do not know of a single Bantu leader who will be prepared to exchange his broader citizenship and what it holds for him for the future, for citizenship of only a small part of South Africa if that little part is not developed to such an extent that he will be prepared to exchange.

Name me one Bantu leader who supports your policy.

Hon. members on the other side are living in a dreamland if they think that Bantu leaders will exchange the broader citizenship of South Africa for citizenship of a small part of South Africa which, in addition, is undeveloped and where they will not be able to make a living …

Are you prompting them now?

No. The point is that we are perfectly entitled to say that, also as regards this fundamental problem of South Africa, the Government is as far from a solution as ever. But apart from the Government’s inability to solve one single race problem in South Africa, we find that with the policy it is following, we have an ever increasing threat from outside to contend with. Just listen to the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, apart from the fact that we are being pushed out of one organization after the other. We know that there is an accumulation of autagonism towards us which one can almost describe as a passion, a passion that action should be taken against us. Just look at the decision of the World Council of Churches, a shocking decision, but a decision which illustrates the depth of the feeling which has already developed. The hon. the Prime Minister himself predicted that we must expect intensified onslaughts from guerrillas. We see the increasing strength of Russia in the seas around South Africa, and at the moment we have to deal with a very delicate matter in which South-West Africa is involved. In this connection the Government has already played its last trump card. It was a trump card and a good one—this we concede, but it was its last trump card. There is not the slightest doubt that this is a question which can cause an explosion. The fact of the matter is that the Government has not solved any problem and furthermore we are in the situation where South Africa’s position is becoming more and more difficult and where we have to arm ourselves more and more—which is necessary in the circumstances. The Government has landed us in circumstances in which we have to pay an increasingly expensive price for the political policy which it is following, a policy which has no earthly future in South Africa.

†I believe that there is a lot of unfinished business still to be done in South Africa, and it will remain unfinished as long as the present Government is in power. We shall have to get rid of many of our irrational fears and of ridiculous attitudes in regard to colour. You know, Sir, fate is mocking us. In April last year we had one bloody meeting after the other, where one Nationalist was attacking the other—the H.N.P. and the Nationalist Party. And what was the cause of it all? The cause of all the bloodiness at the meetings, of all the fighting, was the possibility that one or two Maoris would come to play rugby in South Africa. Sir, what happened? Eventually the Maoris came and they left and nothing at all happened to white South Africa. White life in South Africa was left completely unaffected. It shows you, Sir, how unrealistic they are, full of completely unnecessary fears. The crowning irony of it all was that it now turns out that one of the Maoris who came here, the Samoan, Bryan Williams, was indeed of South African stock. Die Burger came out with the discovery and the report that in the case of Bryan Williams “my oupa was ’n Afrikaner”. Sir, here you have the Nationalists fighting and blood flowing at meetings over the simple possibility of a few Maoris coming here. Well, they came and nothing happened.

I say that in most cases the fears of that side are completely unjustified. I believe that as far as unfinished business is concerned, we in South Africa will have to extend the benefits of education and training to all in South Africa. You know, Sir, we are missing every opportunity to become a great country. We can become a great country but we are missing all the opportunities. As a country we have all the natural resources we could wish to have, with the exception of oil, but I believe that our finest natural resource is the people of South Africa. We have the finest commonwealth in the world. But the most shocking thing, the most indefensible thing, is the waste of human lives that we allow in our country—people who are left untrained, unskilled and largely undeveloped because they are not white. I believe, Sir, that there is a place for everybody. We have the wealth, and if we use our common sense to extend the benefits of training and education to all in a way which can make our country great, I am convinced that we will become one of the most vital, developed and forward-moving countries in the world.

Mr. Speaker, various speakers on the Opposition side referred to the fact that the United Party offers the youth an ideal. In every speech from the one made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to the one made by the father of petty apartheid, to whom we have just listened, this ideal has been spelled out for us in this debate. If one analyses the speeches made by the Opposition, from the one made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to the one made by the father of petty apartheid, who has just described immorality as one of the pettiest aspects of petty apartheid …

He did not say that.

He did. My hon. colleague here behind me asked him the question whether immorality also fell under petty apartheid and I wrote down what he said. He said it was one of the pettiest aspects of petty apartheid. Hansard will bear this out.

No.

After the very clear crystallization of the Opposition’s philosophy of life in this debate, it is clear to us that the ideal which the United Party is offering the youth is an uncontrolled, mixed society for South Africa. As far as immorality is concerned, about which such a fuss was made yesterday and today, the hon. the Minister of Justice put the standpoint of this side, of the Government, i.e. that the Immorality Act will remain on the Statute Book as long as this National Party governs South Africa.

Will it be implemented?

It is being implemented.

As it was implemented at Excelsior?

I want to put the following question to the hon. member for Yeoville, and let him reply with the same boldness now: If the United Party were to come into power, would it repeal the Immorality Act?

We told you yesterday.

Will you repeal it?

We shall have the whole matter investigated.

This is typical of the attitude of the United Party, that does not have the courage to advance any standpoint consistently in this House. No, these oblique attacks, of which we have just had another from, inter alia, the father of petty apartheid, are what we get. I say he is the father of “petty apartheid”, because these words were coined by that hon. member; he is the one who thought them up and then imputed them to us. Let me just say the following to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and to all whom it may concern: As far as the National Party is concerned there is no such thing as major apartheid and petty apartheid. We know of only one apartheid in all its facets. It is ridiculous to think that one can implement major apartheid, as the hon. gentlemen want to have it, only by possibly granting self-government to certain Bantu homelands. No, Mr. Speaker, we in this country have a far greater task and that is to bring about racial harmony in this country. We have the task of preventing racial friction in this country, and we must ensure the maintenance of the identity of the white man in this country. Therefore we shall retain, inter alia, the Immorality Act on the Statute Book, no matter how difficult it is to implement. We concede that there are problems but our ideal for South Africa, the ideal of the National Party, is to retain the identity of the white man in this country; this is the ideal we offer the youth, but this is not an ideal which the United Party can offer, because they are people who regard immorality as one of the pettiest aspects of petty apartheid.

I now want to come to the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, because I want to devote the time I have at my disposal to the labour aspect as part of the inflation attack of the United Party. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition used this debate on inflation also to drive home this very same mixed society philosophy of the United Party. Sir, I am going to read out his own words to you—

Spiralling wages have meant spiralling costs, but still the Government obstinately refuses to take the only remedy, i.e. to use non-White labour in more productive work.

“The only remedy.” Sir, this just bears out the fact that the United Party has the same philosophy of life throughout, and that is to give us a mixed society in South Africa, as I am now going to show to you on the basis of his labour policy. The United Party is dissatisfied despite the fact that their own Press writes of the large percentage of non-Whites who now form part of our economic life and despite the fact that I am now going to tell you, Sir, of, inter alia, the numbers of non-Whites who have been promoted to better and higher positions during the years we have been in power. They are not satisfied with the present position which their own newspapers decry as something terrible. No, they are not satisfied with this. We are attacked here for not doing more. No, the United Party wants something different. It wants something different to what the National Party Government is offering the non-Whites. The United Party wants permanence, as its speakers on the opposite side have said. They want the “shackles” to be removed, as the hon. member for Gardens has said; they want job reservation to be abolished, as the hon. member for Hillbrow has said. They have said, to use the words of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, immorality is the pettiest aspect of petty apartheid. It is this approach to life with which we are dealing; this is the ideal which the United Party is offering the youth of South Africa. What is being done to achieve this ideal of theirs, to reach a position from which they can realize this ideal? As in the case of this debate, recourse is made to slanted representations as regards our circumstances of life in South Africa.

Just take this question of price increases, which has been the main dish served up by the other side for two days. Has any one on that side taken the trouble to put the latest wage increases in the proper perspective in relation to the price increases in this country? The fact of the matter is that the latest wage increases amount to R170 million as regards the Government sector only, i.e. the Railways, the Public Service, teachers and the Post Office, but what followed on those increases was on the one hand, the result of competitive wages one finds in the private sector. The moment the State takes these steps so as to place its workers on a more competitive wage basis, the private sector also increases its wages. Their next step is to recover these wages by increasing their prices. The fact that such a development is detrimental to a country requires no argument, and it is this very phenomenon which we cannot solve by means of slogans. Nor can we solve it by using, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said “non-White labour in a more productive form”. This cannot be the “only remedy”. No, the solution to this problem requires joint responsibility from us. It is of course, in the first place the task of the Government to tackle this problem. A sound and a balanced economy is, in the first place, our responsibility. However, this is not the task of the Government only. It is not the task of the Government to cope with this situation all by itself. As the State President said in his address, also the private sector and the individual have their responsibility.

And as far as the private sector is concerned, I want to put it very clearly today that our private entrepreneurs in this country will definitely have to show a greater sense of responsibility as regards the movement of labour, in other words, as regards the matter of enticing labour away from one other. Surely it is an illusion to think that the country will prosper in circumstances of workers constantly being enticed away from one entrepreneur to another and away from the State. Surely this is the last thing to do in combating the problem of inflation, because apart from the fact that it has the effect of pushing up wages, it also brings about a decrease in over all productivity since it means the transfer of a man into a new job. I really think the time has arrived for all private undertakings of the community to realize that in this way we shall never get the better of inflation in this country. This continual increase of wages and salaries in order to attract manpower, is a futile process in which there is no advantage for anyone. On the contrary, it becomes a vicious circle in that higher wages are invariably followed by a higher price index, and the moment one has a higher price index, pressure for further wage increases is once again brought to bear on the officials of the State on the one hand and on the private sector on the other hand.

But why is there a higher price index?

If you are so obtuse that you cannot understand that, I shall let you have another explanation in a single sentence. When one has wage increases in the private sector, then those wage increases cannot be recovered from the taxpayers’ pocket, as can be done in the case of the Public Service; they have to be recovered from the pocket of the buyer of that article, and this is where the price increase comes from to a large extent; if you cannot understand this elementary point, it is not my fault. Sir, at the present juncture it is even truer than before that only increased productivity can give us this basis for better wage increases. In this connection, I want to use what was done in the Post Office as an example, i.e. what was done by my predecessor, the late Mr. Basie van Rensburg, when the Post Office workers offered to work two hours longer per week. This gesture definitely constitutes one of the most effective means of combating inflation in this country. We shall be able to combat inflation in South Africa effectively with an attitude such as this but least of all with an attitude such as that of the Leader of the Opposition to which I now want to return and with which I want to deal in more detail.

And was there a decrease or an increase in Post Office tariffs?

We shall have sufficient time to discuss the Post Office when its Budget is presented, but as far as future wage demands are concerned, I just want to say these few final words. I want to ask our workers to reflect seriously on further wage demands, in the knowledge that further wage demands must necessarily give rise to price increases of this nature. At the same time I also want to make a similar appeal to our employers, our industrialists, to forgot this enticing away of employees from one another, because this must necessarily promote inflation. At the same time I also want to encourage them to continue with this productivity drive of theirs. It is a productivity drive which must be carried out not only in respect of Whites, but also in respect of non-Whites in their service, because the idea that we have an unlimited reservoir of either Black or Brown labour is an illusion. Our employers will have to see to it that the productivity, not only of the white workers, but also of all our non-Whites, is pushed up in this respect as well.

In view of the fact that the Opposition has made such a fuss about the ordinary man who supposedly was being harmed because of the policy of this Government, I want to tell the United Party today that they should be grateful for their being able to live in this South Africa of ours. I am saying this with fresh conviction after I have just had the privilege of undertaking a private trip around the world and visiting eleven countries during the past six weeks. I saw how people were living in those countries. I also found out what they had to pay for their food, because I had to pay those prices for food myself when I was there. Therefore I know what they have to pay. Let me put it like this; after I have seen in what circumstances they are living, as compared to circumstances in South Africa, my impression still is that South Africa is indisputably the best country in the world to live in. When one sees what this Government is doing in order to provide people in this country with housing—to single out the sphere of my colleague the Minister of Community Development—white people abroad have to live in rooms or flats, this Government in the performance of its task definitely deserves more objectivity and appreciation for what it is doing for the man in the street, than that to which the tirades of the United Party bear witness. You all know what conditions abroad are, because all of you travel abroad a great deal. South Africa is the best country in which to live not only because of the circumstances in which we live, but also because of the order which has been created by this National Party Government in the sphere of labour and in the public sphere.

When, in this way, one gains an impression of what South Africa is under this Government, one shudders to think what would have happened to South Africa if the United Party had been in power. Take the question of manpower. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition wrote the only remedy was to make “more productive use” of the non-Whites. It is the very same cry that has been adopted by his obliging press, which is now proclaiming under banner headlines that 72 per cent of the labour force is made up of non-Whites. Whether that figure is 70 or 72 per cent, surely the Whites in this country with a population of 21 million people, of which only 3.7 million are Whites, cannot do all the work in the country. Which one of us on Government side has ever said that the Whites should do all the work? Which one of us on Government side has ever said that they should not have a livelihood too? Are they not to make an existence too? Do they not have to make their contribution as well, not only to their own development, but also to the development of South Africa? This increased employment which has taken place under Nationalist rule has taken place in an orderly fashion and has taken place within the framework of our policy of administrative and statutory job reservation. This Government will persist in this policy, despite any pressure which may be brought to bear by the United Party or from employers. No one denies that there is a shortage in this country. In fact, it is peculiar to all developing countries. But to suggest that the labour pattern in South Africa has changed because of these larger numbers of non-Whites employed, surely means to be quite wrong. This Government has achieved remarkable success in keeping the labour pattern in this country constant over the years. I am now going to furnish figures to illustrate to what extent we have succeeded in this. Now I am not referring to unskilled labourers in the first place, but the position is that one usually requires from three to four unskilled labourers, and they are mostly non-Whites, as against one skilled labourer. In a moment I shall furnish the total figure too.

The question of artisans. This is the group which permits one to determine whether the labour pattern of this Government has changed. Let us take a look at the metal and engineering trades. In 1963 98 per cent of the artisans in this field were Whites. In 1969 98.4 per cent were Whites. Does this look like a deterioration of the pattern? Take the electronic trades. In 1963 99 per cent were Whites and in 1969 99.7 per cent were Whites. Take the motor trades. In 1963 95.6 per cent were Whites while in 1969 it was 94.6 per cent. Take the question of diamond cutters where the percentage of Whites was 93.9 in 1963 as against 98.9 last year.

Now I should like to present the overall picture. This also answers the press of the Opposition which wants to suggest that our labour pattern has changed under Nationalist rule. As far as the number of artisans is concerned, the position is as follows: In 1963 the total percentage of Whites was 88.1. In 1969 it was 85.2. This change is not significant. Now take the factory workers as a whole. I now come to the numbers of skilled, semi-skilled and others. In 1965 the percentage of Whites was 25.6. In 1969 it was 25.14. Is this not proof that despite the enormous development which we have had in South Africa, the Government has succeeded in maintaining, this pattern? No, the Government has no reason for apologies in this matter. On the contrary, I think it has succeeded in achieving something great, i.e. the maintenance of the characteristic pattern of our labour.

However, what is important in a discussion such as this is not to point out the larger number of non-Whites who have been employed. What is in fact of importance, is the utilization of those non-Whites, whom the United Party wants to have employed. The vital question in this whole matter is this: In what way does the United Party want to use the non-Whites, and specifically the Bantu, to solve our labour shortage? This is the vital question to which we want a reply in the course of this session; this is the matter on which this country must still get clarity. As far as we are concerned, this matter is perfectly clear. More is being done for the development and progress of our non-Whites today than ever before. Let me just mention the one example of the Coloureds. Under us the Coloureds can progress from the unskilled class to the highest professional circles. I am going to furnish some figures to prove this. Over the past six years the number of Coloureds in our economically active population has increased from 309,000 to 409,000, an increase of 30 per cent. Over the same period the number of Coloured artisans has increased from 19,000 to 28,500, and the number of Coloureds in professional and semi-professional posts has increased by more than 21,000. And there has been a corresponding increase as regards the Asiatics. This is an indication that under our régime the non-Whites are getting that opportunity, but they are getting it according to a fixed, orderly pattern, one which is being followed in accordance with our policy of statutory and administrative job reservation. With our policy our people know where they are standing, something they do not know with the policy of the United Party. In the first place, we openly state that we want to reduce the number of Bantu workers in urban areas. We are not doing what the United Party wants to do, i.e. throw open the doors and allow them to flow in. It is our objective to prevent this.

Who says so?

This is our objective and we make no secret of it, because all our actions are aimed at making our White cities not blacker, but whiter. It is a fact that we are achieving success in this field. In this regard I am going to furnish only two figures to the hon. member. As far as the Cape Inspectorate is concerned, there were 36,140 Bantu in this area in 1966, and by 1970 this number had dropped to 34,421. I do not have sufficient time at my disposal to give hon. members the figures for the Whites and the Coloureds, which have both increased, but this already goes to prove that we are achieving success in this respect. As far as the border areas are concerned, our policy is clear and we are giving the Bantu work opportunities there. Our policy for the homelands is clear, i.e. that we …

Where?

Hon. members ask “where”. There are already 60,000 Bantu employed in the homelands.

In the homelands?

No, I mean there are already 60,000 Bantu employed in our border areas. Despite the wishful thinking of the United Party, worthwhile development will take place in the homelands in the years that lie ahead. As far as the Coloureds are concerned, I stated our policy last year, i.e. that Coloureds may be employed where no Whites are available provided that the Whites and the Department of Labour are consulted about the matter, provided that the Whites are not replaced, provided that there are no mixed working conditions and provided that the Whites do not work under non-Whites. These are the conditions on which we are giving the non-Whites this opportunity. Now we must know from the United Party which of these conditions they reject and which they support. As regards one of these conditions the United Party can give me an answer across the floor of the House now, i.e. whether it is also the standpoint of the United Party that a white may not work under a non-White. Is that the standpoint of those hon. members, yes or no? I shall be pleased if hon. members will let me have this answer.

Is that your standpoint?

It is the Government’s …

What about the hospitals where Whites are working under Coloureds and Bantu? [Interjections.]

Where that is happening, it will be rectified. It is the policy of the Government. [Interjections.] Unfortunately I have only three minutes left to speak. Our policy is that we shall not have a white person working under a non-White, and where there are complaints, this matter will be rectified. I now want to repeat my question to the United Party. Is this the standpoint of the United Party as well? Do hon. members know why we shall not get a reply? We shall not get a reply as this is one of the matters about which these gentlemen blow hot and cold. I now want to tell hon. members what happened recently in this connection. Do hon. members know what was said by one of the overseas visitors who recently paid us a visit to have discussions with us on this side of the House and hon. members on that side of the House? Do hon. members know what one of the respected overseas visitors said when he came to us? When he questioned us on this matter and when we put forward our standpoint, he said that that was strange. To our question as to why he was saying that, he said that he had spoken to three leading figures of the United Party and that he had pointedly put the same question to them as well. In reply to his question those three people said that it was not their policy. This is the double-talk of that side of the House, which varies from Mr. Mitchell to the conservative members at the other extreme. Therefore I want to tell the United Party that as a party they should, in the interests of South Africa and the prestige in the outside world of the South African people, speak with one voice. When visitors from abroad ask them whether they will allow Whites to work under non-Whites, it is no use their saying “Yes”, and then remaining silent, as they are doing now, when they are in this House. During the last session one of the hon. members on the opposite side did at least say that it was not their policy; today they do not want to say so. They have probably discussed the matter in their caucus already, and have probably come to the decision that a white person may indeed work under a non-White. I want to tell the United Party that the political struggle in the future will be waged on these vital points. Whether the United Party does or does not want to disguise its true objectives by double-talk, it will be the task of the National Party to expose the United Party as regards this matter. It is in the interests of South Africa and its white workers for them to know precisely what the alternative is with which they will be confronted. Fortunately I have sufficient confidence in the common sense of the white workers in this country to reject the abdication policy of the United Party.

Mr. Speaker, before I reply to some of the remarks made by the hon. the Minister of Labour, and before I am swept away by my own eloquence, I would like to say something about an article which appeared in the overseas journal Life last year, about me in which I made a very uncomplimentary remark about members in this House. I might say that that remark was not meant for publication, but it was published. I do not know whether it makes the matter better or worse to say that I was not thinking of either side of the House in particular when I made the remark. Nevertheless, the remark was published and I understand that some members have been offended. I therefore wish to express my regret for the fact that the remark was published.

Did you make the remark?

Yes, I made the remark and I am not denying it.

The hon. the Minister of Labour has given us a very interesting exposé of Government policy. Some of the figures he read out were to show us that there were no overall changes in the Government’s labour policy. He has given us percentages which has shown us that the percentage of artisans employed in different trades are the same today as they were some years ago. I wonder if it does not occur to the hon. the Minister that it is precisely because of this that the country is suffering from a shortage of skilled labour. He himself started off by saying that it was impossible to expect 3.7 million people to do all the work for nearly 21 million people, but he then went on to show us that that is exactly what the Government is trying to do as far as skilled and artisan work is concerned. There is not a shortage of unskilled labour in this country, but a shortage of skilled labour. It is precisely because the Government is trying to maintain those percentages that South Africa is in the grip of a cost inflation. If one cannot get that across to the hon. the Minister of Labour I think that we are in for a very bad time, economically speaking, indeed.

The hon. the Minister also boasts about the number of Africans who have been sent out of the Western Cape as a result of the policy of the Government to reduce the number of Africans in the cities. He did not tell us where those people are or what they are doing; perhaps this is really the pertinent question. Where are those thousands of Africans? What are they doing? How are they living? This is apparently of no concern to the hon. the Minister. He arrives in this House with statistics which might politically be valuable to him, but as far as the effects on the lives of these people are concerned, he is either completely ignorant or if he knows, does not care.

The hon. the Minister made a third point, namely that of the opportunities that are being given to Coloured people. I want to ask him why there is this attitude to Coloured drivers of white buses in Johannesburg. Why, if Coloured people are permitted to perform skilled work and even to drive buses for Whites in Cape Town, does he back the white Trade Union in its resistance to the employment of Coloured drivers in Johannesburg? Why this attitude of the Government in supporting the unreasonable stands taken by certain trade unions, while white people simply cannot be found despite wage increases, bonuses, holiday allowances and overtime pay? White people simply cannot be found to do these jobs, yet the Government openly backs this attitude which makes it quite impossible to supply the essential services. And, of course, because of this the Official Opposition is frightened to take the steps of employing Coloured bus drivers, even though there is in fact no official job reservation as far as this matter is concerned.

Now, what happens in such an instance? Hundreds of trips are cancelled every week. I believe it is something like 1,200 a week. Hundreds of bus passengers stand in queues waiting for buses that never come. What does the hon. the Minister say? He says, “Try other methods”. What does his tribunal say?—“Go overseas and recruit drivers”. All I can say is that I hope that any mission that goes overseas to recruit bus drivers does not go to London or England generally and try and recruit bus drivers there. What they are going to find, is that the only bus drivers they can recruit are black drivers, because practically the entire transport system in Britain is run by Black drivers. We have had no logic. We have had a political exercise from the hon. the Minister of Labour, and he is no different in this respect from other hon. Ministers and other members on the Government side that we have listened to. Indeed, Sir, we have had nothing but one elementary lesson in economics after the other in this debate. We have had the hon. member for Pietersburg telling us that it was easy to solve the problem of shortage of labour. Just move all the industries, he said, to the borders of the reserves. There is plenty of labour there. The fact that there is no infrastructure, no power, no transport, no raw materials, no markets and most important of all, no supply of skilled labour, which is the very thing that industrialists need— they do not need unskilled labour; they need skilled labour—does not matter as far as the hon. member for Pietersburg is concerned.

The hon. member for Brakpan announced in ringing tones that South Africa has a remarkable record of industrial peace. He was echoed by the hon. Minister of Labour.

That is so.

Well, Sir, so has Soviet Russia got a remarkable record for industrial peace.

Why compare the two?

I will tell the hon. member. Because strikes are not allowed in the Soviet Union and strikes are not allowed for the majority of workers in South Africa either. The vast majority of our industrial labour force consists of Black men and Black men are not given normal collective bargaining rights and they are not given the right to strike. It is this group that earns the very lowest wages of all. It is this group, if they were not packed into Police vans when they came out on strike, that might not present the hon. member for Brakpan with such a fine record of industrial peace. I wonder if he knows that the Africans, who constitute 67.9 per cent of the working force, receive 18.8 per cent of the personal income in South Africa. So, before he starts boasting about industrial peace, let us take a look at the living standards of our workers in this country, particularly the vast majority of our African workers.

The hon. member for Brakpan boasted that some Africans had climbed up the ladder. Yes, he is quite right. Some Africans have climbed up the ladder. Some of them have become semi-skilled workers, for instance machine operators, and some of them have even been allowed to take on the jobs that are known by the wonderful South African term, the “de-skilled” jobs which have been given up by the trade unions after a certain amount of persuasion, higher wages, better bonuses and so on. These jobs are then known as “de-skilled”. It is exactly the same occupation, but because now they are done by Black hands, they are “de-skilled” jobs and, of course, they carry a very much lower wage. As I have said, some of these Africans have risen up the ladder. I agree that there is a growing middle class among urban Africans. But what the hon. member for Brakpan must know and what the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs should know, who quoted reams and reams of figures at us, is that the overall picture in the townships today in the urban areas, is one of grinding poverty.

That is absolute nonsense.

I will quote some figures as well.

When were you there?

I am there very frequently. Legally and illegally I visit the townships, and I tell this to the hon. the Minister of Justice and the hon. the Minister of Police. Now, the Minister gave us reams of figures.

I am going to get you there.

I am sure the Minister is going to get me, but he will have to run very fast.

The Chairman of the Bantu Wages and Productivity Association only recently stated:

Inflationary tendencies in our economy have overtaken African wage increases. Most Africans are poorer today than they were a year ago.

Let us look at the latest estimates. These are not my estimates but the estimates compiled by the Institute of Social Research at Natal University. According to these estimates the poverty datum line for an urban African family of six, that is two adults and four children, is today close on R70 a month. It was R63 a few years ago, but the rise in the cost of living has been such, namely 3 to 4 per cent per annum, that today it has risen to R70. That may seem a lot to hon. members. Let me tell hon. members that when transport costs and rent have been paid, exactly 35 cents per head per day is left to sustain the family for everything else they need. I do not have to go into the meaning of the poverty datum line. Hon. members ought to know by now that it means the barest minimum to keep life going. It does not allow a penny for medical expenses, for medical care, for education, for the replacement of essential furniture, or any form of recreation whatsoever. That is the meaning of the poverty datum line. Let me tell the hon. members for Brakpan and Langlaagte something about the average wages these days. These are official figures I am about to quote. In construction, a quarter million African workers earn R48 per month, on average.

Who prevents construction companies from paying them more?

Sir, just as it is the Government’s responsibility to set economic and sub-economic rentals, and just as it is the Government’s and that Ministers’ responsibility to see that landlords do not rack-rent their tenants by keeping rents at reasonable levels, so it is the Government’s duty to see that employers pay their employees living wages.

Including Mr. Oppenheimer?

Including everybody. Including the Mines, domestic employers, industrial employers, local authorities and the State, which pays amongst the lowest wages of all. Let me add, for the benefit of some hon. gentlemen, that this includes farmers as well. I believe it is high time for us to have a proper in-depth enquiry into the whole question of minimum wages for unskilled workers in South Africa, including every single occupation, and that goes for farmers as well. Some of the cash wages paid by farmers in this country would disgrace a mediaeval country. When I say that between R5 and R8 per month are paid to employees on some of the farms in the Transvaal, that is a lot. I know that in the Sunday’s River Valley farmers complained because their labour was being spoilt when the Government paid them 70 cents per day for clearing work during the drought.

What do you pay your servants?

I pay them a very good wage, far more than the average.

How much?

That is none of hon. member’s business. Most of my servants have been with me since 1950, and they have not done too badly. Never mind about my servants’ wages. Let the Government set a minimum. That minimum will then apply to me as well as to anybody else. It will then apply in the case of the mines and industry. It is the Government’s job to do so. In every other country minimum wages are set. These are based on the minimum requirements for decent living standards, but because the Africans do not have a vote and because the Africans do not have any collective bargaining rights, they are left with dregs for wages in this country. In the manufacturing industry, as in construction, the wages are far below the poverty datum line.

A recent survey in Soweto, conducted by the Johannesburg City Council, which is not a Prog, body, revealed that 22.4 per cent of Africans living there earned less than R40 per month; 44 per cent earned between R40 and R60 per month, and only 33 per cent earned more than R60 per month. How do these people live, Sir? They live in dire poverty. They live with malnutrition haunting them. I will have a great deal more to say about malnutrition in the urban areas as well as the rural areas of South Africa, in those famous resettlement areas to which the hon. the Minister of Labour has sent Africans, and where there are no jobs or opportunities.

I shall go with you and you can show me where those conditions exist.

As long as we have a chaperone, I accept. [Interjections.]

Those people live in conditions of crime. They live in conditions of disease. Hon. members should know that the TB rate, which is closely associated with malnutrition and poverty, is rising at an alarming rate in South Africa, both in the urban and in the rural areas, among Africans.

You are talking for the liberal Press.

I am not talking for the liberal press. I am talking for the good of the hon. member, if he would only listen. He should know how dangerous it is to have people living in conditions of malnutrition. These are official figures and the hon. member ought to have a look at them. Some months ago Dr. Anton Rupert said: “If they do not eat, we do not sleep”. Of course, Sir, the truth of the matter is that they do not eat and we do sleep. How long this state of affairs is to continue is anybody’s guess. I want to warn this House that urban Africans live in a ferment of anxiety lest they lose their houses, lest they lose their jobs, lest they lose their right to be in a town and lest they lose their children who attend schools in the rural areas. They may even lose a wife if she does not qualify. A call to appear at a Bantu Commissioner’s office or at the superintendent’s office is fraught with fear for these people. Do hon. members in this House know that, for technical offences nearly a quarter-million Africans went to goal in one year according to the last Police report? I do not know how long hon. members think that this state of affairs can continue. During the last Railway Budget I warned the hon. Minister of Transport that another rail accident could be a flashpoint of violence. A flashpoint of violence there was. There was very nearly a riot when the last accident took place. Anything can happen in this country because of the anxiety, the poverty, the frustration and the seething discontent that nobody in this country seems to care about. The nature of the incident itself is irrelevant. It can be a street accident or another rail accident, but what I have warned against can happen, and hon. members ought to do something about this.

I am sorry that the hon. the Prime Minister has left the chamber because I now want to refer specifically to something he said to Mr. Douglas Brown, a journalist from the London Sunday Telegraph, when he was out here not so long ago. I cannot accept that the Prime Minister was really serious when he told Mr. Douglas Brown: “I am not aware that are any annoying elements in apartheid”. As the Americans say, “He must have been joking”. Perhaps the hon. the Prime Minister should experience just for one day the frustration of an African trying to get to work from Soweto to Johannesburg. I am now not talking about petty apartheid. I do not care about petty apartheid. I do not even know what it means. I only know that all petty apartheid, including notices and so on, are simply the outward manifestation of big apartheid, of separate amenities, of the lack of facilities, of the lack of franchise and so on. I am now talking about apartheid as it operates in South Africa. If the hon. the Prime Minister had to spend one day as an African travelling backwards and forwards on those overcrowded trains, if his child happened to be one of the thousands turned away from schools in January, if his wife had been endorsed out to the homeland, if he were paid a subsistence wage and was not allowed to become a skilled worker, if he were arrested because he did not have his pass with him, or if he were constantly raided at night to see whether he was sleeping under legal conditions, he might just find that there are some annoying elements in apartheid. If he were a Coloured man who had been endorsed out of an area where there are some facilities, to an area like Hanover Park where there are no facilities, such as a bus service or schools—there were not up till recently—and no decent civic amenities of any kind, including street lights, perhaps he would find that there are some annoying elements in apartheid. And if he were an Indian and if he had been group a read out of his store on which his livelihood depended, because the area in which he traded in South Africa had been declared a white area, then perhaps he would discover that there are some annoying elements in apartheid. I say that if he were a qualified African or Coloured or Indian teacher, or nurse or doctor, who was forever doomed to be discriminated against because he was a person of colour, then perhaps he would find that there are some annoying elements about apartheid. If he wanted to amble off to his game of golf and found that it was not so easy to find a course where he could play, or if he felt like a bathe and had to go to some inaccessible beach, he might find that there are some annoying elements of apartheid. But the Government members only talk from the white point of view and do not put themselves into the place of the 80 per cent other inhabitants and citizens of this country. If they did they would realize that there are plenty of annoying elements in apartheid. Of all the silly remarks I have heard the hon. the Prime Minister make, I think that must have been the silliest, except for another remark which he made to the same journalist, which I will read out to this House—

Really, for the hon. the Prime Minister to make a statement like that to an intelligent journalist is one of the silliest things I have ever heard. I want to say again that there is a dangerous mood of frustration and an explosive situation developing among our non-Whites in South Africa, and this has been commented upon by many discerning people. It has been commented upon by thoughtful African writers, and by city councillors in our big cities, and by serious students of race relations, but the Government goes on its way, arrogant and uncaring and completely unaware, apparently, of conditions under its nose, and worse still, turning the screw all the time and turning it ever tighter, putting up rents in the townships. They are going up by between R1 and R4 per month in Soweto; increasing rail fares, as they did last year, and increasing the price of bread and of milk. There are more and more pass arrests, and more and more group area removals, and ever-widening salary gaps between Africans and Coloureds and Indians and Whites, and there is an ever increasing gap between skilled and unskilled wages. Now I want to quote—and I hope hon. members will listen to this quotation because I think it is a very good one—

I am sure hon. members will agree with me that this is a good quotation. Shall I tell you who said that, Sir? I will tell the hon. the Minister of Justice that it was his colleague, the hon. the Minister of the Interior. He said that, and I think it was a very sensible thing to say. Now that he has been added to the Cabinet, I hope very much that he will do his best to impress what he said then on the members of the Cabinet and on other members on the Government benches. I want to conclude by saying that things are reaching a critical stage in this country and the Government must not go on blindly and arrogantly, believing that everything is all right in South Africa.

After listening to the hon. member for Houghton I wondered with whom she was actually fighting about the wages of the Bantu in South Africa. The accusation is being made that it is allegedly the Government’s fault that the money the Bantu are getting is so little and that their standard of living is so low. I wonder whether she should not rather, when she visits her rich friends in Johannesburg, start fighting with them, the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Mines people. Surely she has got hold of the wrong people altogether this afternoon.

Surely it is not the Government’s fault that the supporters of the United Party and the Progressive Party in those industries do not want to pay their people more. Why do they not pay them more? That is the question. Why are they not paid more? It is not a case of work reservation; you are able to pay the man more. If you think that he should have a higher standard of living, surely you can pay him a higher wage. There is nothing to prevent them from paying those people more.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member has got hold of the wrong people altogether. She must go and have a talk to her rich friends. She must go and have a talk to those people, 80 to 90 per cent of whom support the United Party and the Progressive Party; she must not come and pick a fight with us here. Our wages are minimum wages. Why do those people not pay higher wages.

Does Volkskas or Anton Rupert pay them more?

That has nothing to do with it. That hon. member must first talk to his own people about this; let them first set their own affairs in order. Let them talk to their own supporters, who are the culprits.

Sir, that is all I can say to the hon. member for Houghton. She is always nagging the Government; she is always fighting the Government, and it is not the Government’s fault at all. She must make the speeches she makes here outside in her own constituency; it would pay her better to do that.

Then they will kick her out.

Sir, before I go further I should very much like to refer to the speech made here yesterday by the hon. member for Durban North in connection with the Excelsior case. I do not want to rake up the entire Excelsior case again here, but there was something which did give me cause for concern, something which the hon. member for Durban North said in an interview with the Press. I do not know whether he was correctly reported, and he must just say whether he was incorrectly reported. But according to one of the English-language Sunday newspapers, to whom he granted an interview, he said that he found it strange that the withdrawal of those immorality cases should in fact have taken place where it did. That was to have been one of the questions which he was to have asked, and also whether the hon. the Minister ordered the withdrawal. The insinuation there—and I want to make that insinuation very clear; I do not want there to be any illusions about this; I want to speak very frankly with the hon. member in regard to this point—was that the hon. the Minister of Justice had withdrawn the cases because some of the accused were Nationalists or people who had said that they were Nationalists and because the incidents occurred at that specific place, Excelsior, in the Free State, the Free State being the only Province which votes Nationalist to the hilt. I am asking the hon. member for Durban North whether that is correct? Is that insinuation a fair insinuation?

Were they all Nationalists?

Did you say it or not?

Is that the deduction we can make from that newspaper report?

Do you say they are all Nationalists?

I am asking the hon. member: is it fair of me to make that deduction? The hon. member does not want to give a direct answer, and consequently I must accept that the deduction I made from that newspaper report is a fair one. If it is a fair deduction, then I want to say to the hon. member that it was a very poor show on his part, after he had heard the reply of the hon. the Minister of Justice yesterday to the effect that there had been no action on his part whatsoever regarding the withdrawal of the case, not to have withdrawn that ugly insinuation. That was the least he could have done. I want to ask him whether he is willing to withdraw that insinuation now?

Let him get up and reply.

Let him get up and tell us whether he is willing to withdraw it.

How do you know they are all Nationalists?

I want to know whether the hon. member is prepared to apologize for that ugly insinuation he made, i.e. that the charges were withdrawn by the Minister because the cases occurred in a specific place and that the Minister withdrew the charges for a specific purpose. Is he prepared to apologize as we would expect from a gentleman? No, he is not replying. We must therefore accept that the hon. member for Durban North adheres to that ugly insinuation in spite of the full explanation given to him by the hon. the Minister of Justice.

Sir, I do not want to say anything more about the Excelsior case; it is not the point at issue here. I should like to refer to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout challenges me almost every year to discuss that so-called “petty apartheid” of his. I am glad he mentioned it this afternoon, because for all parties there comes a moment of truth, and the moment of truth must also arise for the United Party. We asked him from these benches what he meant by “petty apartheid”. He would not give us an answer, because he was afraid that he would put his foot in it. He was already afraid that his party would be embarrassed if he were to give us examples of his so-called “petty apartheid”. The only example he gave was that of the Immorality Act, which was the pettiest of petty apartheid. In other words, he wanted it abolished. He wanted free association between Whites and non-Whites. That is the implication, since he does not like petty apartheid. He stated that the Immorality Act was the pettiest of petty apartheid. What other conclusion must one draw? The only conclusion is that he wants it abolished. Let us be quite logical about this now. Let us discuss this matter of petty apartheid. He said that we must look for examples in the Press to see what it means. Everyone knows what it means. What it actually amounts to is that it is a social separation. Am I correct, or am I wrong? It is social separation. Let me state our standpoint on this side of the House unequivocally. I have the greatest respect for people of a different colour. I have the greatest respect for all people. I can say in all humility that I do not imagine that I am better than any other man of any other colour. I concede that there are probably many people of other races who are far better men than I am. There are people who may perhaps be far more gifted and just as intellectual, but we said—and this is our hypothesis and our standpoint—that separate development and social separation is part of the same pattern and of our policy. Our policy, the entire separate development policy, is aimed at retaining the separate identities of the Whites and the non-Whites in South Africa, because we are different. We are concede that we are people …

May I ask a question?

No, I am busy. You can make another speech later. Ask the question then.

I want to ask the hon. member whether it is his standpoint that he of necessity requires a piece of coercive legislation in order to retain his identity?

I maintain that we need every piece of legislation which is necessary to make co-existence in South Africa peaceful, full-fledged human co-existence and to eliminate points of friction. That is all part of the same pattern. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout regards it as discrimination on my part against the Blacks. But surely there is discrimination against me as well, because we must live together in this social pattern. We cannot do anything else. I am equally unable today to have free access to or egress from Soweto. It is only the hon. member for Houghton who does this willynilly and then says to the hon. the Minister of Justice: “Do to me what you want”. It is only she who does that. I may not do so, because I am a law-abiding citizen. Surely that is also discrimination. I realize however that it is part of our social pattern and that it is necessary for South Africa that this should be done in this way. Let us see where the United Party stands in respect of this matter. Why does the United Party have as part of its policy that there must be residential separation if it is opposed to petty apartheid? If the hon. member for Bezuidenhout does not like discriminating against people, why do they state in that booklet that there must be residential separation?

You are confusing the two, principle and method …

No, tell me this. What is at issue here is policy. You must reply to me now. We want honesty. The parties must now tell one another where they stand. We are going to be honest and you must also be honest. Now you must tell us whether you are for it or against it. If you are for it, then you are also a supporter of a social separation and petty apartheid. The hon. member agrees to it. I am now going to come to his hypocrisy.

I shall reply to you.

I shall tell the hon. member where he and the United Party are being hypocritical. The United Party wants all the social benefits of a South Africa as it exists with its petty apartheid and all, but he nevertheless joins people who come from abroad and who cannot understand it in speaking out against it and criticizing it. People from abroad cannot always understand precisely what we have in mind and how we are going to accomplish it. But hon. members agree with what they say and tell them that it is this petty apartheid which they cannot tolerate. They say that it is these “pinpricks” of the National Party which should be eliminated. Surely you are being hypocritical then. Why is residential segregation not deleted from the policy booklet? Take it out. Be like the Progressive Party and take it out. Be honest with one another; even the Progs have not removed it yet. Even the Progs do not want to remove it. Even they say that it is the choice of the various groups. Am I correct?

There will always be areas …

Even the Progs say that it is the choice of the various groups. There the hon. member is being as hypocritical as the United Party.

Keep Houghton White!

Order! The hon. member for Prinshof must use the word hypocrisy in a different way and not directly accuse an hon. member of being hypocritical.

I am referring to the party.

In other words, you include the whole lot.

I am referring to the party in the abstract as being hypocritical.

Order! No, the hon. member must not use that word again, not even in reference to the party. The hon. member may proceed.

Let hon. members on the opposite side tell us whether they will apply social separation in restaurants? Do you want to apply it everywhere in the restaurants where we go to eat out at night, or do you want to respect the fact that the various race groups are different? Do you want the right to enter, with your different skin colour, position and social background, any of the places where non-Whites gather to drink beer and so on? Will you allow the non-Whites access to our restaurants? This is petty apartheid which the hon. member was so opposed to. Let the United Party be honest. I want to give an example. Here in the Cape an opera house is at present under construction over which a terrible fuss has been kicked up. What is the standpoint of the United Party? Do they want everyone to have access to it, precisely at the same time, and do they want them to be able to sit where they want to? Or do you want all kinds of regulatory aspects there? Tell us what the position is? It is terribly easy for people who live in Houghton to be socialistic. They are the people who can buy that kind of thing. They can buy their apartheid.

There they meet in the back yards.

No, it is the case. This is the position in South Africa. Let the United Party tell us whether they want free access by all races to our bioscopes. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout told us that the outside world could not tolerate or understand this petty apartheid of ours. Now the hon. member for Bezuidenhout must tell us what it is the outside world cannot stomach. What is it the outside world cannot understand and what is it that it does not want? And what is the standpoint of the United Party in respect of bioscopes, trains, stations and so on? If you speak to members of the United Party they will ask you what necessity there is for separate gates at stations. But surely it is clear why they are there. They are there to regulate the traffic. We want peace, and do not want to bring conflicting elements into contact. We do not want race hate to flare up and that is why we are giving the other groups the same kind of gate through which to leave the station as we have. When they then come to the less congested parts of the city, control is no longer necessary.

Let hon. members be quite honest now. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked me to debate this matter. I am asking him these questions specifically so that he can state where his party stands in respect of social separation. Is the United Party going to abolish influx control to the cities completely if it comes into power? These are questions to which the people want replies, for the United Party is now claiming to be the party which will come into power after five years. They must tell the people whether they will abolish control over the influx of non-Whites to the cities completely. Some of those hon. members will say “yes”. The hon. member for Hillbrow in particular will say “yes”. The hon. member for Hillbrow made a speech here yesterday on labour matters which indicated that he is closer to the Suzmanites than to his own party. If what he stated here yesterday is the policy of the United Party, then I want to tell him that the hon. member for Houghton will feel as at home in the United Party as a little bird in its nest.

I just want to refer to that speech made by the hon. member. The hon. member for Hillbrow told us that apartheid had failed because labour integration was taking place. By making that statement the hon. member indicated two things to me. Firstly he indicated to me that he does not know what separate development means; he does not know how apartheid works. And secondly he has no idea whatsoever of precisely what labour integration means. If it is a breaking-down of apartheid, then that hon. member does not know what he is talking about. Then surely that hon. member has lost his way. The fact that there are more Bantu employed in South African industries today surely does not mean that separate development as a policy has failed. The hon. member for Hillbrow has never explained to us how he arrives at that conclusion, how he gives credence to that. Why does he make that statement as being axiomatic, “because there is labour integration, separate development has gone by the board”? Surely that is a specious argument. I could just inform the hon. member that the National Party has never said that Bantu are not necessary in the industries of South Africa. From the time of Dr. Malan we have always said that it would be ideal to establish a totally White South Africa. But we have always conceded that the economy of South Africa is growing to such an extent that the Whites who are here cannot man the industries alone. No, we have always said that one of the cornerstones of our policy, not only of our domestic policy, but also of our foreign policy, is interdependence, that we are economically bound to one another. [Interjections.] Yes, hon. members on that side of the House are laughing at this now, but it is precisely because they cannot understand it or do not want to understand it, because they deliberately do not want to. We have always said that economic interdependence in Southern Africa does in fact exist. After all, we have labourers from the Northern black states in our minds. We have not chased them away. Our own black people need us and we also need them in our industries. Surely it is foolishness to say that separate development has gone by the board.

Now the hon. member for Hillbrow comes along and says that work reservation should be abolished completely. That is what he is telling the workers of South Africa.

I said as it is embodied in your legislation.

The hon. member said that work reservation was an absurdity. He said it last year in this House, and said it again yesterday. I shall quote the hon. members’ precise words. The hon. member said that work reservation was an absurdity and that it must be abolished. The hon. member said it here and he also said it at a meeting. He said it in a speech which he made at some meeting or other, and I quote—

The job reservation clause of the Industrial Conciliation Act should be replaced, because it serves only to restrict the advancement of the non-Whites …

In other words, it must go. According to him the Blacks must be given as much work as they can possibly do, and they must be free to compete with Whites for work. That is the statement made by the hon. member. The hon. member for Hillbrow does not understand how work reservation works either. The hon. member comes along and tells us that we are employing more Bantu labourers in work for Whites, and consequently work reservation has failed and means nothing because it serves to keep the Blacks down. If the hon. member knew how work reservation functions, we would know that it is a regulation of peaceful labour conditions between Whites and non-Whites in South Africa; then he would realize that our Government is, through work reservation, saying to the Blacks that they can do this or that work, and that it is saying to the Whites that they can do this or that specific work. In this way the incitement of racial hate between the two groups and the outbreak of hostilities is being prevented. Let me now tell the hon. member that it has been proved in many of our industries, including the Railways, that where a White does not in any way wanted to do a type of work any more, it is taken over by the non-Whites. That hon. member now wants that regulatory legislation, that labour regulatory legislation to be abolished completely, and he now wants to allow …

That is not the case.

Yes it is. Just ask the hon. member. That hon. member is saying that it is not the case. What does the hon. member for Pinelands say?

The hon. member has heard what we want to do.

The hon. member is differing with the hon. member for Hillbrow. The hon. member for Hillbrow explained yesterday that it must go.

The day before yesterday.

He said that what it amounted to was that Bantu and Coloureds could, to an unlimited extent and in an unrestricted way, do the work of the White workers. That is what it amounted to. That is the policy of the hon. member for Hillbrow and that is why I said he is more of a Suzmanite than Mrs. Suzman herself. That is a fact. However, that is not all. At the meeting to which I referred a moment ago, the hon. member for Hillbrow said, and the day before yesterday again, that Bantu will be trained for skilled work, that Bantu will be trained for skilled work, apparently without any control. Am I right? Did the hon. member say that? That means that the Bantu will be trained to compete for the work of the White workers. That is the implications of the policy laid down by the hon. member for Hillbrow. Now the United Party must not tell us again that they are a conservative party. Firstly it does not have any idea what he wants to do with social separation, and it does not know what it wants to do with the Bantu workers. The hon. member for Hillbrow is going about with one story on his lips, that the Bantu must be given as much work as possible, and other members of the United Party are simply shaking their heads and saying that that may not happen. This is the party that is asking South Africa to vote for it in the next election! I am afraid that the workers of South Africa will take note of what has been said here by the hon. member. I am in fact sorry for the hon. member of Hillbrow was not able to speak for a longer period of time, for the longer he spoke, the deeper he was burying his Party for ever. This speech which he made the day before yesterday, and which he made last year in this House on the labour position will not be soon forgotten by the workers of South Africa. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we will remind them of it. If the United Party cannot ascertain from within itself where it is going, it may as well forget about taking over from the Government and then telling the rest of South Africa where to go.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a long speech from the hon. member for Prinshof, of which he devoted more than three-quarters to an attempt to explain to us what their policy of apartheid is and how his Government is implementing this policy of apartheid. But what actually surprises me to some extent, is that his own members, the members of that Party, still do not know to this day what apartheid is. When they did so badly in this last Provincial election, some of their newspapers throughout the country invited correspondence dealing with the question why the Nationalist Party had fared so badly. As Die Vaderland said, the reaction they received was “tremendous”. The major part of this reaction was based on one question to the following effect, as expressed in the headlines in this article, “When do we get apartheid?” How many members did not ask this question? Not two or ten, but in their hundreds they asked this question. I quote what one correspondent, a Nationalist, give as his reason for having stayed away from the polls (translation)—

When do we get the promised apartheid? If apartheid is incapable of implementation, tell us so in a loud and clear voice so that we do not go on living in a vain hope, striving after something which will remain a spectre.

This is not what I am saying, but what their own people are saying. They also know why this is so. It is because they give one interpretation of apartheid to countries abroad, but in the inner circles of their own Party they give a verkrampte interpretation thereof. Another reader wrote (translation)—

What is going on? Come and have a look over week-ends at Randburg’s hordes of Bantu lying about comfortably in shady spots in the streets and on the pavements. Is this still possible after 22 years of Nationalists’ rule?

These are the words not of our people but of the people of the Nationalist Party. A portion of another letter reads as follows (translation)—

Dear Sirs, as you know all white voters were asked in 1948 to vote for apartheid. We did so, but that was the last that was heard or seen of apartheid.

I do not agree with everything said in these letters, and I want to say this at once. It seems to me the hon. member for Randburg wants to ask a question for the last time.

I should like to know from the hon. member why, if there is such an illogical application of apartheid in Randburg, the motto of the United Party at the election was, “if you want a servant, vote U.P.”?

Because we believe that we should have Native servants. Of course, we believe in that. However, the hon. member has just emphasized once again, and I hope his voters will remember this, that he is of the opinion that all of them should make do without servants. That hon. member will no longer be here after five years.

The hon. member for Prinshof went on to discuss the Immorality Act itself. I should like to put a question to him. He read what his own newspapers, like Rapport, Die Transvaler, Die Vaderland and Die Burger and the S.A.B.C. in its programme “Current Affairs” had said about the Immorality Act. Does the hon. member agree that something is amiss at the root of the application of that Act? Does the hon. member agree? Just look at him, there he is sitting without saying a word. The only thing we requested was for the Immorality Act to be investigated, but when we ask the hon. member whether he is satisfied with the application of that Act, he does not reply. Is the hon. the Minister of Justice satisfied with the application of that Act?

But what should I do in respect of the application of that Act?

Appoint a commission. Then we shall see what is being done as regards the application of that Act. I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Labour, who has now taken the impossible task upon himself to become Minister of Posts and Telegraphs as well, is not present.

Order! That hon. member for Prinshof wants to speak on a point of order.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Orange Grove has asked me a question, but has not given me the opportunity of replying to that question.

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon. member for Orange Grove may proceed.

I want to reply in brief to the hon. member. I have made a list here of each time that hon. member put a question in his speech, and it comes to a total of 16 times. That brings the total number of questions put by hon. members on that side of this House in this debate to 96. The hon. member cannot expect me to reply to every question.

The hon. the Minister of Labour dealt with his policy and said Whites and non-Whites were still being taken into employment at a good rate in South Africa. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister reads the Sunday papers. After all, they no longer read sporting-news on Sundays. Did the hon. the Minister read three days ago what the chairman, and also the executive officer of a large bank in South Africa had said? Let me quote his words (translation)—

These are not my words or the words of “biassed” supporters of the United Party. These are the words of Dr. Jan S. Marais, i.e. they do not have any economic policy. They have no labour policy. He continues (translation)—

Do my hon. friends on the opposite side repudiate these words? Do they reject them? Let them have the manly courage to say so! We are waiting on the big noise after the silence.

Sir, I am very sorry that the hon. the Minister of Labour who is also Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, is not here at the moment, because I would have liked to have heard from him how he was implementing his labour policy in the Post Office at the present time.

They are working harder.

I am very pleased; they always work hard. They always work well. But this afternoon a reply was given to a question by the hon. member for Durban (Berea) in connection with Post Office staff, postal workers in Durban. It appeared that out of a total number of 400 posts for Whites, nearly 200 were filled not by Whites but by non-Whites. Unavoidable! Let me say at once that I do not reject this, because I do not want it to happen again that a publication such as the Financial Mail misinterprets me and is then too afraid when I summon them to appear before the Press Board. I agree with this, because I know that this was done with the necessary approval from the Post Office staff association. However, this is in direct conflict with the policy expressed in the past by that side of this House. It takes time to reply to all these previous speeches, but we want to know from the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs the reason for this tremendous burden which is going to be placed on the man in the street through the increases in tariffs, increases which are going to produce close on R40 million. Do you know, Sir, that the Post Office budgeted for a profit of more than R34 million this year? The profit they are going to make, according to the expectations of the Minister, by 31st March of this year, is R34 million. Why saddle the man in the street and our industries with this tremendous new burden through this gigantic increase in postal tariffs? I leave the hon. the Minister at that.

I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is not present here. He challenged us to produce evidence of a single case of a vote for the United Party in the Provincial election which was not merely an aggrieved vote against the Nationalist Party. I want to read to my hon. friends this large caption in Die Beeld— prior to its new dispensation—(translation) “Youth support the Opposition”. Yes, the youth of South Africa support the United Party. Here is one example out of the many letters the newspaper received— this is what a young man said. I quote (translation)—

as was also proved by the recent survey at the University of Stellenbosch. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs read out a passage here from the report of the Bureau for Economic Research on the so-called success of the Government’s policy in imposing hire-purchase curbs and other restrictions. But, Sir, he merely read a single short sentence from that report. I have here the full report. Did he not read the full report? Here is one portion thereof, “Labour problem”. It is the complaint which comes from the industrialists, the dealers, as well as from the agricultural industry—

I underline the word “uncertain”—

They do not know what the Government’s policy is. They are not able to explain to people what their policy is. And still the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs comes along and quotes from the report of the Bureau for Economic Research.

†The Minister of Economic Affairs tried to give the impression that theirs was the party for the common man, for the ordinary man; that the ordinary man could trust them, because he himself was a very ordinary man. Well, he was and he still is a very ordinary man, particularly after his uncalled-for attack on my Leader. It was an uncalled-for attack; it was a vindictive attack; it was a personal attack, almost unparalleled in this House. I can only reply by saying that in making that attack he has given a new dimension to the adjective “low” in English. It has three degrees of comparison and he has given it a new one: low, lower, lowest, Louwrens! [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, I resent this attack on my Leader and I reject it with the contempt it deserves. Who is the Minister of Economic Affairs to talk about the ordinary man in South Africa; who is the Minister of Finance to talk about him? Yesterday, Sir, I was given figures in this House by the Minister about the market value of shares on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, according to the latest figures, and I compared them with the figures during 1969. In 1969 the total market value of all the shares of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange was R24.7 thousand million—not million, but thousand million. At the end of September the market value had dropped to R14.7 thousand million. In other words, under this Government—and nobody can tell me that they were entirely innocent in this matter—there was a drop of R11,000 million in the total value of the shares on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, in less than two years. Eleven thousand million rand! Do you know, Sir, what the public debt of South Africa is, since 1910? Less than five thousand million rand. Twice the value of the public debt of South Africa since the beginning of Union is the amount that was lost in the value of our industries, of our mines and of our commercial undertakings in this country during the past two years. Does the hon. the Minister of Finance really want to tell me that he is not responsible at all for at least a part of that loss?

Tell us something about television.

I would very much like to know something about television, since the hon. member asks me about it. Perhaps we could hear a bit more about television from that side of the House. I wonder where the Deputy Minister of the Interior is at the present moment because do you know what he said, Sir? I am just replying to this in passing. The hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior came along and said at a meeting addressed by him or in a statement issued by him, that there would be television in South Africa. His own Minister would not say it, but the Deputy Minister said that the reason he would not tell us when it was coming was that it was still a State secret. Sir, this is an impossible state of affairs. Apparently the one Minister says the Government has not yet decided on television; that is what the Minister of National Education said. He said that the Government had not yet decided on television, yet the Deputy Minister of the Interior says “we have decided on television”. In fact, they have even decided on the date because he says that the date is already a State secret. Is it not about time that we heard more from the hon. the Minister of National Education as to what their plans are with regard to television? Are they in favour of it; is it coming?

Sir, looking at members of the Government across the floor of the House, reminds me of a battered old passenger bus, its paint peeling, its tyres flat, its windows broken, a candidate for the junk yard, a jalopy passenger bus which cannot go forward or backward any more. In 1948, many years ago, this bus had its four wheels turning, the four wheels of “swart gevaar en apartheid”, of championship of the Afrikaner, of economic prosperity which they inherited from their predecessors in the United Party, and their “verkramptheid” wheel for everyone. Sir, what has happened? That dilapidated old bus is standing, a candidate for the junk yard, unable to go forward or backward.

*One of the old wheels of that bus was apartheid and the “swart gevaar”; that thing is dead. In the field of labour it is dead, as I have proved to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. Today, under the Nationalist Party Government, there is twice as much integration as ever before; it is dead in the field of labour; it is dead in the field of our population increase. One of the most important figures, of which, unfortunately, so very little notice is taken, appears here in the report of the Commission of Water Affairs; in this report the commission says, on the basis of information it obtained from the Department of Statistics—none other —what, in its opinion, the population of the Witwatersrand in the Vaal complex is going to be by the year 2,000. At present it is 4 million. Do you know, Sir, what the Department of Statistics says—and the Minister of Water Affairs accepts this? It says that population of 4 million is going to increase to 11 million. In the white area of the Witwatersrand there will be 11 million Bantu in the year 2,000, whereas they number 4 million today. Let hon. members consult the table on page 78 of the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Water Affairs. [Interjection.] In 1960 it was 4.6 million; in the year 2,000 it will be 11.7 million. Mr. Speaker, there too it has collapsed.

Morally their policy of apartheid has collapsed. Prof. Willem de Klerk, one of their great men, the man who coined the terms “verkramptheid” and “verligtheid”, made the following request at the end of last year, according to this report (translation)—

Let us listen to the words of Prof. J. H. Moolman of the Potchefstroom University, of the Afrikaans-Calvinistiese Beweging, (translation)—

We are not the ones who are saying this; their own people are the ones who are saying these things today. In other words, their apartheid has also failed in the field of policy; and in the field of propaganda the failure of this “swart gevaar” and apartheid policy of theirs has been the biggest by far, as I have proved with quotations from their own newspapers of remarks made by their own people, who today no longer have any concept of what their policy is. There are many cases I can read out here, but why should I do so? After all, they do read their own newspapers and know what is written in those papers.

Sir, that old wheel of the bus is broken, just as broken as that second old wheel of their posing as being the party championing the cause of the Afrikaner in South Africa. Sir, one can no longer bluff the people of South Africa, and the ordinary sensible people, particularly the young people, realize that the language and the culture of the Afrikaner, like the language and the culture of the English-speaking people in South Africa, are 100 per cent safe in the hands of the United Party; and not only that, as we shall promote the one, so we shall try to promote the other as well, because we take pride in both. We, as South Africans, take pride in them. That is why they on the opposite side have come forward with the idea that they want to follow us. They then changed their constitution in the Transvaal to read that their party is not the one which is the national front of Afrikanerdom only, but of the whole of South Africa. But then the hon. the Minister of Defence came along and once again put a spoke in the wheel. He said—and I have no argument with him— all English-speaking people in South Africa were Afrikaners too. In other words, now their party has at least become the national front of Afrikanerdom. [Interjections.] Does the hon. the Minister of Information agree and is this also what he says? I have no argument with that, but the Minister does not want to say anything. It is another case of strife between that hon. Minister and the Minister of Defence. Is the future, where a new leadership is going to be at stake, then so close at hand that they already have to fight so much?

The third wheel of that old bus has collapsed, and this wheel concerns the prosperity which they inherited from the United Party in 1948. Twenty-three years ago they came forward with white bread and meat, and now the workers are giving them the answer. The workers of Westdene, of Florida and Turffontein and of Randburg gave the answer and they are going to do so again. No wonder they are saying that there are two people, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, and that the former is leading us to the edge of the abyss, and the latter is leading us to the abysmal decline of the rand.

Sir, never before in the history of South Africa has the rise in the cost of living been so rapid as now. It means much more than figures alone. When one reads that the prices of vegetables have increased by 25 per cent within one year, the prices of fruit by 21 per cent, and the prices of fish by 7 per cent, one does not think of the rich people; one thinks of the ordinary men and women in one’s own constituency, in my constituency and in your constituency, who constantly have to pay more and more for the essential foodstuffs. One also thinks how rentals have gone up by 10 per cent within one year. Again it is the ordinary man who suffers as a result. Medical services are more expensive. It is even more expensive to have one’s hair cut, and worse lies ahead, and that is what is worst.

†Worse lies ahead, Mr. Speaker. The prices of motor-cars will go up, an essential medium of transport. It is quite possible that fuel will go up within the next couple of months. Motor assurance has risen by 20 per cent. I have mentioned the terrific rises in postal tariffs, in spite of a Budget by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs for a surplus of R31 million. Electricity charges have gone up by 10 per cent and though I know that the hon. the Minister of Finance will not let us into the secret, the whole country is looking towards Budget day with more than usual anxiety. One wonders what new blows are awaiting not us but the ordinary, the common, man in our constituencies when these blows are finally delivered. It is not a question of figures; it is a question of life, of the everyday life of these people.

Let me say, of the four wheels of that dilapidated old bus, that candidate for the junk-yard, one at least they try to improve and it is still half inflated. It is that tyre of verkramptheid. They retreated it when they threw the Hertzogites out, but they have re-inflated it again, and today I say the Government is as verkramp as it has been at any time in its past. I need mention only one thing, one of the most shocking incidents that has come to my notice. I call it a vicious, vindictive and vile statement made by the Chairman of the Publications Board, in which he warned all South African periodicals “dat hulle op hulle pasoppens moet wees”. He told a meeting of Rapportryers that he had already written letters to those people and if they go ahead and are, as he said, “dwarstrekkers wat nie wil luister nie, sal daar ’n totale verbod op hulle geplaas word en so iets sal hulle doodvonnis beteken”. Have you ever heard a threat of this nature, Sir, against the Press and periodicals of South Africa? It is iniquitous. It is an indication of a type of mind that we cannot tolerate any longer in our public life, and I trust that the hon. the Minister of the Interior, who is responsible for this, will take the necessary steps to deal with these matters. However much they may call themselves enlightened, they still have the old Pavlovian conditioned reflex whenever a non-White is mentioned, as we have seen in regard to the incidents of the Japanese jockey, of Arthur Ashe, of the Chinese in Port Elizabeth and Basil D’Oliveira, as was seen when Dr. Piet Meyer was again elected by his beloved Broederbond, and when Prof. Marius Swart was elected leader of the Rapportryers of the hon. member for Potchefstroom. [Interjection.] We know how strong the Broederbond influence still is. The following was said before the Klip River by election by the editor of Die Nataller, their own newspaper in Natal. He said that the time had come when the Broeder-bonders must say where they are. This was a surprise pronouncement on the eve of the Klip River by-election by the editor of their own paper. [Interjections.]

Sir, that dilapidated old bus also has a leaky radiator. The hon. the Minister of Finance is pouring in the water, the rands, by the million at the top, but it keeps leaking out at the bottom—Land Bank loans, Agliottis, let me mention them, hundreds of them, concessions and the lot. We know and they know what has happened. This radiator is developing more and more leaks all the time and one of the biggest leaks of all is the leakage into the Bantustans. We in the United Party believe that there must be industrial development in these areas also by white capital under control, and I underline “control”. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Paarl quite rightly said that this was not a debate in which the Opposition could merely attack the Government and direct complaints at them. This is also a debate in which the Opposition can be called to account. For that reason I should like to pay attention today to some aspects of the policy of the Opposition and the effect this policy and the English-language Press have on South Africa. For a party such as the United Party, which has neither a fixed course nor a policy, there is no beginning and no end to the process of public policy-making. They trim their sails to whatever wind is blowing. In a party so lacking in direction, which is for ever looking for a course to follow, petty public grievances, personal frustrations, pressure groups, the stirring up of unrest and hidden political motives are all mixed up in the tangled chaos of trying to formulate Opposition policy. Nor can it be otherwise. People who are constantly on the prowl for political and personal gain and who find a home in such a party, also offer a home to those people with a rich potential for promoting communism. That is the Opposition in its true perspective. In the course of my speech I shall quote positive examples to show that the Opposition and the English-language Press have become tools of communism.

For that reason I want to deal in the first instance with the changed political scene in South Africa. The Opposition is no longer a responsible Opposition which primarily has the interests of this country and its people at heart. Its primary and sole task is to cause the downfall of this Government. That in itself is within the limits of our democratic way of life, but the methods used by the Opposition have unmistakable characteristics of communistic tactics. Certain attitudes (lewensuitinge), as brought to the fore by the Opposition under our democratic system, carry within them the seeds of the destruction of democracy by democracy itself. This is a very important technique of communism. Communism uses democratic freedoms to destroy democracy. Distorted attitudes as expressed in protest marches to disrupt the maintenance of law and order; insistence upon multi-racial university and student bodies to destroy the social order; religious cloaks under which to promote terrorism; pop festivals and drugs to undermine the social order and drugs to create a generation of drug addicts, are not attitudes which are based on spiritual values, but purely communistic politics aimed at undermining the youth. Pornography and filth, which are being controlled by the Censor Board, are called a “creative process” by the English Press, for example The Star of 25th November, 1970. This same newspaper refers in a jeering and contemptuous way to “the thinking of that top Transvaal educationist who believes that drugs and pop music are a communist conspiracy.” This same newspaper concludes its article with the following words—

As I have said, this is not being done in an attempt to promote spiritual values. This is being done in an attempt to undermine our youth and to make them weak and soft.

For that reason we must pay particular attention to these things at this stage, and consequently I want to draw attention at this stage to the hidden political motives of communism as we see them manifested in certain aspects of the policy of the Opposition. In this respect I want to mention only one aspect, which is getting a grip on South Africa with the full knowledge and support of the Opposition. This is the process, which is being used by communism in a planned way, of enervating our youth. They must be severed, spiritually and morally, from our national character. They must be made to be different so that they can revolt when action is taken against their being different. Sir, I am referring here to the so-called pop festivals as the forerunner of the hippie cult with its belief in drugs and licentiousness. The Opposition has not uttered one single word to express its disapproval of this phenomenon. As a matter of fact, the way in which the so-called rights of these people were defended in order to allow them to continue their activities, is proof of support and sympathy. While their so-called rights were defended with a flurry of words, the English-language Press did not publish one single photograph to show the public how abhorrently these people were practising their freedom under democracy.

In this respect the Opposition stands shoulder to shoulder with the doctrine of the communists pertaining to the youth. This doctrine was mentioned by Lenin’s widow herself as far back as October, 1929. She said (translation)—

Who said that?

I told you who said that. Those hon. members should listen. I would prefer not to tell this House what she said about free sexual relations among the youth and the licentious life they should lead to force them away from established national traditions. The course of communism in regard to the youth is already being followed by the Opposition. This we find in the following words of Mr. Stanley Uys which appeared in the Sunday Times of 1st November, 1970—

The direction, as far as the youth is concerned, is clear. Mr. Stanley Uys states that the English-speaking student is the bearer of licentiousness and excitement at our universities. This is the licentiousness and the excitement which in 1929 Lenin’s widow regarded as the guide-lines for the youth. Stanley Uys challenges the Afrikaansspeaking student not to be stronger and more steadfast than the English-speaking student. They should also be weak and soft and drug-stupefied, because then the object with the youth of South Africa will be achieved sooner.

For that reason I want to pay attention to communistic tactics in this regard. It is to create the impression at home and abroad that everything and everybody are revolting against the policy of the Government. In this event the sympathy of the outside world will be with the masses, in our case, therefore, with the non-Whites. This sympathy will render the masses more aggressive. The price paid to achieve this is beside the point here. Even the destruction of a people is not too big a price to pay. The methods followed by the Opposition and the pronouncements by the English-language Press are indicative of a pursuance of communistic ideology and tactics, i.e. that the masses should be made to revolt, firstly, against peace and order and, secondly, against the existing political, social and cultural order and in every other sphere of life. They should be made to feel restless. The impression should be created that they are being suppressed, that they have been wronged. They should be made aggressive; they should learn to hate those in authority. Then everything will just depend on who throws the first stone or fires the first shot. As one of the demonstrators in the protest march of the Witwatersrand University said about the possibility that members of the public might assault the demonstrators …

You are worse than a demonstrator.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to say to another hon. member that he is worse than a demonstrator?

Order! Which hon. member said that?

Mr. Speaker, I said that and I see nothing wrong with it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the recent demonstrations at the Witwatersrand University, where a student said, in reference to the possibility that members of the public might assault the demonstrators, that the sympathy of the masses would in any case be with those who had been wronged. The demonstrators, in other words. That is why it will not matter who throws the first stone or fires the first shot. By that he means that the demonstrators may just as well throw the first stone for the purpose of undermining and disrupting peace and order.

Examples of attempts by the Opposition to stir up revolt against the established order amongst the masses and particularly among the non-Whites have been noticeable for a considerable time now in practically every English-language newspaper. Even the methods outlined by the communists to accelerate the process of unrest and uncertainty among the masses are being followed by the Opposition. The Opposition’s policy and methods correspond to the beliefs and starting-point of the communists, i.e. that any means may be employed to achieve the goal, even rebellion and revolution.

Order! What does the hon. member mean by “rebellion and revolution”?

Mr. Speaker, I shall withdraw those words if there is any objection to them.

Order!

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is an hon. member allowed to accuse the Opposition of being agents of a banned organization?

The hon. member is not doing that. The hon. member may proceed.

Through what is said and what is written unrest and uncertainty must be inculcated into the minds of the masses, of Whites and non-Whites; it must be forced into their minds. Hansard gives evidence of this kind of talk and practically every English-language newspaper is sending out incitement. Nobody predicts where it is going to end; nobody has to predict where it is going to end. The Opposition is not concerned about where it is going to end. Through this policy and these actions of the Opposition it has become the symbol of the most irresponsible element in South African politics. These actions of the United Party reflect features of the personality of one of the greatest communists of all time, Lenin. He left the imprint of his personality on communism when he uttered the following words in 1906—

The actions of the Opposition are not calculated to bring about peace and order and to maintain our existing values; its actions are calculated to bring about the downfall of the Government, and in this process all our existing values are being discredited to the utmost. In doing so the Opposition intends not only to place the Government in a bad light, but also to drive our country in the direction of self-destruction. And then they build their false hopes on the possibility that this will render the voters amenable to a change of government. The method chosen by the Opposition is to create the highest degree of suspicion against the leaders of the National Party and to make as many people as possible feel wronged, suppressed and aggrieved. This is a well-known communistic technique. With a method such as this, one can create a powder-keg. One can destroy a country and a society. This is the price the Opposition is prepared to pay for temporary political gain, but this gain will be of a very transient nature.

The Opposition does not appreciate that communism and terrorism and Black agitation are not aimed at the National Party as such, but at the White Government in this country and also at those hon. members sitting over there. If these elements gain a foothold in South Africa, the white man will have no place in the government of this country, unless the Opposition no longer regard themselves as part of the white people in South Africa, but as part of one nation consisting of 20 million people. In this concept of the United Party, this concept of one nation consisting of 20 million people, the Whites will in any case be swallowed up. Apparently the Opposition is not very much concerned about this, hence their hypocritical courting of the Bantu, not for their co-operation and goodwill, but for openly embracing them.

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

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. I repeat that they are not striving to win the goodwill and the co-operation of the non-Whites, but embrace them openly. Their attitude is, “the limits set by the criminal law, and nothing else”. That they themselves will be destroyed in this process, has apparently not penetrated their minds. If the downfall of the National Party is brought about in this country, it will also mean the downfall of the white man in South Africa, and a country, a society and a civilization will be destroyed. To demonstrate against peace and order is to demonstrate against the security of this country and its people. To demonstrate like the hon. member for Houghton and the students at our English-language universities, is to demonstrate in favour of communism and terrorism.

In this regard I therefore wish to draw attention to the image of South Africa as seen by the Opposition. It is being proclaimed by the Opposition and the English-language Press that South Africa’s image was damaged when restrictions were imposed on certain people by the hon. the Minister of Justice as a precautionary measure against communistic and terrorist activities. They suggest a poor image of South Africa to the public. They suggest a poor image of South Africa to the outside world as well, instead of supporting these measures in the interests of South Africa and its people. The image of South Africa as to where it stands in regard to communism and terrorism must be made clear beyond all doubt even if it means the curtialment of abused democratic liberties, because this will also be in the interests of those who stir up revolt against the protective measures of the Government. This image should be made clear to the outside world. It should also be made clear to the terrorists themselves and to those who incite them. It should be made clear to those in our midst who want to extol communism and terrorism by holding demonstrations in favour of these things.

This image has, however, been made clear. It was made clear when the hon. the Prime Minister said that we would pursue the terrorists attacking South Africa into the countries from which they came. It was made clear when deportation orders were served by the Government on people who wanted to promote terrorism under the cloak of religion. It was made clear when the Government restricted certain persons who could have served as contacts and agents for communists and terrorists. These evils must be eradicated and this is the very thing we are striving to do. But the Opposition demonstrates against this and says it is damaging our image. They want to change the image and they want, in other words, to promote communism and terrorism. In their opposition to the measures taken by the Government in this connection the Opposition do not even recognize the most elementary principle of the duty of the authorities.

I am now naturally speaking of responsible authorities. Neither a responsible authority nor a responsible Opposition will allow, under any guise whatsoever, the peace and order in this country to be assailed, irrespective of the underlying religious motive which has taken hold of the heart and mind of those in authority. The godless communist will not allow this to happen, and the believing Christian even less. The most elementary principle of the duty of a government is therefore the maintenance of law and order in order to afford the law-abiding citizen protection and security. But this the Opposition says is wrong. They say it is inhuman and unchristian to restrict people.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member entitled to say that the Opposition is opposed to the law and order of the lawful government of the country?

I am listening very carefully to what the hon. member is saying and I did not understand him to say that. The hon. member may proceed.

I have said that the Opposition says it is inhuman and unchristian to restrict certain people as a precautionary measure against the overthrow of law and order. Surely it is clear that the issue here is not the overthrow of the National Party, but the overthrow of law and order. The Opposition argues that these people were acquitted by the courts. Very well, but does the Government have the assurance that they are not going to participate in communistic activities again in future? Of course not. On the contrary, as a result of its experience in the past it does in fact have the assurance that they will do so again. For that reason I want to deal with the obligation resting on the authorities to take precautionary measures in this regard. We now find that the English-language Press and the Opposition are vilifying the Minister of Justice for having restricted these people as precautionary measure, as if the taking of precautionary measures does not form part of the duty of the Government. Of course it forms part of it. An expert in this field said—

In order to maintain good order in every sphere of life the responsible authorities are taking precautionary measures every day and they are taking these precautionary measures by virtue of the experience they had in the past and in the light of the situation at any given moment. Allow me to quote a few examples. In the sphere of our national economy precautionary measures consist of import and exchange control, credit restrictions, restrictions on hire purchase, tax structures, and so forth. In the agricultural sphere they consist of the building of storage dams, which directly affect many people in that their land is expropriated. They consist of the importation of agricultural products, something which directly affects numerous producers, because they are deprived of the advantage of fully exploiting the shortage on the consumer market. They consist of water restrictions in the interest of urban and industrial complexes, with the result that irrigation farmers, unlike industries, have to curtail production, which deprives them of the opportunity of obtaining a sufficient income to achieve the personal income level aimed at. All these are precautionary measures, and they naturally cause disruption and inconvenience in the lives of thousands of people. But a responsible government has to take these measures. After all, it is its primary duty to maintain good order in every sphere of life by means of precautionary measures. But the Opposition now says it is wrong if the Government extends its precautionary measures in respect of security and protection to include the restriction of a handful of ringleaders and if it restricts protest marches to some slight extent.

The net result would be catastrophic if the Government were to accept its responsibility in respect of every sphere of life except peace and order, also for those hon. members sitting over there. It is the responsibility of this Government to ensure that peace and order are maintained. I therefore want to reiterate what I said before, and that is that unrest and uncertainty destroy progress and prosperity and replace it by chaos, hardship and fear. It is the duty of a responsible government to prevent this. In opposing this, the Opposition gives expression to one of the most cunning destrictive techniques of communism, i.e. the destruction of law and order.

I want to draw attention briefly to communistic manifestations as we see them revealed in the Opposition. These include the so-called concern of the Opposition about the growth-rate of our country, which could be stimulated by means of large numbers of Bantu labourers, with the proviso that non-Whites will never be appointed to managerial posts. I also refer to the Opposition’s policy in regard to its federation scheme, which is subject to the proviso that White supremacy will be maintained at all times. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I did not think it would be possible in this year of 1971 to hear the type of speech which fell from the lips of the hon. member for Odendaalsrus. I want to say that if this is the type of speech that hon. members on that side of the House are going to make, then I see the end of this Nationalist Party coming very much sooner than they believe. I do not believe that I am expected to react to a speech of this nature. I believe that the insinuations made against the United Party should be treated with the contempt they deserve. I want to say to the hon. member for Odendaalsrus that I have never been to Russia and that I do not go to pop festivals. I know very little about drugs, so there is really nothing at all to say to him, except to warn him not to make this type of speech in future, if he values his political career.

Just before leaving this hon. member, I want to say that this speech sounded very funny coming from him because I believe this hon. gentleman was the first director of Sampi. We know that Sampi came into being because they objected to the docile attitude of the S.A. Agricultural Union to the Government, and this is the man who now stands up here and talks so loudly about our protecting the rebels.

Mr. Speaker, I leave the hon. member for Odendaalsrus there. Having listened for almost three days to hon. members on that side of the House trying vainly to counter the very valid charges levelled against them by my hon. Leader and other speakers on this side of the House and noting the look of defeat on their faces, I cannot help but compare the morale and the make-up of the Nationalist Party with that of the United Party. Sir, I remember very well coming to this hon. House in 1966 as a member of a small United Party parliamentary team, but small in numbers only …

You are still small.

… small because we had suffered reverses at the polls. I also remember very well having to listen to daily taunts from that side of the House. We were told that we were no longer an effective Opposition. We were told that we would become smaller with every election and that we would disappear from the political scene. The hon. the Minister of Mines even suggested that we all pack up and go home because the Nationalist Party did not need an Opposition and they could govern the country without one. During those admittedly difficult times for the United Party, there was never a lack of morale in the ranks of the United Party; there was never a spirit of defeatism in the ranks of the United Party. What do we have here, Sir? We have a Nationalist Party, a so-called monolithic, invincible party, who after 22 years suffer their first set-back at the polls, and what do we see? We see all the signs of a party about to disintegrate and all the signs of disarray which one expects to see in a party nearing defeat. Sir, it is quite pathetic to see how the Nationalist Party are looking around for reasons for the debacle which happened to them at the polls. We find, for instance, that certain spokesmen for the Nationalist Party are saying that the reverses they suffered at the polls were due not to increased support for the United Party but that these reverses were due to the growing apathy of the South African electorate. Mr. Speaker, my reaction to this very profound claim is that I am not at all surprise that the South African electorate has become apathetic and disgruntled by the pathetic image which the Nationalist Party presents today. You see, Sir, a long-suffering electorate sees a very tired and disjointed Nationalist Party Government, a Government in its third decade of power but a Government showing all the signs of sterility, futility and ineptitude that hallmarked its first two decades of office.

In other words, the South African electorate has become apathetic and disillusioned with the Nationalist Party because it sees before it the same bunch of stale Nationalist Party politicians who mouth the same old pious platitudes and use the same old worn-out political cliches in every speech they make, when they know in their hearts that the policies of the Government have failed miserably. They know that these policies have not been instrumental in resolving a single one of the critical financial and racial problems which face South Africa today. They know in their hearts that in particular the Government’s policy of apartheid (now more euphemistically called “separate development”) has failed before their eyes and that this policy is today nothing more than an empty slogan and a gigantic bluff.

After 22 years of Nationalist Party bluffing that it would make South Africa safe by applying apartheid and by consolidating the Bantu areas into homelands, it has now suddenly dawned on the Government that consolidating their homelands involves enormous financial and physical difficulties. Sir, instead of the Government admitting their failure, admitting that they have bitten off far more than they can chew, we find that they are now desperately trying to push this problem into the background. We find another part of the Nationalist Party’s so-called grand design for South Africa collapsing, and we are seeing yet another sweeping change in policy. Sir, it is common knowledge that in the 22 years of Nationalist Party government we have seen this policy change from total apartheid between White and Black to something which the Nationalist Party call “eiesoortige” development; then to the so-called ideal of the separation of the races, and then again to sovereign independent black states. Now we are being told that the consolidation of the Bantu areas does not really matter; that numbers do not really matter and that the growing number of non-Whites in the White areas constitutes no real danger but conforms with the Government’s policy of separate development.

Sir, while all these changes have been taking place, the Nationalist Party, ably supported by its slavish press, would have us believe that these changes all fall within the broad pattern of apartheid. For 22 years now the Nationalist Party has managed to bluff a certain section of the electorate that it would make South Africa meaningfully white, and they are still trying to bluff the electorate of South Africa despite all the evidence that shows that the whole concept of separate development can never be implemented in South Africa. Yes, for the Nationalist Party time is running out. The chips are coming down because there is today a new sense of awareness of South Africa’s mounting national and international problems in the minds of the voters of the country. The electorate will no longer allow itself to be bluffed by empty slogans and theoretical solutions to our problems. What the electorate wants today is for the Government to completely re-think its policies in the light of circumstances as they are today and not as they were when they came into power 22 years ago. Above all, the electorate want the Government to adopt an entirely new and constructive and realistic approach to South Africa’s very serious problems. I believe that the electorate of South Africa has sounded a very clear and timely warning to the Nationalist Party Government. I believe that the Government should take head of this warning, or else very soon, possibly much sooner than hon. members opposite want to believe, the voters of South Africa will put a new Government into power in South Africa, a Government with the know-how and the ability and, above all, with the courage to face up to South Africa’s problems squarely. There is no doubt that this Government can only come from the ranks of the United Party. In this its twenty-third year of office the Nationalist Party stands completely exposed and discredited because it has no real policy for South Africa. It stands exposed because it lacks a policy which will resolve South Africa’s serious racial problems. It stands exposed because it lacks a policy which will ensure a successful growth rate for South Africa and which will push the country’s economy along. Above all, it lacks any semblance of a policy that will allow it to get to grips with and resolve South Africa’s critical manpower and labour shortage. If there are any doubts in the minds of anyone in regard to the Nationalist Party’s lack of a real and constructive policy for South Africa, then a glance at the South African economy in this vital year of 1971 will soon dispel those doubts. There is today a chronic slump on the Stock Exchange, a slump which threatens to become far worse before it becomes any better. The country is held in a vicelike grip of rampant inflation because of the Government’s unrealistic use of non-White labour. South Africa’s manpower and labour problem grows with every passing day. Anti-inflationary measures should have been taken more than a year ago, but they were very conveniently and expediently held back by the Government because of the pending elections. Drastic control regulations were taken far too late and hire-purchase restrictions imposed without any regard to the ultimate consequences. So one could go on and on. Is it any wonder then that this lack of foresight by the Government, this lack of valid planning, should be causing the gravest concern in the minds of the voters of South Africa in regard to our future? Many other hon. members on this side of the House, more qualified than I am to speak on the topic of economics, have gone very fully into the matters I have raised here in passing. I want to refer to the Government’s biggest failure, the failure of separate development.

When you analyse the position you will find, Sir, that it is the failure of this policy and the Government’s dogmatic and subborn insistence on going ahead with this policy that is the underlying cause of all the problems with which South Africa is faced today. Is there today any separation of the races in the true sense of the word? Of course there is not, except possibly to a degree by night, because in the day-time more and more non-Whites are being drawn into our offices and shops and factories. Every city and town in South Africa become blacker and not whiter. South Africa’s complete economic dependence on the non-White is becoming more and more pronounced with every passing day. Small wonder then that the electorate of South Africa has become disillusioned with the Government’s policy of separate development. After 22 years it is a complete and utter shambles. In regard to the homelands, we heard the hon. member for Brakpan devoting a large part of his speech to the question of homelands, and he went to great lengths to tell us how successfully the homelands were being developed. But let us examine the position.

We were told in this House last session by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration that the homelands that were once supposed to get independence only when they could stand on their own feet economically, could now have that independence merely by asking for it. Sir, is this not a clear admission on the part of the Government, that their policy of separate development has failed? Is this not an admission by the Government that it is reaching a stage of near-panic in regard to its whole policy of separate development? After all, we are dealing here with Black states with hardly any worth-while industries within their borders, Black states that lack the necessary infrastructure and where the mineral resources are still being exploited by the white man. But these are the Black states that are going to be made independent, free to live on fresh air and the generosity of the white man, while always remaining dependent on him. It is quite amazing that after 22 years the Nationalist Party can still talk seriously about implementing its policy of separate development. They talk glibly of implementing this policy in defiance of the massive accumulation of evidence, evidence drawn from the most authoritative sources, evidence which proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that separate development as envisaged by the Nationalist Party can never be successfully implemented in South Africa. Year after year eminent sociologists, economists and demographers patiently and meticulously analyse the facts and figures of our racial situation. The end result is always the same. It is that the minimum required to make separate development a viable solution to South Africa’s race problems is quite beyond our reach. Surely as grown-up, thinking people even hon. members opposite must accept the fact that this minimum must be that at a certain point and at a certain time there must be a degree of separation of the races which will put the Whites in the majority in the white areas. Because if this does not happen we are faced with the position that all the elaborate, cumbersome financial machinery of apartheid will have to be maintained indefinitely; we will be ostracized more and more by and become more unpopular with the outside world, because of our application of the completely indefensible policy of petty apartheid. Yes, Sir, I believe there is petty apartheid. We are faced with the position where, if we want the Whites to continue ruling from a minority position, we must keep on doing what we are doing.

Let us examine some of the other problems that stand in the way of the successful implementation of separate development. When will the Government face up to the facts and tell the electorate that, even if it is successful in developing the homelands to an almost unbelievable degree and in consolidating the more than 250 scattered bits and pieces, which make up the homelands, into a geographically coherent unit, the homelands will never be able to accommodate more than 25 per cent of the non-White population of South Africa. When will the Government face up to the fact and inform the electorate that, unless the Bantu areas are consolidated, they can never be developed and administered as separate political and economic units? It would be very interesting indeed for the Government to tell the electorate how they intend going about the consolidation of Tswanaland, dotted over more than 19 places in the Transvaal, the Orange Free State and South-West Africa. Will they tell the electorate that, if they do bring about consolidation, this will mean a massive disruption of the white population of the platteland?

Let us pause for a moment and examine some of the other obstacles that will have to be surmounted if the Government’s ideological dream of separate development is ever to be realized. To be completely objective, let us not be guided in this examination by what the United Party, the Nationalist Party or even the Progressive Party has to say. Let us be guided in this examination by the experts in the field, who have made a deep study of their subject, who go purely by cold and hard facts and who obviously have no political axe to grind. Let us start with the Tomlinson Commission, who in the mid-1950s estimated that at least 20,000 new industrial homeland jobs would have to be created annually for a period of between 25 and 30 years to make the homelands viable. This will give us a total of between 500,000 and 600,000 new jobs needed. This estimate was followed by an estimate by Professor Stadier from the Pretoria University who told us that at least 49,000 new jobs will have to be created annually to enable the homelands to absorb their own natural increases. After this estimate came an estimate from Professor Sadie from the Stellenbosch University. He tells us that no less than 181,000 new jobs would, have to be created annually—I want hon. members to listen to this—if the removal of Bantu workers from the white areas were to be kept at a steady 5 per cent. Much more recently we had an estimate from Prof. Ben Piek of the Rand Afrikaans University. He tells us that 85,000 new jobs will have to be created annually to enable the homelands to absorb their own natural increase. On the financial side we have Prof. Rhoodie telling is that the cost of all this will be R500 million. This is a very sobering thought.

But we have not heard all yet. We have not heard the end of the story, because quite recently we had Dr. Jacobs, a former economic adviser to the Prime Minister, estimating that a colossal 5.8 million new jobs will have to be created in the next 30 years to enable the homelands to absorb only 70 per cent of the overall increase in the non-White population in South Africa. If my figures are correct this means that by the turn of the century the total population of the homelands will be 16.5 million, leaving the Whites in South Africa outnumbered by more than three to one.

We have heard the estimates from the experts. I do not think we could dispute them. Let us now try and determine what the Government has done to create the jobs that are going to be needed. The annual total number of jobs created in the homelands and in the border areas come to 910. To be more precise this equals one-half of 1 per cent of the estimate required by Dr. Jacobs and so I could go on. I merely mentioned these figures to prove that this problem which the Government is trying to tackle is insurmountable. In fact it is growing by the day and not becoming any smaller.

I believe that the enormous challenge of separate development, a challenge by which this Government will stand or fall, is today starting to be appreciated within the inner circles of the Nationalist Party. I am quite certain too that at least the hon. the Prime Minister has seen the writing on the wall, because whereas once we were being told continuously in this House and outside—and some hon. Ministers even staked their political reputations on the fact—that we would see parity between the races in our lifetime, the hon. the Prime Minister is reported as having said recently that complete separation between races will not be seen in his or our time. The super optimist, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration, can only envisage independence for the homelands by the turn of the century. There is no doubt that time is running out for the Nationalist Party, because one senses a sense of impatience in certain very influential Afrikaner church and university circles. They are impatient with the slow tempo of separate development. I believe that this impatience will grow and that it will spread to all sections of our white population and that very soon the Nationalist Party will be called upon to carry out the mandate which they accepted so gladly 22 years ago or else lose the complete respect and support of the whole of the South African electorate.

I see my time is nearly up. I wish to end on this note. I want to say how privileged and honoured I feel to have been able to support the brilliant motion of no confidence so ably moved by my hon. Leader.

Mr. Speaker, seldom have we ever heard such a remarkably duplicated speech as the one delivered by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. It is a perfect duplicate of the speech the hon. member for Hillbrow delivered yesterday. There was nothing new at all. Likewise there was nothing at all positive in it. It was only shorter.

The previous speaker on this side of the House, the hon. member for Odendaalsrus, pointed to the strange kind of symbiosis between the United Party and its Press.

That hon. member will hesitate to reply to the allegation of the hon. member for Odendaalsrus. This afternoon the hon. member for Odendaalsrus quite rightly pointed out that the Opposition party is not sitting here on its own strength, but on the strength of support from the editors of its Press. I say this on the basis of a report which appeared in the Sunday Times of 26th April, 1970, under the heading “The Newspapers’ role in South African Politics’’. It was written by the editor of that newspaper. He said the following:

He continues by saying:

This was again apparent this afternoon on account of that hon. member’s inability to reply to the allegation of the hon. member for Odendaalsrus. He goes further by saying—

And then the following significant words—

If my assessment of the position is correct then I can look back on those events with some satisfaction.

This is now the editor of the Sunday Times—

In other words, here is a political party that is being dragged around by the news paper editor from his office. I shall go on to prove this toy quoting what the political correspondent of this newspaper wrote as recently as 2nd August, 1970. He writes as follows—

We observed this during the past few days—

He says—

The United Party urgently needs a bureau in the Cape.

Then he continues by saying:

This is Mr. Stanley Uys’ instruction to this hon. Opposition—

Finally he says—

Mr. Speaker, hon. members can now see for themselves how the hon. Opposition has been trying, these past few days, to follow this pattern suggested by Mr. Stanley Uys, until the ball was kicked over by the hon. member for Durban (Point). The hon. member is unfortunately not here at present. But hon. members on that side of the House tied themselves up in knots on inflation and the cost of living and then that hon. member let fly with grape-shot. I believe that Mr. Stanely Uys’ “grapeshot” will begin working with them again this Sunday. I said that the hon. member for Johannesburg (North’s) speech is a duplicate of that of the hon. member for Hillbrow. Let us now for a moment look back at the hon. member for Hillbrow’s speech the day before yesterday. The hon. member for Hillbrow said that every newspaper one opened, every report by an industrial leader and almost every statistic released, indicates that we are heading for an economic crisis situation. This is the kind of psycosis, of which the hon. member for Odendaalsrus spoke, which the United Party and its Press are working up. The United Party is deliberately trying, as that hon. member for Odendaalsrus rightly said, to generate a crisis out of any possible thing, and I join him in designating it as the most extremely irresponsible conduct by any political party. Like the hon. member for Johannesburg (North’s) speech, it is once more simply a generalization of the situation. He writes that every newspaper one opens and every leader’s report indicates that we are heading for an economic crisis. Since the hon. member spoke of every newspaper, I should like to quote from one of his own newspapers, i.e. a recent addition of the Sunday Tribune, i.e. that of 3rd January of this year. In it Mr. Lawrence McCrystal, who is described in the newspaper as a “leading economist”, said the following—it is remarkably consistent with the entire point of departure and arguments of the hon. Opposition during the entire debate—I quote—

As a professional economist I am not able to take the popular line in this case.

This is the “popular line” that has always been proclaimed by the Opposition. I quote further—

I would be confirming to the conventional wisdom accepted by many and roundly and loudly applauded.

That is what those hon. members are seeking—

However, I am not in the position to say these things as I consider them mostly platitudes and at best half-truths.

This is not a Nationalist speaking here. He concludes his article with the following, and I quote further—

This comes from a January issue of a United Party newspaper from which I am quoting. He says in addition—

In spite of the fact that this quotation comes from a United Party newspaper, it contradicts that hon. member’s generalization that every newspaper we come across points to the crisis. This is objective, scientific comment from an impartial scientific economist, I should like to ask the hon. member for Hillbrow to contradict this.

Then the hon. member for Hillbrow went further and said that prior to this election there were unprecedented salary increases, and that subsequent to the election there were unwarranted price increases. It must be recorded who the recipients of these unprecedented salary increases were. This afternoon I should like to know from the United Party who it was who received unprecedented salary increases. Is it the Public Servants who received unprecedented salary increases? Is it the Railway workers who received unprecedented salary increases? Is it members of the Defence Force who received unprecedented salary increases? Is it the teachers who received unprecedented salary increases? This is something we must get on record. The hon. member Said that during 1970 unprecedented salary increases were granted, and for the sake of those professional groups we must know today who received the unprecedented salary increases. I do not know of any of these professional groups who received unprecedented salary increases.

The hon. member said there were unprecedented price increases. From that hon. member I should now also like a refinement of the definition of unprecedented price increases. He must tell us where this occurred. The hon. the Minister of Planning and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs gave this subject thorough elaboration, and now the hon. member comes along with such a charge! What unjustified price increases were there on regulated articles? I ask any hon. member opposite to tell us which of these price increases, involving the Government and the State, were unprecedented and unwarranted.

The hon. member came along with generalizations about the problem of the cost of living. He said: “The first problem is the cost of living. A great deal is still going to be said about this, and I want to refer to it only briefly.” The hon. member for Hillbrow did only refer to it briefly. Most of the other hon. members on that side of the House only referred to it “briefly” as well, without getting anywhere. They just want to refer to it “briefly”, but I just want to point out what the Government has done in this connection. In addition to all the other consumer protection measures this Government took active and positive steps to protect the consumer. These are matters about which that Opposition keeps silent, and I want to ask them what positive steps they have taken at all to protect the consumer in this country and to promote his interests, apart from this hollow-sounding chatter in the House in which they generalize and do not mention a single constructive point.

Since the increasing cost of living is in the foreground in consumer affairs, it behaves us to thank the Government, and in particular the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, on behalf of the country’s consumers, white as well as non-White, for the exceptional understanding they displayed in connection with consumer problems. Through their sympathetic approach and the ample financial contributions from the State, the National Co-ordinate Consumer Council could now commence with its work. What was the Opposition’s contribution to the creation of this National Consumer Council? I want to say categorically that it was a round zero. They have no interest whatsoever in the consumer, and their contribution was a round zero.

Nonsense.

At the right time and in the right way the Government has once again done the right thing. In this case it gave the consumer himself the opportunity of making a powerful contribution to the short-term and long-term combatting of the cost of living and inflation in an organized and responsible way in the near future. The public is already giving unequivocal signs that it is going to fall in behind this Council and its work. By all indications this Council is not going to act negatively like the hon. Opposition, but will, according to information available, focus the consumer’s attention, inter alia, on a few of the following. At this particularly difficult time in this country it is going to focus the consumer’s attention very strongly on the benefits of planned and well-calculated cash purchases. It is going to enlighten consumers systematically and on a national scale in respect of the benefits attached to purchasing quality goods. In a responsible manner it is going to take up cases of consumer exploitation with the bodies concerned and with the authorities. It is going to point to advertising methods, to which the hon. member for Pietersburg referred yesterday, which are not in the consumer’s interest, for example the motor car speed advertisements, the reaction this has on road accidents and also the very high price our country must pay for it. Sir, good results will not be wanting as a result of this positive action on the part of the Ministers concerned and the organized consumers, and it will also be to the benefit of the responsible sector of commerce and industry. At the same time our country’s consumers can point an accusing finger at that hon. Opposition. The question may rightfully be put to them: What positive measures have come from that side of the House in this struggle against the increasing cost of living? I am afraid there has only been a lot of negative clever talk, disparagement and scare-mongering, and nothing more. The few reporters who have assembled consumer information for their newspapers, information such as that still appearing in the Argus and the Star, as well as in our Afrikaans newspapers, have made some positive contribution, in contrast to the Opposition. I should like to record this to their credit. As regards the practical side of tackling consumer problems, the hon. Opposition saw its task in trying to sow confusion and throwing things into disorder, as the hon. member for Odendaalsrus rightly said, at the expense of everyone, white as well as non-White. Now they come along here with their pious criticism, without coming forward with anything of a positive nature. So much for the cost of living, about which the hon. member for Hillbrow had so much to say.

In his argument the hon. member for Hillbrow ridiculed the appeal to work harder and to save. He said:

We get senseless a puerile exhortations from the highest parties in the country to the effect that we must work harder, that we must save more.

For every one of us in this country who wants to work there is enough. For the man who works there is no fear. For the man who pays in cash and plans his budget carefully there is no problem. Then the hon. member comes and ridicules these exhortations and appeals of our valued Cabinet Ministers who know what it is all about. He then said something else that we must get a reply to. The hon. member asked it this afternoon. I quote:

In any case, the entire spirit is wrong. Why should our people save if the Government takes our money and wastes it?

Sir, again a typical example of generalization in order to sow confusion without bringing forward a single element of proof. I should very much like to ask the hon. member who follows me up to indicate to us where a wastage in Government expenditure is taking place and to state why they do not raise the matter. Why is the matter kept at the level of generalizations? We would very much like to obtain very definite particulars about that.

In addition the hon. member speaks of profits that are on the downgrade, and about companies affected by this. It is general knowledge to anyone who follows the financial journals and periodicals that there are companies whose profits are decreasing, but that there are just as many again who are maintaining their stability and improving upon it. I have here a report which appeared last week about a chain store. I quote—

A handsome rise in profits. In line with Chairman … ’s forecast …

the company reported—

… 17.4 per cent rise in net profit for the six months to November 26th, 1970.

Sales increased by 14.2 per cent. Sir, these are not figures for a previous year or a previous decade; they are very recent figures. I think those hon. members are doing a lot of damage to commerce by this kind of irresponsible statement they are making. He says that inflation is, to a large extent, the result of the Government’s own “ideological nonsense”. Sir, I should very much like to ask, now that we have been listening to the ideology of that side for the past few days, where is there greater ideological nonsense than specifically that party’s federal policy which was once more been condoned here this afternoon by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

In addition the hon. member referred to the balance of payments and said that as a result of this we had this unfavourable balance of payments of more than R1,000 million and all it entails. He did not look at the latest issue of the Financial Mail. The latest Financial Mail gives the realistic, practical position as it is—

Mr. Speaker, this is not a National newspaper or publication that is writing about this; it is the Financial Mail, which is a supporter of that side of the House, and I would very much like to hear how they refute this argument.

In his reply to the speech of the hon. member for Odendaalsrus the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) once more brought in the word “sterility” and spoke of a “sterility” of thought. We also get this in the hon. member for Hillbrow’s speech—

Mr. Speaker, how can a responsible member of this Parliament, a responsible citizen of this State, whose eyes are at all open to what is going on around him, say a thing like this in this House of Assembly? Sterility of thought! I should like to ask that hon. member what the parity of our South African Defence Force looks like to him? Does it look like a sterile organization? I should very much like to ask that hon. member what the development of our Republic’s foreign policy in the Western world and in Africa looks like to him? Does this look like sterility in the exercising of our diplomacy? I think that hon. member has done a great disservice to these people of ours. Take the handling of the South-West Africa case, which was seized upon here by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Does this look like sterility of thought? Sir, look at our S.A. Airways, one of the best in the world. Look at the massive transport system of the S.A. Railways. Is this the result of sterile thinking? Look at our universities that are overflowing, where the percentages of students are the highest in the Western world. Is this the result of sterile thinking? Look what is happening with nature conservation in our lovely country, one of the things most highly appreciated by our foreign visitors, our lovely national parks and our botanical gardens. Is this the result of sterile thinking? I believe that such utterances can only come from people who have, not only sterile thoughts, but senile ones. Let us take a look at the politician making these statements. We take a look at the hon. member for Hillbrow, who is slavishly echoed by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North). Who is he and what is he? He is the man who said, on behalf of his party: “We must face the realities of the situation in South Africa, social integration, economic inter-dependence and a federal political structure”.

But you know he denied it.

Here it is in the Sunday Express: “We must face the realities of the situation in South Africa, social integration,” something which he and some hon. members on that side are now constantly trying to refute. We go further. Here is a yellow book with his Leader’s picture on it, in which the hon. member for Hillbrow says the following, and it converts this motion of no confidence of that side of the House into a motion of no confidence in a responsible Opposition itself. The country as a whole cannot take the slightest notice of this motion of no confidence, its basis and motivation, and as my source I quote what appeared under the hon. member for Hillbrow’s signature in this issue of New Nation, where he states—

With respect, Sir, this is what we have been having the whole week in this so-called no-confidence debate.

The hon. member for Pretoria (District) spoke of two matters which I should like to touch upon. First of all he spoke of certain of the achievements in South Africa and certain aspects where there has been success. I want to remind him that this side of the House, with its predecessor, has governed South Africa for almost as long as the National Party which now forms the Government. And it would indeed be a wonder if in that time much had not been brought about which was good. I presently want to indicate that the palmy days of our economy and our economic strength have come to an end as the result of this Government’s activities. Secondly, the hon. member spoke of the Opposition’s role and he claimed that we had been of no service to the people whom we represent. I want to say at once that our very function is to show how the policy and the administration of the Government have brought us where we are, and having done this so successfully we have indeed rendered the highest service that can be expected of us. But, Sir, because I would like an opportunity to develop the main lines of my argument as a whole to morrow, I move—

That the debate be now adjourned. Agreed to.