I should just like to give hon. members an indication of the work of the House in the immediate future. Next week we will consider those bills which appear on the Order Paper at present.

As regards the rest of the session, I should like to give hon. members some information. I understand that this information has been broadcast over the 1 p.m. news. I should like to give the assurance, however, that I did not give the S.A.B.C. that information; so how they got hold of it, I do not know. In any event, the position is that the Part Appropriation Bill will be introduced on the 10th February and the debate thereon will start on Monday, 15th February. The Railway Budget will be introduced on the 10th March and the debate thereon will start on the 15th March. The Post Office Budget will be introduced on the 23rd March and the debate thereon will start on the 24th. On the 31st March the main Budget will be introduced by the Minister of Finance.

On the afternoon of April 2nd the House will adjourn for the Easter recess and will resume on the 13th April. The Budget Debate will start on that day.

In regard to the Republican Festival, the House will not adjourn, except on the 31st May, as is provided for in the Standing Orders.

Can the Minister find out how it is that the S.A.B.C. got hold of this information before it was announced in the House?

The trouble is that the S.A.B.C., like all newspapers, will not give us that information.

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned yesterday afternoon I was dealing with the inability of the public to make head or tail of the Nationalist Party’s labour policy. On that occasion I referred to the hon. the Minister of Labour’s speech here in this debate, and to a speech which he made before the Nationalist Party Congress in East London. According to the two speeches he made, the policy which he announced here and the interpretation he gave in East London are poles apart. In that connection I want to repeat my appeal of yesterday, i.e. that the hon. the Prime Minister, who is the head of the Government, should clear up the confusion for us in connection with the labour situation. The United Party desires that our labour policy in South Africa be applied more flexibly. It is not only the labour policy which lays down the basis of our sustained growth, other factors are also involved. There is surely nothing bad in putting the prosperity of one’s country first. In this debate hon. members on that side of the House held it against the United Party for being in favour of greater growth and prosperity in South Africa. They say we want to place everything on the altar of prosperity, but we believe that placing the welfare of one’s country first is one of the highest forms of patriotism. To plead for the prosperity of all the citizens of the country is also the highest form of realism in a multi-racial country such as South Africa.

To prevent large population areas from making full use of their labour potential is going to complicate our race relations in South Africa, and it is going to hamper our growth as well. Did South Africa not get the advice of an Anton Rupert when he told us a few years ago: “If these people do not eat, we do not sleep”? At this stage South Africa is not calling for greater economic separation; on the contrary, the country is begging for a Government which will be prepared to apply economic integration efficiently in such a way that there will be balanced development throughout the country and in such a way that on that basis we shall fit in our race policy. Everyone knows the reason why the Government’s policy has thus far failed. It is because economic realities are pushing the country in another direction. We on this side of the House understand the dilemma which the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government are in. We understand that promises were made that cannot be carried out, and we know that there were promises of greater separation. We also realize the pressure being exerted, from certain quarters in their Party, for greater separation. But the South African electorate also realizes this helplessness, and they are aware of the paralysis that has set in the Nationalist Party as a result of this pressure. It is, however, the hon. the Prime Minister’s task, and that of the Government, to shake itself free of this feeling of helplessness, and it is his task to make the necessary adjustments if we want adequate growth in this country.

†Before the last session and after the setbacks which were suffered by the Nationalist Party Government in the April election, all the newspapers suggested that the Prime Minister was going to hold the reins very tightly. They even suggested in bold headlines that all eyes were focussed on the Prime Minister. They said, and I quote:

Alle oë is op die Eerste Minister gerig.

He did not use this opportunity in the last session with the result that his newspapers today are disappointed. None of those high hopes as had been expressed before the last session were expressed after the Provincial election. None of these hopes were evident in their newspapers before the present session. Perhaps the hon. the Prime Minister will use this opportunity and surprise them and also surprise us and at the same time set the country on a realistic course. South Africa today wants policies and less meaningless propaganda. In this debate we have had an abundance of propaganda from that side. Do they not realize that the Black danger or the so-called Black danger does not frighten large sections of our people any more?

*I want to refer the hon. gentlemen to what their own newspapers said before the last election. In April they were still saying that they were not going to lose, but that they were going to win additional seats. This did not happen. Before the October election they said that they were going to win additional seats. Even Mr. Steyl, their Transvaal Provincial Secretary, said that the Nationalist Party was going to improve its position in the Transvaal. He said (translation)—

Then Dagbreek said the same and the following headlines appeared in the newspaper: “National Party can win up to seven seats” and “National Party is sharpening its teeth for Provincial winnings.” All these hopes were expressed before the recent election. What do we now find after the election? What does their Press now say about the Nationalist Party? Why did they lose seats? “It is stalwart Nat. leaders who are underestimating the voters”, says the Beeld, of 1st November, 1970. It was not simply any man they picked up in the street to talk to. No, they talked to the Secretary of the Aasvoëlkop branch of the Nationalist Party in Florida. This is what she says (translation)—

These are the observations of their own people after the recent election. Now listen to how this lady, Mrs. Rautenbach, concludes her view of things. The report continues as follows:

While these stories are being written about the Nationalist Party, the hon. the Minister of Health is continuing with his dance.

What were the experiences of Nationalist Party candidates, not only in the case of Florida, but also in many other cases where Nationalist Party candidates lost? What does Mr. Malan say, who lost the election in Westdene? He says: “One of the characteristics of the election is that the United Party evidences more vitality in respect of workers than the National Party.” In addition he says:

He says the less well-to-do people are no longer participating and helping the Nationalist Party. In just the previous paragraph he also says that even the well-to-do people are no longer interested in helping the Nationalist Party. Is the fact that these things are taking place not a danger sign to the hon. the Prime Minister? I want to refer him to what Mr. Schalk Pienaar said in the Beeld of 8th November, 1970. He said (translation):

This is the problem we have in South Africa because the Nationalist Party does not read the signs outside. Because they do not realize what the people of South Africa want, a man such as Prof. Harry Lever had to declare that the Afrikaner youth is inclining to the United Party.

†We therefore have to get the answers from the hon. the Prime Minister. Our survival in South Africa now depends on an enlightened approach. We want moderation instead of extremism. No one can deny that there is a spirit of pessimism abroad amongst the entrepreneurs of this country today, those who have the tremendous task of keeping our growth going. If the hon. the Prime Minister is considering adjustments to his policies, he must spell them out clearly for this House and South Africa to understand. Confusion should make way for clarity and for new hope and optimism in South Africa. To be poor is no shame, but to be wealthy and prosperous is no crime either. When you are wealthy and prosperous so many problems are relegated into the background and our aim in South Africa should be to uplift all our people and not the selected or lucky few in this country.

A lot has also been said about the young people and a lot of negative advice was thrown in their direction. But what do we find from the Government? They admonish the youth instead of encouraging them with sound leadership. Why should they not give this message to the youth, and not only to the youth but to all the people of South Africa, namely “work hard, but seize your opportunities and then enjoy the fruits of your labours through a higher standard of living”. But the Government encourage the young people to be pessimistic. They are placing obstacles in their way to making full use of their vitality which could be applied to the benefit of South Africa as a whole.

*That is the situation in connection with inflation. The young people know that today there are many opportunities for them, but what do these large salaries mean that they are earning today? This Government has now come back after six years and told us that we shall have to take even bigger steps to combat inflation in South Africa. After six years, in which time the Government should have displayed to us the efficacy of its measures, it can only come back now and say that it will have to take even more stringent steps to combat inflation in South Africa. It is also necessary for us to understand how this Government created its inflation. Shortly after the Sharpeville and Langa incidents it was necessary for us to stimulate our economy in this country. Confidence amongst the people was very low at that stage. During that period the Government did announce big schemes which were to recapture people’s confidence locally and abroad. Those steps were aimed at enticing new capital to South Africa. And this was not done without success. But even at an early stage the hon. the Leader of the Opposition warned the Government that if we wanted a sustained economic growth we would be hard pressed by one single factor, i.e. the shortage of trained manpower, particularly technical staff. The Government also realized this and therefore amended its short-sighted immigration policy to the benefit of South Africa. But no notice was ever taken of our warnings that we need a crash programme to educate members of all the race groups in South Africa. What was the order of the day? “Spend for prosperity.” This proposal came from the Government.

But in the middle ’sixties another warning came. “The economy is becoming over-heated. We are developing too fast and our manpower is becoming inadequate.” Interest rates then had to be increased in order to reduce consumption and investment. It was the Government’s policy to take money out of circulation. At this specific time, when the manpower shortage is too great and is getting progressively worse, legislation is still placed on the Statute Books to exercise stricter control over unskilled labour coming to the White developing areas. How can the Government deny that it was its ideological policy that gave rise to this situation, and that it is their policy that aggravated it. Then they took steps to impede and obstruct the flow to our cities.

†The fight against inflation started just over six years ago. Then it was tackled in all seriousness, but after six years this Government has to come to Parliament and to say that they have had no success whatsoever in deflating our economy. The signs of their failure are everywhere for every South African to observe. A steady increase in interest rates, which was originally seized on to curb excessive spending, is still with us. But now the high interest rates signify something completely different. Now it stays high, because capital investment is scarce. This is a strange paradox into which this Government has brought South Africa. They raise the interest rate to make money less available, and now it stays at a high level, because it is not available. Therefore, we are fully justified when we in the United Party suggest that this Government has failed to curb inflation. Surely, by now one would have expected a levelling off of prices. Food prices by now should have remained stable. But that does not happen. In fact, only recently the Government gave their enthusiastic approval to the rise in the price of bread. When they had the opportunity to stop the rise, the Government chose to do absolutely nothing from their side. They preferred to do nothing but to watch the situation.

*What was the attitude of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, who is responsible for the fact that there was an increase in the price of bread, towards this matter when there were certain of our chain stores in South Africa that were prepared to sell bread at less than the maximum price? What was his attitude towards them? His attitude was that it would create a tremendous amount of complications for us if they were to do so. But the hon. the Minister forgets that there are thousands upon thousands of people in the country, White as well as non-White, who appreciated the fact that they were nevertheless in a position to purchase bread at a reduced price.

Who stopped them then?

Did the hon. the Minister say anything when the Wheat Board said that it would take certain steps in that connection? Some officials of the Wheat Board said they were going to take steps against some of the retailers selling bread below the maximum price. Then there were other officials who said that they were not going to take action. I must say, in gratitude to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, that he definitely created the impression that they were not going to act. But, Sir, why must people be threatened with legal steps if they are prepared to keep the cost of living in South Africa at a low level? This increased price of bread and the increased subsidy are not there for the benefit of the farmer; the farmer only gets about R700,000 out of it— that is what the hon. the Minister himself said—but the baker and the miller are the ones who reap the benefits. When the chain stores took this step in keeping the price at a low level, one would have expected—the people of South Africa did expect it—that the Government would, in the first place, rather have increased the subsidy on bread. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, this motion of no confidence introduced by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is the sixteenth, if I have counted correctly, which he has introduced in this House. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will make history; in his parliamentary lifetime he will introduce more motions of no confidence than anyone before him or anyone after him.

Sir, every motion of no confidence inevitably has its own characteristics, its own atmosphere, and the same definitely applied to this motion. The debate that followed on the motion has been an interesting one, seen from the point of view of what was said; in places it has been even more interesting when seen from the point of view of what was not said. We have had a week’s debate. With the exception of two persons, the entire front bench of the Opposition participated in this debate. It strikes one that the hon. member for Umbilo, who usually discusses pensions and has a kind heart for these people, did not participate in the debate. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that this was no ordinary motion of no confidence; it was far more than that; it was the authoritative judgment, the authoritative standpoint and opinion of a party which is on the point of taking over the reins of government. It was therefore no ordinary motion of no confidence, Mr. Speaker, and for that reason it was interesting for me as a Parliamentarian to see that the hon. member for Umbilo did not participate in the debate. I also found it very interesting, in view of the fact that this debate was largely and primarily concerned with labour, labour in all sectors of our national life, that the hon. member for South Coast, who is an authority on certain aspects of labour, did not participate in the debate. But, Sir, this is something I merely noted in passing.

What impressed me a great deal, however, is that with the exception of the hon. member for Gardens, who referred to the matter merely in passing, and with the exception of the hon. member for Albany, who referred to it only briefly in passing as if it were of minor importance, there was not a single word from the opposite side throughout this entire debate about farming matters and the problems of the farmers. I find this interesting, and one must look for the cause, for this was after all no ordinary motion of confidence in which one little matter is singled out; this was after all the great motion of no confidence which was to have been moved. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not say a word in that connection either. One does not say anything about pensioners and farmers, because there is no election in the offing.

Mr. Speaker, on this occasion I want to say a few words about one group of farmers, but before doing so I want to say that all of us in this House, regardless of which party we belong to, are exceptionally pleased at and that our hearts are filled with profound gratitude for the rains we have had over large parts of South Africa and, according to reports, are still having, and hope we will continue to have. There is profound gratitude and great rejoicing in one’s heart at the great measure of relief this has brought to many farmers who were sorely burdened as a result of the drought. One hopes and prays that that situation will continue.

There is one group of farmers in South Africa who are suffering greater hardships than any of the others, and this is the wool farmers of South Africa, partly as a result of the drought and partly as a result of a decline on the world market as far as their product is concerned. One is grateful for the fact that the wool-producing countries have recently made much greater attempts to achieve co-operation than they have ever done in the past. One is very grateful for the fact that even greater co-operation is in sight. The wool farmers of South Africa are independent people who are proud of their independence. They are not people who are forever asking the State for assistance. They have shown in the past of what stuff they are made. Since one of the problems in the past has been that there was no unanimous action among the woolproducing countries, it is with gratification that we have taken cognizance of the latest steps taken by Australia in that connection to proceed to the establishment of a buying organization.

One would like to give that organization a chance to prove itself, but I want to say in passing that if it should become necessary for South Africa to hold talks with other wool-producing countries in order to stabilize this industry, South Africa would be very keen to participate in such talks. One hopes—and, as a matter of fact, personal discussions which I have had in this connection indicated that the wool farmers to whom this task has been entrusted both at home and abroad are optimistic—that these new schemes will have the desired effect. While the Government has in the past, not only in respect of wool farmers, but in respect of all farmers in times of need, gone far out of its way to grant assistance by way of subsidies and by way of various schemes, including the withdrawal schemes, I want to say that if it should appear that the wool farmers have by means of their organizations, national and international, done everything in their power, if it should appear that the schemes have had sufficient time to prove themselves and have not had the desired results, the Government will very seriously consider finding other ways and means of coming to their assistance.

The theme throughout this motion of no confidence was the increase there has been in prices, an increase in prices which is a world-wide phenomenon, and all of us know that it has occurred in South Africa as well. No matter how one deplores it, one knows that it is largely inevitable. But what good will it do merely to speak about the increase in prices? Surely one must compare it with something; one must project it against some background. Simply to say that prices have increased, means nothing; one must contrast this with something. One must look at the reverse side of the coin, that is to say, the increased incomes and the increased salaries and wages which went hand in hand with that. After all, what would one gain by presenting a distorted and one-sided picture of the matter without contrasting the two? My colleagues here did so very effectively. But what I found interesting in this connection was that while no comparison was made by hon. members on the opposite side, while they did not deem it worth while to do so or omitted to say that there had been corresponding increases, there was one hon. member on the opposite side who did refer to salary increases, and that is the hon. member for Hillbrow. Sir, I cast my mind back and I remembered how we were attacked before the elections and during the elections, on the one hand because there had not been any increase, and then on the other because the increases were not sufficient. Those were the complaints and the accusations which were continually being made against this side of the House. But now that the election is a thing of the past, the hon. member for Hillbrow referred to those increases which were granted and called them “unprecedented” increases. In other words, they were much too large and the Government was irresponsible in having granted those excessive increases. I find this particularly illuminating.

But I also listened to what was said by the hon. member for Hillbrow, and I am quoting his words, when he referred to the standpoints not only of members on this side of the House, but of every individual who had the interests of South Africa and its future at heart. He referred to their exhortations in the following words: “Senseless and puerile exhortations to the effect that we must work harder and save more.” Sir, I can hardly imagine anything more irresponsible than that that a deputy leader of a party can say a thing like that in the Parliament of South Africa. But it was not a keynote which I noticed only in the case of that hon. member; I also noticed it in the case of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I noticed it in the case of various other members on the opposite side of the House. I was astonished.

If a man gets up in this House and says: “Look, you must not impose savings levies on people who cannot afford them,” then I can understand it and I can argue the matter with him. But if one quite coldbloodedly adopts the attitude that one dare not impose them on people over a certain age, for tomorrow or the day after they will no longer be there and will no longer be able to use the money, what remains of one’s patriotism? After all, one does not save for oneself, and what one is building up is not for oneself. One is building up for posterity. One is building up a father-land for all future generations, to stand as a proud monument for a nation. Must we be like the Irishman who said: “Why bother about posterity; what has posterity done for me?” Surely that is not the attitude we should adopt in this House. Surely that is not the spirit we should encourage among our people. Sir, if the time has ever come for a spirit to emanate from, for an appeal to go out to our people from the leaders of this House, whether on this side or on that side—the duty rests on us both—to be more selfless, then that time is now.

I was genuinely shocked by the cynical materialism in the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the speeches made by so many hon. members on the opposite side. Have we no faith? Have we no idealism? Are there not more important things? When appeals which were made to work harder are termed puerile, then my blood runs cold. Then I think of the report I read in the Argus the other evening to the effect that last year in Britain alone, in the year 1970, 11 million man-days were lost through strikes where people did not work. Heaven knows we as parliamentarians—and I am not saying this about my side of the House only, I am also saying it about hon. members on the opposite side of the House— are a group of people who have every right to ask people to work harder, because we work hard. There is no doubt about that at all. To work 14 to 16 hours a day is nothing. I say that we therefore need not feel ashamed on our part to ask people to work harder. Therefore it is foolish and recklessly irresponsible to talk about working harder as being puerile.

But the hon. member, the deputy leader of the United Party, was not satisfied with that. He also said: “In any case, why should we save if the Government takes our money and wastes it?” Sir, I have been sitting in this House for many years, and every year every cent of the revenue and expenditure of this Government is tabulated in the White Book which is laid upon the Table here. I have seldom, if ever, heard a single hon. member on the opposite side criticize any amount in that White Book as an amount, except to say that it was inadequate. I now ask hon. members this: On what grounds is the general accusation being made—which is being sent out into the world—that the Government takes money and wastes it? What is the Opposition doing here then? Bring me a Hansard in which the Opposition referred to a sum of money appearing on the Estimates and said that it was a waste and that it should be deleted, except in the case of a Minister’s salary.

And the Bantustans?

I am not talking about general arguments which were raised. I am talking about amounts which were spent. Even in respect of the Bantustans those hon. members have never yet questioned a single amount. That is the fact of the matter. Indeed, we have been reproached with spending too little and progressing too slowly. That hon. member knows as well as I do that, in spite of the fact that it is always being said in this House that we are spending too little money, he himself is an exponent during elections of the standpoint that we “are spending too much on the Kaffirs”.

The hon. member for Hillbrow, without any reason, put forward the view that there is a crisis prevailing in South Africa in the economic sphere. Sir, there is no crisis in South Africa. Whose purpose and what purpose are we serving here in the Parliament of South Africa by saying that there is a crisis in South Africa? Just suppose the people outside believed him? Surely there is no crisis in South Africa. There are in fact problems, which we can discuss across the floor of the House and of which we are all aware. Let me say at once that these are problems which, as in the past, will be solved by the National Party. I want, with all due respect, to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: What purpose do we serve by running down our fatherland in this way? I shall return to this later.

If one were to read only the Opposition members’ Hansard of this debate, what impression would one get of South Africa? In this regard I must exclude the hon. member for Pinelands, for on at least two occasions I heard him refer quite correctly to South Africa’s economy as “our strong economy”. What impression must people outside get of South Africa’s economy if they were to listen only to hon. members on the opposite side? After listening to those hon. members and reading their Hansard, I could not help thinking of the story of an old fellow I knew, who was ill. He was not very ill, but his wife used to sit at his bedside. When you went to visit there and you asked the old fellow how he was getting along, she would give him no chance at all to reply. She would say: “Things are not going very well. I do not think he will last very much longer.” Sir, three weeks later she had talked him into the grave. Whatever hon. members on the opposite side may do, I want to ask them not to do this to South Africa.

While we are dealing with this point now, and while the hon. member for Pinelands repeatedly referred to South Africa’s “strong economy”, surely all of us know what the situation in 1948 and in those years was. Surely we know what kind of economy we had and what kind of industrialization we had. After all, we know what went on here during those years and that with the advent of the National Party Government a revolution took place here in South Africa, so much so that people are quite unable to recognize South Africa if they compare it to what it was in those days. The hon. member for Pinelands spoke of our “strong economy” …

It is becoming weaker.

The hon. member need not worry about that. Who made our economy strong? It was the National Party that made it strong. [Interjections.] I shall come to that. Let us forget now what happened in the fifties and let us go back to Sharpeville. What was the position after Sharpeville? Everything in South Africa was at a low ebb.

You were panic-stricken.

And what assistance did we receive from the United Party in those days? What assistance did we receive from its Press in those days? What assistance did we receive from them to counteract the impression that had arisen in the outside world that South Africa was done for and was going under? It was the National Party on its own that had to keep the colours flying here in South Africa. It was the National Party that had to create a spirit of optimism once again and that redeveloped South Africa’s economy from the low-water mark it had reached at the time to the high-water mark of today.

What help did we get from you during the period 1940-’45?

The hon. member is very welcome to debate that matter with me on another occasion. At the moment we are dealing with a motion by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. If the hon. member for Durban (Point) wants to include that question of his in next year’s motion of no confidence, I shall then furnish him with a full reply.

I ask again: What assistance did we receive from the United Party and its Press in building up our economy after Sharpeville? In my New Year’s Message I gave my considered opinion on various matters, and I do not want to return to them today, except for one of them. I said in my New Year’s Message that 1971 would bring many economic problems in many countries. Yesterday, for example, we saw what has happened in Britain with the Rolls Royce firm, a firm which, so we thought, was as strong as the Bank of England. No, I say that what is needed for the future—and I am saying this regardless of party affiliations—is a spirit of realism, quite right, but also a spirit of optimism, for after all we know what this common fatherland of ours is capable of, and I invite the Opposition to help to develop that spirit.

A characteristic of this motion by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is that its keynote is seen by everyone as being a concentrated attack on separation and a preparing of the way for the elimination of dividing lines and consequently for equality here in South Africa. That is my view of this motion and I shall motivate this view of mine as I go along.

For years now the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has been waging a campaign both within and outside this House against what he calls petty (klein) apartheid. He has been doing so without petty apartheid ever having been defined by him and without mentioning any specific examples. This is merely a psychosis which is being created against petty apartheid, without it being defined. I have said at political meetings and told political correspondents of newspapers that if in Heaven’s name they would only tell me what petty apartheid is, I would also be able to take part in that discussion.

Die Burger defined it.

No, Die Burger has not defined it, not to my knowledge. If the hon. member wants to give me such a definition, he is very welcome to do so. I am dealing for the moment with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He has for a very long time now been waging a campaign against petty apartheid. When he discusses it in the House he has quite a number of people whom he hitches to his cart. I have nothing to say about those gentlemen, except that they themselves should say whether they are content to be hitched to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout’s cart, particularly after his latest statement and his association with them. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout made a particularly important statement in this debate. Of course, one cannot view the speech made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in isolation. His speech must be read in conjunction with the speech made by the hon. member for Durban (North), for the two are very closely interrelated. While the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has very often in the past discussed petty apartheid, he gave a very candid reply this time to the question of the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, Dr. Koornhof. The question put to him was whether immorality is petty apartheid.

That is not what he asked.

He said—

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

That is the question that was put. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout gave a very candid reply to that; he said—

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

The moment he said that, Ahithophel chipped in. This is what the hon. member for Yeoville then said: “As it is being applied.” May I compliment the hon. member, Mr. Speaker. He is a useful one for closing loopholes. To tell the truth, my hon. friend has become worn out already because he has had to do this so often. He then said, “As it is being applied”, and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout immediately added—

Of course, we are talking about its application.

I compliment the hon. member for Yeoville. That he …

You are complimenting the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

No, I am complimenting the hon. member for Yeoville for still having the reins in his hands, also as far as that hon. member is concerned. What we have now, is that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout stated here that the Immorality Act is the pettiest aspect of apartheid there can be. If it is the pettiest or the crudest aspect of apartheid, then surely apartheid in restaurants is infinitely pettier and coarser? Then surely segregation in cinemas is quite odious. Then surely having separate residential areas cries to high heaven. Then surely our children must sit on the same school benches. They must not only sit together on the same school benches, but must also use the same swimming baths.

That would be enforced integration, which is similar to enforced apartheid.

Then we must use the same swimming baths and share the same train compartments.

You will make me do this?

I do not want to make the hon. member do anything, but then I want …

You are saying I must do it.

No, the hon. member knows very well what I mean by that. The hon. member knows very well that what I mean by that is that the laws and the regulations prohibiting it must surely be repealed then. In that case, surely, they must be repealed just like the Immorality Act. There is at present a Railway regulation which lays down that a White person and a Black person may not travel together in the same train compartment. Is that the petty apartheid the hon. member for Bezuidenhout means?

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. the Prime Minister?

Then the hon. member must give me a reply to the same question.

As it happens, I was asked this morning to give my definition of petty apartheid to a newspaper, which answers all your questions. Is the hon. the Prime Minister prepared to accept the definition?

The hon. member may not make a speech.

I do not know what the hon. member was asked, but the hon. member has not yet …

I have here a definition of petty apartheid which answers your questions. Will you accept it?

The hon. member is quite at liberty to give it to me. I shall be very pleased to have it from him, and I should very much like to debate the matter with him on a subsequent occasion. However, the hon. member must not hide behind a definition now, but must consider this fact. The fact I now want to put to the hon. member is the perfectly ordinary fact that a White person and a Black person may not travel together in the same train compartment. Would the hon. member regard this as petty apartheid too?

May I ask what is … [Interjections]. There is no question I am not prepared to answer, but I am not prepared to do so through shouting across the floor.

I am not shouting at the hon. member. I am debating something with him.

No, but I cannot reply to the hon. the Prime Minister in this way.

I am debating with the hon. member in the same way the hon. member debated with the hon. the Deputy Minister.

I am prepared to answer any question, but only in debate.

The hon. member had no objection when my friend the Deputy Minister rose and put a question to him as to whether he wanted to repeal the Immorality Act. The hon. member immediately said “Yes”, and he also said how he viewed it. Now I want to know something from the hon. member and this is all I am asking him, but if he does not want to give me a reply to this, it is his affair.

Not by way of interjection.

I want to know from the hon. member, if he sees his way clear to telling me, whether he also regards travelling together in a compartment as petty apartheid. In other words, I must now draw this conclusion. Surely one need not spend a long time arguing about this matter. Surely one can decide for oneself now whether to adopt the standpoint that it is in fact petty apartheid or that it is not petty apartheid. One can decide for oneself whether it is desirable or undesirable.

Unfortunately I shall have to interrupt what I am saying if I want to read this document of the hon. member. The hon. member says here in paragraph 2, and I quote (translation)—

Petty (klein) apartheid is the name given to every practice of segregation and discrimination enforced by a White authority by means of penal provisions without any recognition of the wishes of the non-White groups affected.

The hon. the Prime Minister must begin at the beginning.

The hon. member asks me to begin at the beginning. I do so quite gladly. He says, and I quote—

Petty (klein) apartheid is the name given to every practice of segregation and discrimination (1) where colour, skin colour, is the determining factor …

I do not know whether the hon. member for Bezuidenhout gave the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a copy of this. Does the hon. the Leader have a copy of this?

No.

The hon. the Leader says he does not have a copy. Mr. Speaker, when I have finished with this document which the hon. member was so kind as to give me, and I want to thank him sincerely for it, I shall with his permission give it to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I take it he will have no objection to that. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will not, as I now have to do, have to argue about the matter off the cuff; he will have plenty of time to study it. Then, when he replies to this debate, I should like to hear his replies to the definition standpoint of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, because this affects the essence of our politics.

He will not reply, he is too scared.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. member here allowed to say of my Leader, “He will not reply, he is too scared”? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, do I assume that you rule that that is parliamentary?

Order! The hon. member can resume his seat.

Mr. Speaker, can I assume that that is your ruling?

I asked the hon. member to resume his seat. The hon. the Prime Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to take over the conduct of this House, which you discharge in so competent a manner, but if I may now furnish that hon. member with a motivation of your ruling, I want to tell him that to state a fact in this House is always in accordance with the rules.

Petty (klein) apartheid—

This is what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says—

… is (1) where colour, skin colour, is the determining factor; (2) which is enforced by a White authority by means of penal provisions without any recognition of the wishes of the non-White population groups affected. It therefore does not include exclusive practices which are based on private practice or custom or on the private choice of people and groups of people, or on consultation of and agreement among the various colour groups; (3) which is simply humiliating for some or other group of people and has virtually nothing to do with honest development.

That is the hon. member’s definition. As I said, it goes to the root of our race problems and our relationships problems here in South Africa. Since we have now for the first time received a definition, and from a front-bencher of the United Party at that, who, if I understood him correctly, has already given it to the press …

Just as a background. Somebody asked me for it.

… I should now like to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether this is the standpoint of the United Party. If the hon. the Leader remains silent, I shall be forced to conclude that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is right. Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will be forced to bear the blame if our people outside also see it in this way.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout states here “Which is enforced by a White authority by means of penal provisions without any recognition of the wishes of the non-White population groups affected”, in other words, without a general referendum or something else having been held in regard to the matter, it dare not be done. Now we should like to know whether this is also the standpoint of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must in any case tell us where he stands. I should now like to make this definition available to the hon. the Leader.

In general I want to state that this type of sexual misconduct (ontug) is a form of immorality. It is a lustful form of immorality of the coarsest type. I want to make it very clear that I believe that there is a positive obligation resting on every one of us in this House, instead of condoning it, to express our strongest disapproval of it. We dare not even by implication condone any immorality, which is today attacking the root of the existence of world civilization.

And then you withdraw the prosecutions at Excelsior?

I shall furnish the hon. member for Yeoville with a reply, if he was not here when the hon. the Minister of Justice made the position very clear.

I was.

Surely the hon. member for Yeoville, who himself once upon a time studied a little law, knows that you cannot go to court if you do not have evidence. Surely the hon. member for Yeoville knows that it is the cornerstone of our law that a person is innocent until proved guilty. It will avail the hon. member for Yeoville nothing to throw up this kind of smokescreen. Now is the time for Ahithophel across the way to give advice. Apart from any political or non-political considerations, the times in which we are living demand of us that each individual, in whatever capacity he may be acting, should take the strongest possible stand against immorality and promiscuity.

May I ask the hon. Prime Minister a question?

No, I do not have the time now. The hon. member may do so later. We must oppose the spirit of permissiveness as never before. Whereas world leaders are deploring this and we must witness every day how permissiveness is eroding the Western world, I am sorry that not a single word was said about this by hon. members on the opposite side throughout this entire no-confidence debate. Far be it from me to be indifferent to the sufferings of wives and children. This is a very distressing matter, but I want to say that when a husband appears in court for any offence, is found guilty and then appeals to the mercy of the court because his wife and children will suffer as a result, it leaves me cold, because he should have thought of that before committing the offence. Then his wife and children simply become a subterfuge which he tries to use to escape the consequences of his actions. It is time we told these people, when arguments of this kind are raised, that they should think of these and all the other asocial aspects before they allow their lustfulness to get the better of them in this way.

Now I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as well as the hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Yeoville, that the rules of this House provide that one may not attack a substantive law without introducing a motion or Bill in Parliament for its repeal. If the Immorality Act as such is alleged to be the pettiest aspect of petty apartheid and the crudest aspect of crude apartheid, if it is such an evil thing, if it is true that what the hon. member stated in that document and signed his name to is his standpoint, if that is the policy of the United Party, and while hon. members on the opposite side are hiding behind the provision of the Standing Orders to the effect that you may not attack an Act of Parliament, I now want to address this open invitation to him. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to repeal or amend by means of substantive legislation in this Parliament the Immorality Act and the Mixed Marriages Act, which according to their shadow Minister of Justice are closely interdependent, so that it is not possible to abolish or retain the one without the other, I now give him the undertaking in advance that this side of the House will in this very session set aside the necessary time to do so. If there has ever been a time when each side should test the bona fides of the other, it is now. If we must put to the test what people are joining in saying and shouting because it has become the fashion in certain newspapers to write about this, and if that support (saampraat) of theirs means that both the Immorality Act and the Mixed Marriages Act should be repealed, I shall afford the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity during this session to debate these Acts in full. Then we can, apart from the motion of the hon. member, which I only heard about today, have legislation here before Parliament. Let us then debate it and state our honest standpoint to the world outside. As far as this side of the House is concerned, the standpoint was stated by the hon. the Minister of Justice, and that is what the National Party has to say about it.

I come now to the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. It is true, and I want to concede openly to the hon. the Leader—in fact, I have already done so on many other occasions—that he achieved some success, both in the Parliamentary election and in the provincial election. But, Sir, one must also view that success in perspective. For the sake of the record I think it is necessary for us to state precisely what the Opposition has achieved. Looking at the seats, I have, to my regret, only 12 per cent of them in Natal. I see that in the Cape Province I have 66 per cent of the seats; that in the Transvaal I have almost 75 per cent of the seats; and that in South-West Africa and in the Orange Free State I have 100 per cent of the seats. One must therefore see that success in perspective as well, and in spite of what we are saying now, my hon. friend knows very well and I know that he has an infinitely long way to go and that he is on a journey to never-never land if he thinks he is going to come into power.

Sir, I come now to the first of a series of personal accusations levelled at me by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. With the first of those accusations he questioned not only my credibility, but also my honour. He levelled the accusation at me that I had, according to him, said one thing in this House and that Gen. Van den Bergh had in his evidence in the Marais case said the opposite. Sir, that is not true. Since the hon. the Leader of the Opposition suggested that Gen. Van den Bergh had stated in the Maris case that the Security Police were listening in to telephone conversations, I want to inform him that Gen. Van den Bergh gave no such evidence. I also want to inform him that Brig. Venter, the chief of the Security Police, who gave evidence, gave no such evidence. Of course, I had the problem that this case was heard in camera, and although the rules of this House allow it, it would be improper to refer to that evidence even in this House and even if one had it, and I did not have it. I consequently did the correct thing which one ought to do under such circumstances. I applied through the Attorney-General to the trial judge concerned to give me permission to deal with the relevant accusation in this House, and I am very grateful that the hon. trial judge gave me that permission. I am therefore doing this with the permission of the judge. The fact of the matter is that the question was specifically put to Gen. Van den Bergh as to whether the Security Police listened in to telephone conversations, and his reply in court, because he believed that it was not relevant in that case, was that he did not want to reply to that question. He also stated in terms of which Act he did not want to reply, viz. section 32 of the Official Secrets Act. There was argument between counsel for the accused and the court in regard to this matter, and after the court had heard counsel, the court ruled that no reply need be given to that question. Similarly this is also what happened in the case of Brig. Venter. Because I do not want to place the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in an impossible position, I want to say that I am aware of the fact that he made that accusation on the basis of what was said in the judgment of the hon. judge in the Appeal Court, viz. that Gen. Van den Bergh “also referred to methods which were used to obtain information, inter alia, infiltration of subversive organizations by agents of the Security Police, listening-in— not to telephone conversations—the interrogation and following of suspects and the interception of mail. It appears that reference has been made to these methods in various newspapers and books”. It is quite clear from the case what the listening-in referred to here was, and Gen. Van den Bergh gave evidence in this regard. Counsel for the defence mentioned to him the Jean Strachan case, where listening-in took place in a flat. This was not a question of listening in to a telephone conversation; it was done with other apparatus. Evidence was given on this in the Strachan case, and Gen. Van den Bergh was asked whether that type of listening-in was a method used by the Security Police and he said “Yes, it is a method”. Since the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has now drawn that conclusion in respect of mail, I want to say that this was also put to Gen. Van den Bergh, in reference to the Ludi case, when the latter testified in the Fischer case that he had on behalf of the Communist Party rented a postbox for the Communist Party, collected the mail in that postbox and redirected it to the Police instead of sending it to the Communist Party, for which it was intended. That is what the judge was referring to, and in no way to the matter which my hon. friend mentioned here. My hon. friend drew the wrong conclusions from what was said here, and all I have done now is to give him the correct facts for the sake of the record, and I think that he accepts it in that spirit. I am glad he does so.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also referred to a matter which occurred here last year, i.e. the clash between the member for Newton Park and, if I may put it in this way, his Man Friday. In spite of the opportunity the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had last year to cross swords with me on this matter, he now comes along and says that I owe the two gentlemen an apology in that connection. I just want to make this very clear to him: I dealt with this matter across the floor of the House; I said I was leaving the two gentlemen to their own consciences, and as far as I am concerned, I have in both senses of the word finished with them.

You lost.

*The PRIME MINISTER: Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me about the Potgieter Commission. I am glad he asked me that question, because it gives me a parliamentary opportunity to clear it up. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, if I understood him correctly, was particularly interested in and concerned about section 29 in this connection. Sir, I want to make this very clear. I did not appoint the Potgieter Commission to report on section 29. That is a minor, subsidiary part. If it had been apartheid, it would have been the pettiest of apartheid in regard to the report. The main reason for my appointing the Potgieter Commission was to establish a security set-up for South Africa which, if possible, should be the best in the world. Sir, without being presumptuous, because it happens to be the position as a result of the office which I held in the most difficult years, namely that of Minister of Justice in the difficult early sixties, I can state with a clear conscience that no-one sitting in this House has more experience of modern subversion, of the modern dangers arising from that, than I have. That is why this is of particular importance to me, because hon. members will recall that we never really had a service in the past, as we were a small subdivision of Britain’s service. It was only since the last war that we began to build up our own service here in South Africa. Hon. members know the circumstances. As far as I am concerned, because I am aware, as my colleague the hon. the Minister of Defence is aware, that our worst difficulties are still to come, perhaps in two or three years’ time, if the threats being uttered against us should ever be translated into reality, it is absolutely essential that South Africa should have the best set-up possible. That is also why I asked the hon. judge concerned to investigate all matters in that connection, and that is why I told him that if it should be necessary, he should go overseas and investigate every possible system. He did so, and I should like to add that one of the most thorough reports one could possibly compile has been compiled. But it is a very long report. Altogether it comprises five volumes, and I now want to tell the hon. member that I have not yet had the time to study it properly, as it should be studied, because there are dozens of implications, if not hundreds, to which very thorough consideration must be given. I want to inform the hon. the Leader that I took it with me on vacation; I had received it before the time, when I was ill, but there was simply no time to give it the attention I must give it. I took it along on vacation with the firm intention of reading it, but I want to tell the hon. Leader, and I am making no excuse for this being so, that I was so tired I did not get round to doing so; and I think I deserved a vacation, even if it was only seen from his point of view, on account of the drubbings he had given me. Consequently I have not yet, I repeat, had the time to give that report the attention it deserves, but I hope to be able to do so during the next few weeks; and as soon as I have done so, and as soon as that long report has been translated, it will be laid upon the Table. But I want to repeat that I am in earnest in respect of this set-up, and I regard it as one of the tasks I must perform in public life, and I should like to perform it as well as I possibly can.

Then my hon. friend referred to the Agliotti transaction, which the Sunday Times suddenly became terribly excited about. I told him by way of a reply, just to place this on record, that I only received the report on 22nd January, since it had been handed in to my office during the vacation. That report was referred to the authorities concerned, and I can say no more than that it will soon be laid upon the Table and that those responsible will be dealt with according to the law. That goes without saying. That is the reason why I appointed that commission and I think that instead of levelling reproaches, the hon. the Leader should at least have given me credit for the R5 million that was saved in connection with the matter.

That was the Sunday Times. [Interjections.]

As I have said, this is no ordinary motion of no-confidence. This is a motion coming from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who says he is about to take over and that this Government is useless. Under those circumstances I would have expected the Leader of the Opposition to cover the whole field. Sir, a government does not only have to deal with manpower shortages; it has to deal with many other things. Inter alia, the government of any country has to deal with the whole outside world, and not only in this debate but also in the course of the debates last year, did not a word of criticism come from the hon. member on how the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and myself have dealt with foreign matters. I must therefore accept, in view of the fact that it is not an ordinary motion of no-confidence, but a motion of no-confidence coming from an Opposition which is about to take over from a government which is about to fall to pieces, that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has no criticism to offer and has no objection to any of the things done by the hon. the Minister or by myself in that regard.

It is also interesting that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not say a word about one of the most fundamental problems South Africa had to deal with, namely the gold problem, which was handled by my hon. colleague next to me, and handled in the most brilliant fashion. It is also interesting that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not see fit to comment on the peace and the quiet that exist in this country. It is also interesting, if this is such a useless Government, that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition could find no criticism and could not lay any accusation at the door of the Government that there is labour unrest in this country, whereas it has become the hallmark of very many countries overseas.

It is interesting to note that not a word has come from him about the Cape sea route and what has been done by this Government to bring it to the attention of the World Powers, and with success. It is also interesting that he did not say a word about the way this “useless” Government has protected the borders of South Africa. Frankly, I do not blame the hon. member for not saying anything about the Simonstown Agreement. I myself would not have talked about it were it not for the fact that the White Paper came out in the British Parliament yesterday, I want to say in connection with the White Paper and the statements made in the British Parliament that it will be premature for me, or anyone else, at this stage to make a detailed statement before having had time to study it in detail. But I think it is necessary that I should say at this moment that I note that the British Government now accepts the view that they have legal obligations under the Simonstown Agreement, a view the South African Government has always held, and we are giving this matter our closest consideration.

Whilst I am on this subject, I want to say further that I heartily welcome the following extract from the speech of Mr. Heath, the British Prime Minister, for whom I have a very high regard, when he said on 26th January, 1971—

I am very pleased that those words came from the Prime Minister of Britain. I am particularly pleased that he spoke of the spirit of the Agreement because, after all, the Simonstown Agreement is not only an agreement of the letter. It is that, but it is more than that. It is also an agreement of spirit. I was very pleased to note the word “spirit” in Mr. Heath’s statement.

Again, Sir, whilst I am on the subject, it has become necessary for me, in view of what has been said at Singapore, and after Singapore, to emphasize that South Africa not only does not want, but also does not need arms to fight Black people in South Africa or outside South Africa. As far as our own Black people are concerned I cannot visualize the day when it will ever be necessary to use arms against them, for the simple reason that they and we have demonstrated to the world that as far as the southern portion of Africa is concerned, we understand each other, and that in spite of our disagreements and in spite of what the world outside has to say, White and Black and Brown will resolve all their difficulties to the advantage of each and every group in this country. I say therefore that I can, under no circumstances, foresee any time when it will be necessary to use arms manufactured in South Africa or imported from abroad against our Black people. I say that it is malicious to suggest or say that that is South Africa’s intention. It is malicious to say that any arms South Africa acquires from Britain or from any other power will be used for that purpose. As far as the rest of Africa is concerned, we as a people have no intention of fighting against or of invading any other country, be it near or far. I am now not talking for myself or for my party alone; I am talking on behalf of the whole House and of South Africa. There is absolutely no need for us to do so and we simply have no intention in that regard. I want to spell that out as clearly as I possibly can. I just cannot see such a situation arising. The only time it could possibly arise would be if people were to play big and want to prove just how tough they are. They will then naturally find out their mistake very soon.

I do not need to say anything further about that, but I do want to refer in passing to the absolute nonsense spoken by Kaunda, the President of Zambia. I want to say that it is quite untrue that we are about to invade Zambia or that we want to do this, that or the other thing to Tanzania or any other country, as he has suggested on many occasions. That is just pure nonsense. Now, in all seriousness, Kaunda is not only irresponsible; he is also a double-talker. I want to say in all sincerity that there is one thing President Kaunda must do, and he must do it quickly, and that is to stop playing the big man in the world. He must look after the interests of his own people. That is all I ask him to do. All I ask him and any other leader in Africa to do, is to look after the interests of his own people. If he does not, he may very well find himself in the same aeroplane as Obote. I have said that President Kaunda is not only irresponsible, but is also a double talker. I want to say in all seriousness that in the course of the discussion of my Vote later this year in Parliament, I will expose President Kaunda for just that—and he should take note of that.

*I have referred to the fact that, as leaders of the people, whether we belong to the same party or not, we all have a duty. That duty also entails presenting an image of South Africa which is worthy of South Africa. I am saying this to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. If he would read his speech again, he could argue with me about whether it is as I am now going to say or not. If an objective person were to read his speech, he would have to come to the conclusion that South Africa is a useless country. I can understand an opposition wanting to come into power. But trying to do so by means of sensation-mongering, suspicion-mongering, exploiting grievances, misrepresentation and reckless promises, has never brought an opposition into power. After all, a people chooses its own government. As regards my party and myself, I want to make it clear that I do not strive to remain in power at all costs. I am not prepared to change my policy and to take up a standpoint at the insistence of any person merely to stay in power. I am only prepared to remain in power here in South Africa if the electorate puts me here on my programme of principles and my policy. That standpoint of mine is based on the policy of separate development. That policy in turn is based on the difference which exists between my race group and the other race groups in South Africa, in other words, between those who belong to me and the others who belong to other leaders in this country. I want to state quite candidly that not only the Opposition, but also people outside this House, quite often read things into the policy of separate development which it does not contain. My trouble with others, on the other hand, is that they want to read out of the policy that which it does contain. One must guard against this. But there is one thing against which one must guard, especially if you are the Leader of the Opposition, and so must my hon. friends on the other side who are criticizing us, and this is what was so neatly put by the hon. member for Lydenburg when he said in the course of this debate: Hon. members on the other side argue about separate development as if it means antagonism between White and non-White. It is presented as a policy which is aimed at fanning this. The policy is, on the contrary, aimed at having precisely the opposite effect, namely to ensure peace and friendship for all persons and the different peoples of South Africa. The policy is not—as the reproach is often made— aimed at our making second-class citizens of people here or anywhere. On the contrary, the policy is aimed at letting those people develop in their own right and not as an appendage of the White man who always has to take a back seat. The policy makes it possible for them to take a front seat in their own areas. The policy is not a denial of the human dignity of any human being. On the contrary, it is the emphasizing of the human dignity of all God’s creatures living in Southern Africa, including the Coloured people, the Bantu and the Asiatics. Hon. members attack that policy so lightly and are so quick to be disparaging about it. But the attitude which I always adopt and which I consistently put to foreigners as well, irrespective of the capacities in which they stand, is that, together with my people, I wish to retain my identity as a White man here in South Africa. I do not think there is a single person on the other side who will quarrel with me when I say that I wish to retain my identity. All that arises from this is the question: how am I to retain my identity? Is it being hostile towards a Black man when I tell him that I wish to retain my identity? Do I insult him by telling him this? On the contrary, he is just as keen on retaining his identity if he is a decent Black man, and the majority of them are decent, for which I am grateful. He also wants to retain his identity, just as I want to retain mine, but then there are always those people who do not want to retain it and who want to make it impossible to do so. I have no problems with the large mass of people. I do have problems, as is the case with any crime, with the individual few who do not want to adhere to the norms. After all, this is our basic problem, and these are the people against whom we must have laws and take up a standpoint and make regulations.

Let us above all guard against holding out promises which we cannot fulfil. Let us guard against being incited by newspaper-men or by the creation of a climate to hold out things to the non-White people in theory which we know very well we cannot or will not give them in practice. No matter whether it is the Opposition or the National Party, if we want to succeed in this country and keep on living here, there is one thing we must definitely see to, and that is that we are blatantly honest towards the non-White peoples.

I am hurrying, because I am sorry to have kept the House so long. There is the accusation, which lies at the root of this motion, in regard to labour. I have said that the National Party can deal with this matter. It will deal with it too. It is the National Party, with that legislation and those regulations which are being attacked, which has made South Africa the prosperous country it is today. It will be the National Party which will lead it further. Each of my predecessors, when dealing with this policy and when attacks were made by hon. members on the other side, gave South Africa the assurance which I have also given and which I want to repeat today, namely that our policy will not lead to disruption in South Africa. We will see to it and we guarantee that there will be no disruption in South Africa. I want to repeat today that if there is one thing I am afraid of, it is unemployment here in South Africa. As surely as I hold this position, I will not allow it if it is in my power to prevent it. I will not allow it, because this, more than anything else, could eventually lead to my downfall.

I want to reply to the accusation levelled by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that the hon. the Minister of Labour has granted many exemptions. It is true that the hon. the Minister of Labour grants exemptions. He has done so from time to time and he will continue to do so from time to time. He grants the exemptions in accordance with the undertaking given in this House by the National Party —and this is my reply to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—that we will see to one thing, and that is that our policy will not cause disruption. We shall continue in that spirit. Not only did we say that we would not allow disruption, but we also said that we would not jeopardize the livelihood of any White man by the implementation of our policy. And we will not do so either.

At the same time we will give the non-White peoples their due and what can under the circumstances be granted to them in their own areas and in other spheres. As far as our policy is concerned, it will therefore bring about no disruption whatsoever in the economic sphere. There are bottle-necks and problems, and I know this very well. We discussed them across the floor of this House last year. My hon. colleague had to deal with them in his discussions with industrialists and others. As a result the Rieckert Committee was appointed to go into this matter. It is hoped that the report of the Committee will be presented in six weeks’ time. After all, we are not indifferent to these matters and to the development of South Africa; we have brought the country where it is, and why would we now want to throw it overboard?

Not only will we see to it that there is no disruption in the economic sphere, but we will assuredly as long as we are in power, see to it that in the political field non-Whites have no say over Whites and over White South Africa. On this point we must be judged by the South African electorate. If they want to vote against us, they have every right to do so. They have the right to choose a government for themselves every five years. After all, I am not insulting a non-White by telling him that he will have no say over me. In fact, I have discussed this matter openly with the leaders of the non-White peoples. I put all my cards on the table and I kept nothing back. They did not think that I was insulting them. I discuss matters with the Coloured leaders and with the Indian leaders much more often than the hon. members think. We discuss these matters frankly and not one of them has yet told me that I was insulting them by saying this. But our policy is also aimed at preventing integration and friction in the social sphere. If the South African electorate find that they no longer want this and that they have to kick me out, then I will go, but on this I stand or fall with my party. There must be no friction and no integration in South Africa.

I conclude by saying that if I were asked today what South Africa is, I would say that South Africa is a small, multi-national country whose people, thank God, mind their own business. It is a country which seeks peace and friendship with everyone who will give it on a reciprocal basis. It is a country in which there is work for all who wish to work, both Whites and non-Whites. It is a country which creates prospects and opportunities for all the people in it. It is a country which still believes in the virtues of morality, diligence, thrift and all the other fine virtues with which we grew up. It is a country which will resist greed among its people, which is becoming very marked in places, and which will resist practises which, as a result of greed, border on extravagance. It is a country which has its problems and its difficulties. This is my considered opinion as I put it in my New Year’s Message, and I quote:

There are problems. But we do not have a crisis; it is a question of an overheated economy which requires measures to be taken to cool it off, and these measures will be taken. This is a country, so I shall tell people, of distinguished scientists in all fields. Thank God, I can say it is a country in which there are responsible workers and fine young people. It is a country which still attaches importance to old-fashioned virtues, which still has self-respect. But it is also a country whose people are still humble before God.

Mr. Speaker, what we have just heard from the hon. the Prime Minister is undoubtedly an interesting speech—interesting from a parliamentary point of view, interesting from the point of view of the tactics employed and followed by the hon. gentleman. But I think it was a speech that was extremely disappointing to the public of South Africa. In his whole speech the hon. the Prime Minister devoted, out of the hour-and-a-half for which he spoke, barely 10 minutes to the central theme of this debate, the economic position of South Africa and its labour problems.

The hon. the Leader received all the replies from my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman tried to chase up hares and create the impression that we on this side of the House had said that South Africa was a worthless country. I now challenge the hon. gentleman to show me in Hansard where I said that South Africa was a worthless country.

But you did not listen to what I said.

I listened very closely. The hon. the Prime Minister will not be able to prove that either. What we did say, was that we had a worthless Government.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman tried to chase up all sorts of hares. I shall deal later on with a few of them. He even went so far as to display great interest in the meaning of petty apartheid. He sent me a definition of petty apartheid. There are numerous definitions of petty apartheid. I see that Prof. Coetzee of the Potchefstroom University has said the following—

†Prof. Coetzee was commenting on an article in the Afrikaans intellectual journal, “Standpunt”, by Mr. Willem van Heerden. In the article Mr. Van Heerden referred to a number of petty apartheid incidents.

*Then he gave a long list of what he understands under the term “petty apartheid”. Then we have Prof. Nic Rhoodie of the University of Pretoria.

I hope we also come to Prof. Basson.

His definition of petty apartheid is the one I shall accept, i.e. “colour separation taken to absurd limits”. Then there is also a definition by Prof. Moolman.

Is that now Jan Moolman?

No, not Dr. Jan, but Prof. Jan. He sounded this warning—

Crude apartheid has come to the end of the road and must be rejected. It has become a threat to the White man’s future.

Does he say what it is?

It does of course follow that if I like Prof. Rhoodie’s definition, I do not identify myself completely with the definition of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

In what respects do you differ with him?

That is an example of pettiness, the kind of thing in which the hon. the Prime Minister takes pleasure in an attempt at diverting the attention from the debate itself. I want to say at once that, if I accept this definition of petty apartheid, I believe in separate residential areas as well as separate schools and separate facilities. Furthermore, I believe that separation can only hurt when it is applied unnecessarily. I also believe in separate residential areas, separate houses, separate schools and separate swimming baths, but in addition I believe that equitable facilities should be created for all races.

May I ask the hon. the Leader a question? Whereas he has now told me these things, may I ask him whether he also believes that mixed marriages may not take place?

I shall deal with that in a moment and I am glad that it was raised by the hon. gentleman, for this discussion has arisen from the events at Excelsior. I have considered the matter carefully, and I am inclined to agree with what I read in Die Burger on the standpoint raised by the hon. the Minister of Justice in this House. The reporter wrote as follows (translation)—

I do not think that there is the slightest doubt that everybody in South Africa is opposed to miscegenation. As one is opposed to miscegenation, one does not advocate mixed marriages. Although one is opposed to miscegenation, there are various methods for preventing it. When this Act was placed on the Statute Book, we sounded the warning that it might do a great deal of harm, and also pointed out the good it might do. When these people were charged, the Police knew right from the start that there would be no evidence over and above that of the accomplices, apart from the fact that there were bastard children. The fact that there were bastard children, proves that an offence did take place, but it does not link the White man concerned to the offence.

There were admissions as well.

Were there admissions by any of the Whites?

No.

Precisely; in other words, there were admissions by accomplices. It strikes me as being very irresponsible—and this I want to put on record here—to arrest people, to make them go through all this suffering and to allow their families to go through such suffering before the accomplice who has to give evidence against them, has been convicted and the assurance has been obtained that they will in fact give evidence. Does any Attorney-General really expect any White person who is to be charged with an offence of this nature, not to obtain the services of attorneys or advocates to defend him? Do they really think that the trouble will not be taken to ensure that the women will be defended as well? Does he really think that any advocate or attorney who knows his job, will advise them to agree to giving evidence when he knows that none of them can be found guilty unless that evidence is given? It seems to me that this was an extremely unfortunate incident, and I am not absolving the Minister of Justice and his Department from being responsible for it. In passing I want to add that I do not quite agree either with the exposition of the law which we had from the hon. the Minister. The hon. gentleman made no mention of section 254, which deals with the evidence of accomplices. If a man or a woman is in fact convicted, he or she is a competent witness in a case. In that case he is no longer indicted in the same court for the same offence as that of the other people. The trials are not coupled. He is a competent witness. I cannot see why section 212 cannot be made applicable to him. Nor do I find it in the Statute Books. It may be that I have got out of practice and am not so expert at looking these things up any more, but in my experience this has never been the position.

Now I want to proceed. When we find ourselves in the position—as was evident from a reply to a question in this House to a former Minister of Justice—that in one year’s time 45 per cent of those charged with this particular offence was acquitted, it appears to me that there is a hitch somewhere. If one examines the figures in the Police Report on normal offences in South Africa, one finds that 75 per cent of those who are charged, are convicted. Only 25 per cent is acquitted. But in this extremely sensitive and delicate type of case, we find that 45 per cent of those who are charged, are acquitted. Furthermore, it seems to me as though insufficient attention is being given to the matter to ensure that people are not endangered and made to go through all the suffering before the Police have made sure of their case. I think that when those facts are reviewed, there is a good case for a commission to examine this legislation and to take evidence from the police, members of the judiciary, who have to pass the sentences, sociologists, members of the churches and prominent people in our country, to see whether we cannot find another kind of solution. These are my views on this matter. I had hoped that the hon. the Prime Minister would also see the matter in this light, even if, by doing so, it were only to do less damage to South Africa’s reputation in the outside world as a result of failures of lawsuits …

If that is your argument, you should abolish it altogether. [Interjections.]

The hon. gentlemen raised certain other matters which I find interesting. He spoke about the Simonstown Agreement. In that regard I want to say that, although I also feel that this is not a suitable time for commenting on the matter, I agree with him that it will be a pity if the commitment to supply South Africa with arms, is based on points of law and not on the moral obligation which I have always felt to stem from that agreement.

The Hon. the Prime Minister also intimated that he stood by his policy. He does not care what attitude is adopted by the people; they must accept him with his policy; he is not going to deviate from it. Sir, I appreciate that attitude. I hope that the members of his Cabinet who have in the past blown hot and cold to a certain extent, have given ear to that. In the future we may be in a position to define the policy of this Government with greater accuracy. Then the hon. gentleman developed his case to some extent by discussing his apartheid policy and saying that he would see to it that it did not have a disruptive effect on the economy. Mr. Speaker, I want to give the hon. gentleman this piece of advice, i.e. that he may as well abandon that policy now, for there is not the slightest doubt that if he wishes to implement this policy successfully, it is going to have a disruptive effect on the economy. To proceed: The hon. the Minister of Finance appreciated this when he said years ago that he was prepared to bend the economy in order to implement his policy. There is not the slightest doubt that that policy is going to have a disruptive effect on the economy, and if it is not going to have a disruptive effect on the economy, I make him a gift of this piece of advice: He may as well abandon that policy, for it will never be implemented in South Africa.

Then it was interesting to note that the hon. gentleman referred to the fact that the farmers had not been mentioned specifically in this debate. Sir, that is an entirely new attitude on the part of the Government. I still remember very well how I raised the question of the farming community in South Africa in the course of the discussion on the Prime Minister’s Vote a few years ago, before the hon. gentleman had become Prime Minister himself; and what was said to me by the other side? I was told that on the Prime Minister’s Vote I had to discuss matters of national importance; not the position of the farming community in South Africa. Sir, that stands recorded in Hansard.

This is not the Prime Minister’s Vote.

That was the attitude adopted by this Government towards the farming community of South Africa. Mr. Speaker, there is another thing I want to add: There is no single section of the population that has been affected more by the rising prices that is the case with the farming community in South Africa, and there is no single section that has found that its production costs have risen more because of price increases in other sectors of the economy, and whereas we are pleading for a rapidly growing and sound economy and for steps to be taken to put an end to this inflation which cannot be curbed, there is not the slightest doubt that in South Africa the farming community will benefit most if this were done.

Then the hon. gentleman also referred to the development of our economy after Sharpeville. Yes, Sir, but who was panic-stricken after Sharpeville; by whom was exchange control applied for the first time in the history of South Africa? Who was it that pegged interest rates at a stage when they should not have done so? Who took one step after the other which temporarily brought our whole economy into difficulties, the result being that the businessmen of South Africa were saying that the economy was doing well in spite of this Government?

Sir, then the hon. gentleman referred to the waste of money as regards this Government. This is something with which I should like to deal later on and of which I shall furnish examples.

Sir, when I introduced this motion, I mentioned three specific matters on which a motion of no confidence could possibly be based, and one of them was the way in which our transport in South Africa had, under the guidance of this Government, fallen behind to such an extent that at present our transport is unable to convey our iron ore, coal, anthracite and numerous other things for export, which would be to the greatest benefit and of the greatest value to us in trying to straighten out our balance of payments in South Africa. The other side has admitted defeat in that regard. We did not even have a defence, not even an attempt to justify it, and I must assume that hon. members opposite are agreed with me that for lack of far-sightedness on the part of this Government, transport in South Africa has been allowed to fall behind to such an extent that at the present stage it is having a detrimental effect on economy.

Then, Sir, I mentioned the fishing industry in South Africa. The matter was taken further by the hon. member for Simonstad, and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance replied to that. The hon. the Deputy Minister admitted that over-exploitation had taken place. He openly admitted that this had happened. He said that he had no knowledge of certain matters in regard to the South African West Coast fishing industry, as these were things that had happened before he became a member of Parliament or before he was taken up in the Cabinet. But, Mr. Speaker, there is such a thing such as Cabinet responsibility, and I do not have the slightest doubt that I have the right to say today that this Government is responsible for the collapse of the West Coast pilchard industry. The Government cannot say that there has not been any warnings. In my maiden speech twenty-three years ago I made mention in this House of this danger and asked that research be carried out and that restrictive measures be applied. I referred to the disaster which had hit America. Since those days a disaster has also hit the Japanese fishing industry. But, in spite of these things this Government carried on merrily. What is more, there is not the slightest doubt that the research work that was carried out, was inadequate. The 1967 commission mentioned this; they said it was their impression that—

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take the matter any further. They have had experience of what happened in Japan; they have had experience of what happened in America, and now they have had the experience of what has happened on our West Coast. I positively express the hope that with that experience they will take the necessary steps to ensure that as far as pilchards are concerned, the South-West African fishing industry will not be allowed to collapse as well. I was pleased to note that there had been a further curb as regards quotas. However, you should remember, Sir, that it was this Government and this Minister of Finance, when he was Minister of Economic Affairs, who persuaded the South-West Africa Administration to grant licences to those factory ships, which have been the major cause of the trouble. I think they did make certain conditions applicable, but, surely, it should have been clear to anyone with some foresight that it would be very difficult to ensure that those conditions would be complied with. Anyone with any knowledge of the fishing industry, should have known how difficult it would be and how unlikely it was that those conditions could ever be enforced by the available patrol boats. Let me once again draw attention to the theory of Dr. Lochner in connection with this fishing industry. I am merely drawing attention to this theory because, rightly or wrongly, this man correctly predicted, two years in succession, what the position would be, and I must draw attention to the fact that even after the curbs which have now been made, we are still going to allow larger quantities of fish to be exploited than those recommended by Dr. Lochner. According to him this is the critical year. If things should go wrong this year, we could possibly deal that fishing industry a blow which would have the result that it would take years before it would be able to recover.

Then there is the main charge which I brought, and I think the discussions have, to a greater extent than has ever been the case before, undoubtedly revealed this Government’s incompetence and the absence of a realistic, constructive policy with regard to economic affairs. To reiterate, our main charge was that the cost of living was high, that it was a burden on the ordinary man and, in particular, those people who have a low income, i.e. the majority of the population of South Africa. We attacked the Government and accused it of being responsible for this heavy burden as its policy over the years had been aimed at limiting even further that factor which was the very cause of the rise in costs, i.e. labour. It was not necessary to look far for proof to substantiate our arguments. There were company reports. There were meetings held by trade and industry. There were complaints from individual businessmen who furnished the proof; every day the columns of the newspapers contained many complaints. I want to say that in my opinion it is ridiculous to restrict labour in a country blessed with as many privileges as South Africa has, and our speakers had no difficulty in proving that inflation in South Africa, although it has been occurring in other countries as well, was by no means due to the same causes in South Africa than in those other countries. The main causes of inflation in South Africa, I think, are of a local nature. There were the curbs on labour and the Government’s monetary and fiscal policy. There were delay and incompetency on the part of the Government, and there was an inadequate infra-structure, which landed us in certain difficulties. But what was the answer we received? Protestations from the side of the Nationalist Party that they knew the people much better than we did, and that we had fabricated our examples of hardships. But, Sir, let them continue in this way. It is certainly not my job to keep them in power, but I want to say that they are underestimating the intelligence of the people of South Africa, and they are underestimating it very badly. But that is their affair. If the Minister of Economic Affairs believes that people are not entitled to a better standard of living so as to share in that way in the wonderful rate of growth about which they are always boasting, it is his affair and not mine. But I and every one on this side of the House believe that all members of the population are entitled to look forward to ever-improving standards of living, which means that they will be able to buy more goods, live better and still save something. What can the people budget for under this Government? They can in fact budget for rising wages and salaries, which, what is more, will buy less and less and will cause the value of the little bit they are still able to save to be worth less and less in those times when they will really need it. I think nothing has revealed the Government’s heart more clearly than the provocative remark the Minister of Economic Affairs snarled at me. I, he alleged highly indignant, had said that we should create more employment opportunities, and I allegedly said this after I had been complaining about the very labour shortage that existed. Let us now get the facts straight once and for all. In the first place, there is a labour shortage, and that labour shortage is purely the result of the restrictive policy of this Government. In the second place, there is the fact that there are millions of people in South Africa who are unemployed or under-productive, poor people who are in desperate need of employment. In the third place, if we utilize that labour with wisdom, initiative and drive, we shall have a country capable of providing prosperity and strength and security and satisfaction to all its people. In the long run the most important struggle will be between the haves and the have nots. This will be the struggle which will determine the destiny of nations and people. I do not have the slightest doubt about this. But the vision of creating more employment opportunities so as to enhance the economic security of all of us, does not form part of the political equipment of this Cabinet. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, what does he say? One may just as well say that one is trying to fly higher than one’s wings can carry one. I agree wholeheartedly, Sir. The Government is incapable of flying any higher, because their policy has clipped their wings. I think I should like to write a new motto for them for the consideration of their new publicity officer, i.e. “Fly Nat and fly low”. For you see, Sir, they taught the people to spend for prosperity and then again to save for prosperity, and now it is, “Vote Nat for Adversity”. This is the choice before the people. Under the policy of this Government our growth has to be restricted, and I accept their arguments without hesitation. As long as they remain in power and their policy dominates South Africa, we shall be obliged to spend less and we shall have to be satisfied with higher taxes and rising prices. If we are to accept that nothing can be done about the labour shortage, how much the greater is the responsibility of this Government and how much the more is their guilt? For is it not this Government that put an end to immigration in the late forties because of their narrow-mindedness? They did so with a reckless disregard for the consequences, a permanent feature of this Government when one has regard to what is happening to the fishing industry at present. I should have thought that it was one of the primary tasks of a government today to keep a watchful eye on the increases in salaries and wages in relation to the increases in productivity. The Minister admits that there has in fact been a decrease in productivity at a certain stage, because of an increased demand for labour. If a labour shortage gives rise to disproportionate salary and wage increases, then the time has arrived for the Government to reconsider its restrictive policy. But what has the Government done? It has done nothing, Sir. They are now trying to hide behind the argument that there was a shortage of capital, particularly in those years when we had a more rapid rate of growth, which was impeded by artificially created labour shortages. Sir, there is no shortage of capital. As a witness to this, I bring Mr. Dickman, the financial adviser to Union Acceptances. The following is what he told the annual congress of the Association of Chambers of Commerce—

I emphasize the words “despite the relatively greater availability of money”. You see, Mr. Speaker, the labour policy holds the key to the solution of South Africa’s economic problems. I think this is an irrefutable and indisputable fact, but today we find ourselves in the tragic situation that the Government’s labour policy, which at the time they launched with all the fervour of their racist labour enthusiasm, has run into a stone wall. The impact knocked them over completely. No-one knew in what direction he had to go. Eventually some of them realized that the provision of employment to greater numbers of non-Whites was absolutely inevitable. Now, however, we have the pathetic picture of the Minister of Planning, who says that he wants to employ more Coloureds in the motorcar industry, but that the trade unions do not want to allow that. You know, Sir, history is a hard and a merciless taskmaster. It is that racist indoctrination on which the Nationalist Party has fattened itself which is creating the problems with which this Government and this Minister are faced today.

What other complaints are there? The Minister of Economic Affairs complained that I should like to have an unrestricted influx of unskilled Bantu. That, of course, is not true, Sir. At one time we thought we knew what the Nationalist Party’s policy was, i.e. the reservation of specific jobs for Whites and a prohibition on the employment of Bantu in certain spheres. Of course, the emphasis was on “restriction”, that is true, but the facts we definitely mentioned year after year as well as during the debate this week, proved beyond any doubt that the attempts of the Government to give content to this policy had failed altogether. In spite of that policy, the number of Bantu employed in the manufacturing industry has increased tremendously.

The policy of my party is available to all who want to read and study it. In short, it means the provision of labour which will be adequate to meet the demands of a growing economy, which will definitely result in the use of more non-White labour and in more productive work, but the policy also makes it clear beyond any doubt that no White person will suffer because of the steps we shall take. All race groups, White and non-White, from whose ranks our labour is drawn, must be assured of an improvement in their present standard of living. To me the policy of this Government seems to be aimed at the exact opposite. On paper they are restricting the influx of Bantu labour to the White industrial areas, but the truth is that that influx is continuing at an unprecedented rate. For the situation which arises because of this influx, they have no plan or policy. For many years and to this day they have been ridiculing that well-established and tested weapon, i.e. “the rate for the job”. If the hon. the Minister of Transport will cast his mind back, he will remember that he virtually rejected this old weapon in the forties. The trade unions did not agree with him, but as far as he was concerned, they could go to the devil. And now that the Government has to cope with this gigantic problem of the urban and urbanized Bantu, it has only one solution. This is the solution which was explained to us by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. He told us that because of the continued influx of Bantu labour, the Government had decided to move industries to the border areas. What kind of solution is that? The Government is jumping from the frying pan into the fire. It is not solving one single problem by moving these industries.

It is only countries with decentralization …

Instead of one, they are creating a thousand. This is not decentralization for economic reasons. This is decentralization for ideological reasons, and the hon. the Minister knows this.

Now, what are the facts? Firstly, the border areas are still White areas. Secondly, whereas four Bantu were employed for every White person before the industries were moved, approximately ten Bantu are employed for every White person in the border areas. Thirdly, these ten Bantu will now do more and more work previously done by Whites in those areas. Fourthly, those ten Bantu are now working for a fraction of the wages of the Whites whose work they are doing in those areas. This state of affairs has arisen without proper consultation with the trade unions, the watchdog of the worker, and without any advance planning as regards the pattern this development was to take. I have said and explained enough about the risks this policy holds for the White worker. Therefore, the truth is that White manpower is the victim of the Government’s ideological obsessions. Like sensible people, the Whites are not simply opposed to change as such. What they object to, is uncontrolled change which can lead to confusion and uncertainty.

The Trade Union Council of South Africa recently made certain proposals to the Planning Council of the hon. the Prime Minister. The central theme of their proposals was concern about the confusion and uncertainty caused by the official labour policy. That is the labour policy of this Government, which is powerless to control the present influx of non-White labour to our industries and which is creating conditions rendering the position of the worker uncertain and causing him to fear for his future.

Now I want to refer to certain comments made by the hon. the Minister of Planning, who does not believe that increased production can combat inflation. His example as regards the increase in the production of goods and services as an answer—I quote what the hon. the Minister said—is virtually “unjustifiably lighthearted”. In a serious situation it puzzles me what particular economic principles he wanted to illustrate. The hon. the Minister said the position was the same as that of a husband and a wife, where the husband earned R300 per month and the wife spent the entire R300 while one or two accounts remained outstanding. This man studied further and obtained a degree. Through very hard work he eventually earned R600 per month. Despite that the wife still spent that R600 per month and accounts were still outstanding at large fashionable stores. What exactly does this example prove as regards the basic problem of how to produce goods and services more effectively and on a larger scale? A society which does not have a hope of doing this and which does not at least have this idea as the underlying idea and main objective of its economy, may as well throw in the towel. What the comparison drawn by the hon. the Minister does illustrate, is something else. It is something which comes very near to precisely what has been happening under the present Government. It is a case of a person who earns R300 per month in a certain year, R600 a few years later and still has to spend the full amount of R600 in order to keep his head above water. This is what he was illustrating.

Mr. Speaker, what we are objecting to, is, now that restriction has become necessary because of the Government’s policy, that the Government is imposing that restriction without its putting into operation at the same time, as a matter of urgency, a plan of action for combatting by these means further inflation in the future. Surely, the restrictions must have a purpose. They should not merely erase symptoms, but must be followed by steps to remove the root causes of inflation. One of the fundamental causes of inflation is that too much money is chasing too few goods. Another cause is that too few people are filling too many positions in order to provide the required goods and services. Both causes hold good for South Africa. Unless the South African businessman is sure that these restrictions are no more than short-term steps being taken while the Government is engaged in overhauling the economic machine for the next climb up the hill of growth, the effect of these steps will be virtually destructive. I have no expectation whatsoever that the action taken by this Government is properly focused and that its short-term bungling will be replaced by long-term planning. Unless the Government creates the right climate for higher production and until such time as it devotes its attention to the fundamental principles of growth, this country has one prospect only, and that is one economic pitfall after the other and a South African economy which in the near future, judged by world standards, will look like a Tin Lizzie in the Kyalami motor-car races.

†The accusation of the other side has been that there is no wasteful expenditure by this Government. One can have a long session of ridicule against the Government on this score quoting one example of wasteful expenditure after another. One could tell of ministerial trips overseas so extravagant that they left this House breathless when they were exposed. There is the story of the bridge that the Railways built at Bethulie without checking up whether it would be under water as the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam was built. I believe that that piece of administrative genius cost the country about R2 million. Then there is the Agliotti affair, where R5 million too much was paid for a piece of land and they might have lost all of it, had it not been for the vigilance of the Press. One could ask how much manpower and money it cost to open 3½ million letters to look for lottery tickets. One could ask how much of the R400,000 spent annually on commissions, is money well spent when one knows that the Press Commission sat for 13 years and produced a dead duck. I could refer to the many hundreds of thousands of rand spent on elaborate homes for the commissioners of the Bantustans. One could talk of the millions of rand spent on rehousing people and pushing them around, when they already had accommodation but not in the right places.

Like where?

Like the hon. Minister is finding in the Peninsula at the moment, where he is having to give up half his allocation in order to rehouse people in that valley.

Do you want the Coloureds to stay in District Six?

I think it is much more important to house everybody well, than to push people about from one area to another. All the hon. Minister wants to do is draw another red herring. He knows very well indeed that he is having to move nearly half a million people under the Group Areas Act. One could examine how much is wasted in elaborate Government publications which nobody reads. There is a population register in Pretoria, established at tremendous expense, which the Government now wants to replace with a new type of register. The other is no good any more. I could turn to the Auditor-General’s report and read about new towns standing empty in the Bantu areas or I could quote revelations about expensive machinery rusting away in those territories.

The list is endless and I have not even referred to the Transvaal Provincial Council yet and what is happening over there or to the many duplications which there are. I do not think it is right that one’s criticism of wasteful expenditure should be limited to particular examples, no matter how much they abound. I think one’s criticism is directed to the fact that under this Government the very process and spirit of government is wasteful. We have now debated for days how this Government is wasteful of our human resources because it will not use the manpower we have to produce the wealth we can have. Almost everything this Government does is intended to curb and to restrict the enterprise of our people. One thinks about this Physical Planning Act and about the manner in which influx control is administered, keeping half a million persons in prison for offences under the pass laws. These can be gainfully occupied elsewhere, instead of being a burden on the State’s shoulders.

Our cities are strangled, our platteland is neglected, the border areas have developed patchily and without future regard to the Bantu of these Bantustans. The entrepreneurs, the housewives, the citizens —all of them are enmeshed in a legislative red tape of ideological interference into other people’s lives. Hon. members do not have to ask me where this Government wastes money. I believe this Government is a waste of South Africa’s precious time and a waste of South Africa’s wonderful opportunities. While it lasts, South Africa is held back and the people’s progress is retarded. Only when it goes, South Africa will be taken off the lead. This Government is always looking for trouble. It wants to know from us how we will negotiate with the trade unions to get them to agree to change the labour pattern. They seem to regard this as well-nigh an insuperable problem. I believe it must be from their point of view, because they approach the question negatively, ridden with prejudice, facing the needless fears that their own propaganda has created for them. With every concession they ask for from the White worker, they ask knowing that their asking is a denial and a negation of their own bigoted attitude and their own policy. We would depart from entirely different premises in these negotiations—something which no dyed-in-the-wool Nationalist could understand or appreciate.

We would approach the problem in the spirit of high adventure, as a grand challenge to Government and people in South Africa to scale new heights of achievement. When we negotiate with trade unions, we will not ask them to do things that we ourselves fear and distrust. We shall approach them with confidence, knowing that what we ask is right and just and necessary in the interest of all concerned, especially the members of the trade unions concerned. In these negotiations I am satisfied we shall have certain built-in advantages which are not available to the present Government because its outlook is wrong. There is an example that we South Africans have of the advantages of calm and intelligent negotiation, collective bargaining, under the Industrial Concilliation Act which the wisdom of Gen. Smuts gave to South Africa in the past.

Our industrial leaders, from the employers and from the workers, know and understand the working of this great charter of free negotiations. Our permanent administrators in the departments concerned are highly experienced and understanding in dealing with just these things. I believe that in a new spirit of positive achievement, instead of the negative restrictive thinking of this Government, their skill and their experience will have a scope they are not permitted today. There is another example of the willingness of intelligent workers and the leaders of their organizations to co-operate in this changing labour pattern. That is the example I have already given, namely the offer made by the Trade Union Council of South Africa to the Prime Minister’s Advisory Council for a bold plan for creating machinery at a national level for the smooth working of this new phase of collective bargaining. The plan goes further. It shows how this national organization can be supported at the level of the industrial councils in particular industries and in particular undertakings. I believe, with the understanding and the co-operation of trade unions at that time, changes in our labour pattern could be brought about in many spheres of South Africa’s industrial life. I believe workers would then see in practice how the White workers’ interests can be protected and furthered by such changes. They will note how great the progress in such industries and such undertakings could be. I believe they will bring pressure to bear on their trade union leaders and their political leaders to let them share in the advantages which the new South Africa could bring to its people. I know my friends opposite have difficulty in sharing this vision with us, but their blindness will not deter us. We will encourage the people to make use of the resources providence has granted our country and which I believe can lead South Africa into the greatness which her people can earn for her.

Now, how do we see the future as opposed to the way in which this Government is seeing it? I believe this Government has been in power too long. I believe its period has covered and closed an epoch. Its purpose has been served. It seems to me it is now fumbling along enmeshed in the toils of policies that cannot in any respect match the brilliance of the future that should be available to South Africa. We on this side of the House would like to take a fresh look at South Africa, to take a fresh look at its water resources, its mineral wealth, its agricultural potential and its productive capacity. We wish to ask ourselves how should we plan to put all this to work with the only purpose for which we have it in our care, namely the wellbeing of all the people who inhabit this country. We accept quite unabashed the accusation of the hon. the Minister of Planning that our ideal is a high level of economic growth. It is, because I believe one can teach the virtues of a civilized and moral life far easier to people who have a full stomach and a decent house to live in and decent clothes to wear, than one can to the poor people whose entire attention is taken up with getting enough food to eat and getting enough clothes to keep the cold out in winter. I believe that a rich South Africa could afford far, far better to provide fair and decent amenities for all our race groups and to provide just race policies for all our people than could a poor South Africa. Therefore I have no hesitation in saying, although the hon. the Prime Minister will accuse me of cynical materialism, that when we look at the map of South Africa, we put its economic wealth in the forefront of our aims.

Let us also take a fresh look at the White people of South Africa, because we want to see them secure and once more sure of their purpose and firmly set on a course to ensure the very best use being made of their undeniable talents for leadership and their ability to take advantage of greater opportunities. What possible fears can South Africans have of this policy of ours when job opportunities will probably expand faster than the numbers of the people will multiply? I think we would also like to take another look at the Coloured people. We would like to see the end to the alienation of the Coloured people. We would like to see the squalor in which many of the Coloured people live today, tackled in the same way that the poor white problem was tackled nearly 40 years ago by economic upliftment, better education and better living standards.

I believe we should take a fresh look at the Bantu people of this country, viewing them less as a problem and more as the great asset they undoubtedly are for the economy of South Africa. We will look to the needs of the Bantu as well, their very basic needs in the urban areas where they live and work. In fulfilling their needs, I believe, we will be fulfilling our basic needs as well, the need for security and peace of mind for the White population. I have no doubt that the greatest sociological problem in South Africa today is the problem of the urban Bantu. They will never, not even under the restrictive policies of this Government, disappear from our urban areas. But under these restrictive policies there is a danger that he can become not a powder keg, but an atomic bomb which no party will be able to handle. I believe that that situation has to be stopped immediately. We are agreed on the principle of the development of the homelands even if we are not agreed about their political future, but when it comes to the treatment of the urban Bantu we on this side of the House and those on the Government side are poles apart. We believe in first things first. We believe we have to accept the urban Bantu as something permanent, permanent residents in their own separate residential areas, with their own schools and their own adequate social amenities. We say that he must be given back his self-respect and recreate the trust he had for the White man in the past; he must be given the comfort and security of a decent standard of living, a safe and secure home and the dignity of undisturbed family life. Is it possible that in this day and age we should be pleading for those things for people who are citizens of our country?

We on this side of the House accept—I should go further and say we demand— that greater and better use should be made of all our labour in South Africa, also of our non-White labour. This will lead to more Bantu in our factories and in our places of work of many descriptions, but under our policy it will mean something different from what it means under the policy of the Government. It will mean that they are not there illegally and not there under the lap, insidiously and dangerously undermining the firm and orderly control of the trade unions, employers’ unions and Government agencies that should have control over labour in this country. Under our policy they will be employed in industry openly; their presence will be open to proper trade union scrutiny. Their rate of increase, their training and their contributions will be properly planned and controlled to meet the demands of industry and the country’s greater growth. Our policy also makes provision for the study of labour problems and requirements at national level, for authoritative opinion and advice to reach the proper quarters and consultation at all levels. Our policy demands that the interests of the White worker be safeguarded and that his voice be heard at all times. We feel confident, with the tremendous benefits that can accrue to South Africa and to them with the adjustment of this new labour pattern, that we shall get their help and their support. We are adamant, however, that there should not be bulldozing tactics and that agreement and consent should commence at the shop-floor level.

As I have said, our aim is maximum economic growth which we believe is essential for racial peace and harmony. What we would like to know at the present time, for example, is this: While the consumer’s spending power is being restricted and monetary restraints applied, are there people behind doors planning for South Africa’s next big leap forward, who are planning not within the confines of the Government’s restrictive race policies but who are looking at the map of South Africa as the United Party looks at it with its yet untapped sources of natural wealth ready to work for the welfare of South Africa when our country’s dynamo of manpower has been unleashed to work for the country as well. I believe it is only when we can think with some clarity along those terms that we can see the real future potential of South Africa. With the manpower available to us we should be able to set about improving the infrastructure that exists today, building the railways, the ports, the roads, the power lines and the communications that are essential for a greater rate of growth in this country.

I have little fear that capital will be a problem. Under the right policy South Africa is one of the most attractive areas of investment for capital anywhere in the world. I believe that if hon. members opposite have doubts as to the availability of capital, it is only because they foresee difficulties that their policies are making for South Africa. Once you have the right climate the king pin in the economy becomes the private investor. What he needs most at the moment is confidence. Here I want to repeat what the hon. member for Parktown said.

He said:

I want to challenge the Minister of Economic Affairs. Let him stand before any group of businessmen in this country and ask them whether they are confident that this Government is getting on top of its problems. Are they confident that we are ready at the starters’ post for the next big leap forward in our growth and our economy? Are they confident that we can earn really big money by the export of our tremendous mineral wealth, and are we competent to exploit that potential? Are they confident that the Government and this Cabinet really know what the future of South Africa is going to be and are confident about it? I will tell you what the answer will be before any group of intelligent businessmen in South Africa. I will tell you what the answer of the country will be as well. It is going to a very, very loud shout of “No!”. It is going to be one unanimous, concerted shout. That is one of the main reasons for our motion of no confidence in this Government. It is that their restrictive policies, their fumbling and indecisive leadership have damaged the economy and undermined confidence in the future.

Inflation, with its concomitant high costs and heavy burdens upon the people, have become endemic under this Government. We run the risk that the rate of inflation may outpace the rate of growth, with disastrous results for South Africa. There is only one cure, I believe, Sir, and that is to do as I ask and get rid of this Government.

Motion put and the House divided:

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and A. Hopewell.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Motion accordingly negatived.