Mr. Speaker, in the main I should like to deal with the speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. But before I do so I should like to touch on a few financial aspects. In this debate we have made out a case against the Government of massive mismanagement of the economy. We have shown, I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is the stranglehold of Government policies on the throat of our economy which is the prime cause of our grave difficulties at the present time. We have shown, I think, with the use of the figures of the Reserve Bank itself for September last year, that among 12 countries in Europe and America we have had the slowest rise in the standard of living of our population as a whole over the last decade. The hon. the Minister attempted to reply to this by saying that this was because the 1960 census figures were wrong. Mr. Speaker, this is a novel answer. In fact one finds that the figures upon which this statement was based appear to deal with the period 1958-’68. They come from a United Nations source, the Year-book of National Accounts Statistics, which is quoted by our Reserve Bank, and there is no reason at this stage to think that they were fully aware of our 1970 statistics, which have come out so recently. So we have the position that our economy and the standard of living of our people has been growing at an entirely unsatisfactory rate.

The hon. the Prime Minister, with commendable concern, has repeatedly stated that the thing which gives him sleepless nights is the possibility of unemployment among non-Whites. I am glad that he expresses that sentiment. The Government goes a long way to conceal from the public of South Africa what the true position is in regard to the non-employment of the Bantu people. Reference has been made to this during this debate, but bearing in mind that the hon. the Prime Minister will doubtless deal with this whole question of finance, I think it is important that he should know the extent to which his sleep may soon be troubled. Where is the evidence about our lack of full employment? It is certainly not in official statistics, which are completely silent. We do not keep statistics of unemployment amongst the Bantu people. The first source of evidence comes from the statistics of prosecutions for pass offences under this Government. In the year 1968-’69 there were 630 000 prosecutions for pass offences. This is a staggering number and they are mostly in respect of people in the urban areas without the necessary permission. Why are they there, Sir? They are there because they are driven there from wherever else they may have been in order to seek employment where there is employment offering.

What is the second source of evidence in this regard? Let us take the view of a much respected statistician, Professor Sadie. Professor Sadie has made it clear that a vast number of our people cannot be accounted for in the fields of employment. He has not said that they are all unemployed, but he has said that 1 294 000 out of a total of approximately 7 million Bantu could not be accounted for as being specifically attached to one or other industry. This is a staggering figure. We are told that in the latest census we are still not going to get accurate figures in regard to these people. But I submit, on the strength of the evidence I have advanced alone, that there is a staggering degree of unemployment and under-employment among our Bantu peoples, and that we are entitled to an answer from the hon. the Prime Minister on that point.

Sir, I want to move now to some of the statements which the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration made in his speech yesterday. The hon. the Deputy Minister, trying to make very little of the changes in Government policy which he announced, said that these changes were “die logiese uitvloeisel van die Regering se beleid vir die stedelike Bantoe”. He said that more changes would be announced. We welcome these changes and we hope that there are other changes in line with United Party policy which are still to come. [Interjections.] If these changes are such a logical result of the logical Nationalist Party policy, why is it that we have had to wait for 23 years to obtain them? Why is it that the Government, most of whose members are loyal supporters of one of our leading churches in South Africa—a church whose views on family life can be taken for granted—should wait 23 years to make it possible for a large number of married people to live together? I say the answer is that it has been a cardinal point in Nationalist policy, notwithstanding the fundamental needs of people, that this should not occur.

Now you are being sanctimonious. What are you still doing with the mining magnates?

Why did you not listen to us in the first place?

I say therefore that this change, designed to attract so little attention, in fact represents the abandonment of one of the pillars of Nationalist Bantu policy. One can almost say that it is a corner-stone. In the light of this change which has been announced, all the high hopes built by the Nationalists as to the trend with regard to the numbers of Blacks in the so-called White areas, become quite out of date. These high hopes that the trend will turn in 1978 and the even higher hope expressed by the late Dr. Verwoerd himself for the end of the century, become completely out of date. These projections were made on the basis of the maintenance of this corner-stone in their policy, a corner-stone which has now been abandoned.

Sir, we are grateful that this improvement has been effected. We have said all along that these people are here and that they are here permanently. The Government have attempted to maintain throughout that these people are not here permanently. This change in policy is in effect an admission that they are here permanently.

Sir, this raises various questions with which I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will take an opportunity of dealing. After all, our relations with the non-White peoples and in particular with the Bantu peoples constitute the greatest question in South African politics today. What better occasion can one find, in the light of the changes newly announced, than this debate for the hon. the Prime Minister to let us have a grand picture of what is left of the design of the Nationalist Party? I hope that he and others will tell us what their attitude now is to the question of numbers of Bantu in the White areas. At one time it was considered essential that we should be equal in numbers at the end of the century for the White man to be secure. One can have one’s own opinion in that regard, but what is the new attitude in the light of these changes? We would like to know from him what the implications are of these changes in their Bantustan policy as a whole, as he sees them. It is sometimes said by hon. members opposite that we should support this policy. Sir, as long as we continue to propound ours, in time the Nationalists will manage to take over almost every point of it. We should want to know from them, too, what need there is to proceed with sovereign independence when it has been clearly shown beyond any shadow of doubt that we are so intertwined and placed here by Providence that it is a complete waste of time.

Sir, the Government are doubtless still pinning their hopes on the “volksverband” of the Bantu. We have had various speeches from hon. members opposite on this point. It appears to be their belief that because a Zulu remains a Zulu although he is living in Johannesburg, he does not want to have justice and right done to him where he may be living. I believe that that is a complete delusion. The hon. the Minister is clearly pinning his hopes on this. He has told us in a speech in this House that he is doing his best in all sorts of ways to maintain the liaison of these people with their homelands and their own people so as to give the man a feeling of being a human being within his national context. Sir, it is empty words of this kind that a significant organ of the Nationalist movement described as so many empty words. Equally, Sir, this language certainly does not get past us and it convinces fewer and fewer people.

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the hon. the Minister and hon. members opposite that time is ticking away and that they are wasting good time for South Africa. Dr. Rhoodie, who I have always understood is a supporter of the Government party, has said that the urban Native has no interest in his homeland. He does not look to his homeland with any degree of interest. We know that the survey by Dr. Worrall, who is friendly towards the party opposite, speaks of the lack of goodwill between the urban Bantu and the other population groups. We have seen the statement in Rapport by Dr. Nkomo that the Bantu people are becoming impatient. We were told in a speech by Chief Buthelezi that he was surprised at the hatred for the White people among the urban Bantu. I quote—

This was about the middle of July, 1971. Mr. Speaker, it is hardly surprising that race relations are not improving when the stated aim of Nationalist Party policy is to deny to these urban Bantu the right of citizenship. Let me quote the precise words of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration—

Those were his very words in September last year. They are deprived of citizenship rights, of civic rights. Sir, if this is the attitude of the party opposite, can they wonder that ill-will builds up? We are glad, therefore, that this alleviation was announced yesterday. But we must remember that those houses still have to be built before any alleviation will be felt in fact. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that this right would be enjoyed provided houses were available. We know what a sorry state of affairs we have today with regard to housing under this Government. Approximately 150 000 Bantu people in the cities of Durban and Johannesburg alone are without housing. In Durban and Johannesburg alone approximately 150 000 are waiting for houses. In Durban city centre there is a shortage of 5 900 for Bantu families, and there is a shortage of 31 000 beds in hostels. In Johannesburg the Municipality estimates that there is a shortage of 13 000 houses for Bantu families, and there are 22 000 men and 2 400 women waiting for hostel accommodation.

Sir, we are told that two great principles still remain in Nationalist Party policy, namely that there will be no ownership rights for the urban Bantu in their residential areas, and no political rights either. I want to predict that there are many good Nationalists sitting here today and outside who will yet abandon their opposition to these two points. Dealing first with the question of political rights, I want to remind them what a very important person in a very important position has said in this regard on a very solemn occasion. I refer to a report in Die Burger in September, 1965. When ds. Gericke gave evidence in the South-West Africa case, he was asked various questions and, amongst other things, he said this—

I have already explained to the House that the significance of this announcement is a permanency for the urban Bantu people.

In regard to the right of ownership, can anybody refute the arguments advanced by Dr. Nkomo in Rapport upon the benefits of the right of ownership for the Bantu people? These areas are covered by houses for the Bantu people and many more will come. The advantages of having, in certain cases, home ownership are simply enormous. Sir, all this emphasis on the “volksverband” and this liaison will not count against the need to do justice to these people where they have their being and where they work, and all this emphasis upon it simply has the effect of converting them into Black nationalists and Black jingos. I want to say that this is a further reason why this party could never encourage the movement to sovereign independence—because it fosters this very Black Nationalism. It destroys the very spirit which peoples placed in one country by Providence together must bring to their affairs so that they may resolve them in harmony. This emphasis upon Nationalism, and extreme Nationalism, is calculated to destroy that very spirit which is needed so that we may resolve our problems in peace and harmony.

Completely behind the times.

In conclusion I say that the Nationalist Party and its policies in regard to the Bantu are in full retreat, on every front. On one point after another they have had to abandon their policies and take over the direction of the United Party. They have done it now again, and it is not for no reason that this is happening. It is because our assessments of the South African realities are being proved every day to be the right ones and their assessments of and hopes for the South African position every day are being proved to be the wrong ones. I say that the announcement of yesterday amounts to the abandonment not of a small, strong position in the Nationalist line of the Bantustan policy; it amounts to the abandonment of a very fortress in that position. It will have far-reaching implications for them and for South Africa. It would be best for South Africa if they made way for us now. I fear that like others in history, they will struggle on and that they will do further harm before they are sent by the voters to where they belong. Sir, we have a plan for a great future for all the people and communities in South Africa. I have not the slightest doubt that South Africa will turn to us to give it that future.

Mr. Speaker, it is sometimes customary for hon. members to say that a specific speech is the worst speech they have ever heard from an hon. member on the opposite side. This happens on both sides of this House. Hon. members must please accept that I am being completely sincere, and also completely sympathetic towards him, when I say that the speech made by the hon. member for Pinelands—I have probably heard all the speeches he has made —was the very worst he has ever made. [Interjections.] It was very poor because he kept on floundering about among a lot of points and was unable to present them cohesively. His speech was entirely ineffective because he made the completely ridiculous statement towards the end that the governing party has by now abandoned the policy of the National Party.

They abandoned it a long time ago.

The United Party need not think that we will abandon one single component of our policy. We develop our policy dynamically into the future, basing it logically on its preceding stages to further stages and every single statement made here yesterday afternoon, must be seen in that light. [Interjections.] I shall return to those points the hon. member raised in a moment during the course of my speech.

I do not know why the hon. member wants this party to “make way for them”.

The hon. member has just finished explaining why!

Any political party which has the ability to govern a country, shoves its rival out of the way; it does not ask its opponents to make way for it! That is what we did in 1948. We did not stay away from by-elections; we fought them. [Interjections.] But it was not only the hon. member for Pinelands who cut a poor figure here; the same applies to the hon. member for Transkei, who had to rush into the debate here yesterday evening, and all he could muster was the old United Party pamphlet of 1963, from which he quoted. It is the same old pamphlet from which the hon. member for Yeoville quoted in his newspaper article when he had to correct himself afterwards by means of a letter to the same newspaper. [Interjections.] Yes, I have it here. Here is the letter. It was announced very aptly by the Star: “Marais Steyn explains his error.” [Interjections.] I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you should not allow the hon. member for Transkei “also to explain his error of last night”. I think he needs the opportunity. Now we have to come here and listen to such people. The hon. member for Transkei, the top man on the opposite side in the sphere of Bantu affairs, should have made a better speech than that. He should have left that speech to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District—it was of the standard he sets. [Laughter.]

Order!

We are still waiting…

We are still waiting for the hon. the Minister’s speech.

We are still waiting for someone on the opposite side to reply to the very effective speech made yesterday afternoon by my friend the hon. member for Langlaagte. Twenty-four hours have gone by, but no light has yet been shed on that darkness of theirs. I want to contribute a further building-block to the quotations made by the hon. member for Langlaagte yesterday afternoon. As you know, he referred inter alia to the so-called, the famous bombshell speech of the hon. member for Yeoville, which was announced as such in the Star last year. A flood of comment on this was unleashed, particularly in the English newspapers— with the Sunday Times in the forefront. Here is an extract from the Sunday Times in which these matters were referred to.

Nero also fiddled while Rome burned.

First they quoted from that same 1963 document I have just mentioned. They said of that 1963 document and again later, even on the occasion of the 1966 election, that the U.P. had stated their standpoint as “nine solemn pledges”. The newspaper report then quoted the following solemn pledge, as the United Party had called it in 1966—the “White leadership” and all that. Then, in 1971, we had this “bombshell” of Mr. Marais Steyn and the Sunday Times concluded with the following paragraph, which I should now like to quote for the entertainment of certain members. I am afraid it will prove an embarrassment to the hon. member on the opposite side.

The hon. member for Langlaagte read it better than the hon. the Minister.

This man wrote as follows in the Sunday Times—

Yes, that is what all of us would also like to know and I hope we will still hear the answer from the opposite side. [Interjections.]

In this debate the question of the Bantu in the White area has been discussed, and I want to confine myself to that. I shall do so for the umpteenth time in this House, and I am sorry that I do not really have any brand new point to mention to the hon. members. [Interjections.] If there is one subject in regard to which the oldest point is of the greatest importance to the Opposition party, then it is this one. In fact, I want to return this afternoon to the grass-roots, the fundamental principles and statements of this Party’s policy in respect of the Bantu in the White areas. I think it is very necessary that this should be done, for the Opposition proves every day the truth of the old winged words: “Because they lack knowledge my people perish.” With them it is the case that their party is perishing because of a lack of political knowledge. Yesterday the hon. member for Zululand spoke about the immoral policy of our party, immoral because we do not want to give the Bantu representation in Parliament. There is not a grain of immorality in the fact that we do not want to give them representation in our Parliament. We say that this Parliament is the Parliament of the Whites and we are establishing one Parliament after another for the Bantu peoples in which they can enjoy full suffrage. The hon. member does not seem to realize that it is the highest degree of immorality when people who outnumber the Whites five to one have to be represented in this Parliament by one-twentieth of the number of White representatives. That is immorality which cries to high heaven; that is the lack of knowledge.

I should like to deal with a few very fundamental statements. Actually, there are six fundamental principles which the hon. members must bear in mind before they can understand our policy in respect of the Bantu in the White areas.

We understand it very well.

I shall first enumerate these six principles for the hon. members and I shall subsequently deal with them one by one if time permits. The first and most fundamental point of policy is—and the hon. member for Pinelands can heap scorn on this until his hair turns grey, but it will remain a fact—that every Bantu person in South Africa, wherever he may find himself, is a member of his specific nation and not of the nation of which the hon. member and I are members.

He is a citizen here.

That is the first policy point and I shall return to it later. The second is also of the utmost importance. The Bantu in the White area, whether they were born here or whether they were allowed to come here under our control laws, are here for the labour they are being allowed to perform. The third principle I want to put to the hon. members is that the fundamental citizenship rights may only be enjoyed by a Bantu person within his own ethnic context, attached to his own homeland and not to mine.

The fourth policy point I want to mention to the hon. member is that the maximum number of people must be present in their own homeland and the minimum number in another’s. This is a very fundamental principle which is found throughout the world; it forms the basis of our policy as well.

The fifth point I want to mention is that the Bantu persons who are in White South Africa, are treated here by us as homogeneous communities. The last principle is that in so far as the Bantu are secondarily present in White areas, we see to it in every possible respect that the necessary liaison exists between them and their peoples in their own homelands. Those are the six fundamental principles.

In regard to the first principle I want to say that every Native in South Africa is a member of his specific nation and not of the White nation. Actually, I prefer to call this our policy of multi-national development, because it indicates that there is development for every nation, linked to the homeland of that nation and to the future which that nation ought to have. This is the most significant aspect. Whether a Xhosa man was born in Cape Town or whether he was born in Nylstroom, and whether he lives there subject to influx control, he is a Xhosa who belongs either to the Xhosa nation of the Ciskei or the Xhosa of the Transkei. The same applies to the Sotho, the Venda or anyone else for that matter. His national character, his traditions, his language and his distinguishing features typify him as a member of that specific nation. The hon. member for Pinelands can stop any Xhosa man who was born in Cape Town and ask him what he is, and that same man will reply very clearly that he is a Xhosa and not that he may perhaps be a Venda or a North Sotho. Hon. members opposite sometimes exploit the ignorant confusion which exists between two concepts which we must distinguish clearly from one another, i.e. tribal affiliations and national affiliations. The fact of the matter is that historically the Bantu in South Africa, in the first place, were people with tribal affiliations, i.e. with affiliations to a specific chief in his tribal area, with his tribal councils. But tribal affiliations are not the only ties; they are no longer even the strongest ties among all Bantu in South Africa. National affiliations are the predominant affiliations of every Bantu person in South Africa. That is why one may perhaps find that Sotho or Venda or Xhosa here in Cape Town may not even know who their chiefs are to whom they historically owe allegiance. But that same Bantu will tell you to what nation they belong, because they speak the language of that nation and give expression to the traditions of that nation. Perhaps they still adhere to the lobola systems of that nation, and still slaughter goats here in Langa on certain occasions when it is necessary for their ceremonies. Those are the things hon. members opposite do not understand. I want them to grasp this. In this connection I just want to quote again—I can quote it 20 times if need be—what a person like Lucas Mangobe, Chief Lucas Mangobe, the leader of the Tswana people said to me last year in May. He said to me “that the Tswanas of Atteridgeville and the Tswanas of Soweto form one nation with the people from the homeland and that it would be ensured that they accepted it in this way”. (Interjections.] This rowdy young member in the front here must also listen now. Chief Mangobe went on to say—

But that is what the United Party wants to make of them. The citizenship of the Natives in terms of the Citizenship Act, which provides that they are citizens of their specific nation in the specific Bantu homeland, is of fundamental importance here, because it links the Bantu in the White area with his people there in the homeland. I am very pleased to be able to show hon. members today what the first citizenship cards look like, the distribution of which will begin within a few weeks, to all the Bantu peoples of the four provinces of the Republic. With this card he will be able to prove his membership of a certain nation. It will also allow him to exercise his voting rights. In this connection I just want to mention in passing a very great achievement of my Department, i.e. that we will succeed in due course in allowing Natives in their hundreds of thousands to vote for their own Government in South Africa with the aid of these cards without making use of a voters’ list. I am just mentioning this in passing. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite would do well to listen to me now. I listened carefully to them. Of course, this idea of every Bantu’s citizenship of his own nation the United Party rejects with scorn. We know why; it is because the United Party wants to absorb those people into the White nation. The United Party, as is shown by what the Mitchells, the hon. member for South Coast and the hon. member for Durban North, and other hon. members opposite have said, is still struggling with an idea with which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is not struggling because he learnt the lesson from us when he was still here. He learnt, in other words, that there are different nations in South Africa, the White nation, all the different Bantu nations and others as well. Hon. members opposite, yesterday afternoon it was the hon. member for Zululand, are still struggling with the idea of one citizenship in South Africa for Black and White which must reach its culminating point in this Parliament. Mr. Speaker, hon. members on the opposite side want to do precisely what, according to Mangope, they (the Tswanas) do not want, i.e. to divide the Bantu into two nations; one nation in the homeland and the other in the White area. This they want to do in order then to try to recruit the Bantu in the White area for their own purposes. What a tragic spectacle in an effort to canvass Black votes.

Why do they receive a pink card?

There is a blue one as well. Does the hon. member want to see a blue one? Does the hon. member perhaps want to see the green one too?

Mr. Speaker, the second point I mentioned is that the Bantu are present here for the sake of their labour. That labour is regulated by statute; they cannot simply accept work at random and at will; no, it is regulated properly according to statute, in the interests of the Whites as well as the Bantu. Therefore they are not here to come and take what is offered to them here in the social economic and all kinds of other spheres. That is why I have on many previous occasions said that the Bantu are here in a loose capacity, exclusively on the basis of their labour. They are not here in a permanent capacity to acquire what you and I can acquire in the sphere of labour, and the other spheres. This is not discrimination, as is so frequently said. If non-equals do not receive the same, this is differentiation between people, but if people are offered equality, as under United Party policy, while they are told that they can have only limited work opportunities and a limited number of White representatives, then that is definitely discrimination. They are being offered equality, but at the same time they are being cheated so that they do not receive every item of that equality. That is deceit and discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, the third point I mentioned is that the Bantu enjoy citizenship rights within their own ethnic context and attached to their homelands. We know that the Whites in the Bantu homeland areas are secondary and completely supplementary. In the same way the Bantu here in the White areas are supplementary and secondary. They are here only for those purposes for which labour is made available to them here. This applies in respect of land tenure, economic opportunities, the labour to which I referred a moment ago, a political voice, etc. It is on those points that the basic difference between the United Party and us is such a great one. That is why the United Party must not make the mistake of wanting to measure our policy in terms of their integrationistic approach. We do not measure their policy in terms of our approach. We measure their policy in terms of their own approach. We ask: What will happen if you begin here with eight Bantu or eight Whites. We say that those eight Whites, as they have themselves admitted, will in due course become Bantu. We also know that they will in due course be in the majority. We are therefore speaking in terms of their policy. They must do the same.

I must get a move on for I am racing against time. The fourth point I want to mention is that the people want a maximum number of their own people in their own homeland and a minimum number in someone else’s homeland.

He wants to know where he is going to eat.

I am not talking about Moolmans now. That is a very natural and universal phenomenon. This is of course qualified by all kinds of circumstances, such as the possibilities existing for them there, their own abilities, the availability of means, and so on. That is the basic reason why we maintain influx control, why we control our numerical influx into the White areas. That is why we apply industrial decentralization to the border areas so that the Bantu labourers can live within their own homelands. That is why we apply decentralization of industries on an agency basis within the homelands. There are many benefits attached to this numerical control; firstly the Bantu can be available to their own homelands for the development there; squatting and slum conditions can be avoided and eliminated; wages will not be lowered as a result of an over-abundance of Bantu streaming in as workers. Such an over-abundance causes an over-supply, unemployment and all kinds of attendant evils which could result in friction, and conflicts. It was very stupid logic on the part of the hon. member for Pinelands when he said yesterday that if the Bantu should be present here only for purposes of labour, we could allow them all to come. If that is done, surely all the benefits would fall away and all the drawbacks would begin to apply. The hon. member cannot produce a straight argument because his thinking is skew. This is the same kind of expedient argument as that of other hon. members on the opposite side who tell us that we should make Bantu homelands of Langa and Soweto. Statistics prove that the number of Bantu in the White areas is decreasing. In the ten years between 1960 and 1970 there was a decrease of 9 per cent, i.e. from 62,5 per cent to 53,5 per cent. This figure refers to all Bantu in White areas. If we consider only South African Bantu and leave the migrant labourers who come from other countries out of the reckoning, the figure is already, as I said last year as well, in the region of the 50 per cent mark. This means that only 50 per cent of South African Bantu are still to be found in White areas.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

No, I do not have the time to reply to a question. I also want to tell hon. members on the opposite side that no one on this side of the House, going right back to the first chief leader of the National Party, General Hertzog, has ever said that we will eventually remove all the Bantu from the White areas. This has never been said by any Prime Minister or Minister of Bantu Affairs. We have said that that is the ideal and that we are moving in that direction in order to reduce the numbers. I can quote to hon. members what no less a person than Dr. Verwoerd said. Hon. members opposite are now so fond of climbing onto his back after his death, but gave him many a slap in the face while he was still living. I can quote to them what he said in this House in 1958, 1964 and 1965. He stated emphatically …

What about 1954?

He also said this during the discussion of the Tomlinson Report. As long ago as 1950 he said that he had calculated that by the year 2000 there would be as many Whites as Bantu in the White areas. Hon. members should not suck things out of their thumbs, but would do better to read Hansard. We know what the United Party’s attitude is in regard to the numbers. It is tragic. Yesterday we heard from the hon. member for Johannesburg North again. They want us to relax influx control. We have already experienced influx control under the United Party Government, in 1946. At the time they issued 10 800 work-seekers’ permits in one month in the Pretoria area, while at the same time there were 9 200 unemployed persons in that same area. That was the United Party’s attitude at the time, and it will be the same if they should come into power again.

The fifth principle I want to mention is that the Bantu who are in fact in the White areas of South Africa are treated as homogeneous communities. That is why we allow them to live properly in urban Bantu residential areas, with their own churches, schools, hospitals and exercising their own authority, while they are able to realize their own traditions there. By doing this we have created so much order and made so many facilities available, and cleared up so much that was unsatisfactory from the old United Party regime, that it can only be attributed to the passage of time that these things are being forgotten. Do people still remember places like Windermere? That was a place here near Gape Town. Where is the old Windermere now? Do they still remember Cato Manor? Do they still remember Moroka, Lady Selborne, Sophiatown, and a host of other similar places? Do they still know about the so-called Old Location at Windhoek? That is what we have done in accordance with this principle of homogeneous communities which have to be established on an orderly basis in a White area. ([Interjection.] No, Sir, they are not going to shout me down.

Let them go and look at the new facilities which have been made available. Go and take a look at the Guguletus, the Mamelodis, the Meadowlands; go and have a look at Daveyton, Soweto, Katatura and scores of other areas which have been established on a proper basis.

Then it is an equally tremendous exaggeration on the part of hon. members on the opposite side to say that we are intruding upon and breaking up the family life of the Bantu. That is allegedly our policy. But it is not true. A survey has shown that about 70 per cent of the male workers in the factories in Johannesburg, and on the Witwatersrand, are established there on a family basis. As far as those who are single are concerned, do hon. members want to tell me that every Bantu who is able to work, should be married? There are thousands who are unmarried. After all, a Bantu does not get married immediately as soon as he is capable of working. In fact, we know that it is traditional among the Bantu, particularly in the country and homeland areas, that his tribe expects him to prove his mettle as a young man, by first going to work in the factories and in the mines. It is not traditional that they should marry immediately and go to the cities as married persons. Hon. members know too little about the way of life of these people. That is why we have to listen to all these unnecessary things.

The hon. member said that the hon. the Deputy Minister deviated from our policy yesterday. Is it not the same Deputy Minister who dealt last year with the Act here in regard to the introduction of control boards and larger control areas for Bantu labourers in South Africa? It was a direct consequence of that Act that we were able to make these new arrangements to allow Bantu women to join their husbands, because there are larger controlled areas and because the movement of the women back and forth, from the one place to the other, cancels out. Therefore there is not going to be any drastic change in the figures. Hon. members grab at straws to try to find a stick with which to beat us. However, they will achieve nothing in that way.

What does Albert say?

To Albert I say: It is a pity that he did not have all those Bantu in his backyard registered a few years ago. This point of policy we have announced in regard to Bantu women does not require a single regulation or a single section in any Act to be amended. It can be implemented within the purview of all existing measures under our policy. The cases will be dealt with according to merit as they occur.

The last point of principle I mentioned was that in so far as the Bantu are here in White South Africa on a secondary basis, it must be ensured that they have the necessary liaison with their homelands. I must deal with this in great haste. I have mentioned the national affiliation phenomenon, as well as citizenship, and the question of the franchise as one of the extremely important ties. During the next two years all the Bantu peoples in South Africa, including the Owambo, as I foresee it, will already have the franchise element in their own Parliaments so that they will by means of their franchise be able to elect their own national representatives to supplement the traditional representatives. This is an extremely important tie; in fact, there is no more important tie than the traditional tie and the franchise tie to bind you to your people and to your homeland. It will be introduced. What is more, we are introducing it on the insistence of those Bantu people; they are in a hurry to get it. Then, in addition to that, we still have the delegates, the national representatives, and the transport schemes to which the Deputy Minister referred yesterday afternoon. It is therefore not necessary for me to dwell on that.

Sir, I want to conclude by saying that it is very clear that in terms of these six basic principles which lay down our policy for the Bantu in the White areas, we offer a guarantee to South Africa which the United Party cannot in any way match. We guarantee in the first instance that White rule over the Whites in White South Africa and in this Parliament will be maintained for ever under our regime. [Interjections.]

Order! Will hon. members please give me an opportunity to speak as well. The hon. the Minister’s time has expired.

Is there no injury time, Sir?

Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to disparage and to hurt the hon. the Minister as he tried to do to the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Transkei. I should like to deal with his speech on merit. I can quite objectively say this: In listening to the hon. the Minister and hearing him repeat today, with the verbosity for which he is noted, the old theories of separate development, independent Bantustans and national ties, one would not have thought this was a Minister who is at this moment witnessing a collapse of the principles of his policy. Up to yesterday the policy of the Nationalist Party was that family life for new Natives in the White urban areas should not be extended. Up to yesterday the policy of the Nationalist Party was to send back to the homelands all Bantu who were not economically active in White areas. It was the policy of the Nationalist Party that the Natives in the White areas be sent back gradually to the homelands. They did admit that there would be a period of transition in which the number of Natives would even increase, but that the tide would be stemmed by 1978. After that date the Natives would be returning to their reserves in ever-increasing numbers. Now we have been challenged by the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister, of whom I expect something better, to prove that these things used to form part of the Nationalist Party’s standpoint on policy. Sir, it amazes one that this Government and this Minister and his Deputy, who have turned South Africa upside-down with their policy, a policy which has divided and insulted a large part of the White nation, do not know today what their policy is or was. Yesterday, after the challenge by the Deputy Minister, I looked up Dr. Verwoerd’s speeches in Hansard. The first volume of Hansard I took, was Volume 84 of the English Hansard for 1954. On 18th February, 1954, Dr. Verwoerd summed up his policy as follows and gave South Africa a choice (Hansard, Vol. 84, col. 801)—

The first alternative is this: A percentage of the Natives in White areas, with the superstructure which will be required, and the danger that they may take political control out of our hands. Here is the second Alternative—

physically to place them—

Sir, what could be more clear? [Interjections.] Sir, hon. members opposite are still not convinced. Here in my hand I have a very interesting document, a speech made not in 1954, but in 1968, by the present Administrator of the Free State, at that time chairman of the Bantu Affairs Commission—such an important speech that it was released literally word for word as an official document by the Department of Bantu Affairs. Sir, what did Mr. Froneman say in his official capacity as chairman of the Bantu Affairs Commission? He said—

What is this task?—“To resettle these non-economically active Bantu, six million of them, in the Bantu homelands.” What does this mean? It means that out of eight million Bantu, six million, i.e. three-quarters, have to go back to the homelands, and yesterday the Deputy Minister announced that the wives of Bantu teachers and other Bantu permanently working in White areas, would be able to live with their husbands in the cities. I want to thank him. I have never thanked a Nationalist Party Minister for a statement of policy before. I want to thank him now; I want to congratulate him; I want to recommend him; I want to commend him, and I hope he will go on accepting United Party policy in this way. Sir, it is a direct break with National Party policy, because they now want to raise the number of non-economically active women in the White areas, something which was the focal point of the danger four years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I want to show you what a focal point it was. Mr Froneman said in that speech of his in 1968—

[Interjections.] And then we still find the Minister of Bantu Administration speaking in terms of the old theories today; he still speaks in a verbose manner which does not mean a thing, while his policy, at variance with the facts—and facts always win through, Mr. Speaker—is collapsing before his eyes.

I do not want to spend much time on the speech made by the Minister of Bantu Administration, but I do want to add the following: Some of the things he said are unintelligible if one considers his real meaning behind the words. For example, he said today that a detribalized Bantu was not a denationalized (“ontvolkte”) Bantu; it sounds quite acceptable if one does not listen too closely.

I did not say “ontvolkte”; you cannot speak Afrikaans.

Perhaps his Afrikaans is better than that. He said a detribalized Bantu is not necessarily estranged from his nation.

He still has national ties.

Very well, he still has national ties. Now, is that good Afrikaans? Mr. Speaker, he then continued by saying the Bantu still had national ties, because they retained the culture of the Bantu national life. But, Sir, one of the characteristics of the Bantu national life is the tribal organization, to such an extent that, at the time of the first election in the Transkei, this Government frustrated the will of the Transkeian people through the appointment of tribal chiefs, but now the Minister says they have become detribalized. The Bantu no longer have one of their most important cultural possessions, but they still have national ties! Sir, what is one to do with people who contradict themselves like that, where logic is completely lacking? Because, Sir, they are pursuing an impossibility; they are pursuing an essentially unreal thing.

The hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Langlaagte had a great deal of fun in trying to make something important out of the issue between the Sunday Times and some of us. Sir, I want to say a few things about this matter. The first thing is that an issue between the Sunday Times and members of the United Party is not one-tenth as important as is the condemnation of Nationalist Party policy in respect of the urban Bantu by Rapport. The Sunday Times is an independent newspaper; it has the right to attack us. [Interjections.] But Rapport is an organ of the Nationalist Party. It is printed by the Naitonalist Party and controlled by Ministers on its Board of Directors. Both the hon. member for Langlaagte and the hon. the Minister claimed that I had allegedly said that we accepted the policy of the establishment of sovereign independent Bantustans. But now I want to say this. They challenged me to prove something and I did, and I now challenge them to prove where I have ever said, or where any of us have said, that we accept that policy. We did say—and my Leader said this at the Cape Congress of the United Party in 1964—that the time might come when, as a result of Nationalist Party policy, some of the Bantustans would have developed to such a degree of independence that the next Government would have to accept it as a fact and live with it.

What does Joel Mervis say?

But let me try to put hon. members right. If one accepts the consequences of a policy, it does not mean that one supports the policy. I want to help the hon. the Minister. Some 4 000 or 5 000 years ago an original sin was committed in Paradise, and that sin had many consequences, including the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and myself, and now the Minister and I have to co-exist in the same era and in the same Parliament. We do not like it, but we have to accept it as a fact. But it does not mean that either he or I have made the original sin a matter of policy which we accept. It is as simple as that. We are fighting the policy for the establishment of sovereign independent Bantustans every inch of the way, and the Minister knows it, and we shall continue to do so, but if the day comes when those areas have progressed to independence or to the point of independence before our coming into power, we shall have to face facts when we come into power. And what shall we do? We shall accept it, but we shall immediately negotiate, with all the authority of the State, to bring them back in a federal relationship with the rest of South Africa. To that extent we accept the policy. I am quite willing to discuss these matters.

What about Basutoland?

When did South Africa make Basutoland independent? When was Basutoland part of the Republic of South Africa? Why ask such a silly question? But that is the whole point. Once again that is typical. They are trying to evade the pointed question at issue, because they cannot meet it. This story that we are supposed to have said that we accept the policy of independent sovereign Bantustans is an untruth, and any member of the House of Assembly who makes that assertion acts in an unworthy way. They do this only because they cannot defend their own policy on merit. Sir, I now state with certainty that the Government cannot defend its own policy on merit.

May I ask a question? While the hon. member is arguing this way, would he tell us why The Star described his announcement as a “bombshell”?

I am not here to explain what newspapers print. In March, a few months previously, the same Star printed on its leader page an informed article written by its political correspondent, John D’Oliveira, clearly referring to an interview with my Leader, an interview at which I was present, and stating in bold type that if we were to come into power after the independence of a Bantustan, we would have to accept it, and if it were on the point of gaining its independence, we would have to accept it. But then it was not a bombshell. At that time no other newspaper took any notice of it, because all of them knew what was fair and right. Therefore, the question should not be put to me; ask The Star. Write a letter to the editor of The Star. Ask them why, after publishing it as an interview with their political correspondent, they could suddenly, months later, say it was a political bombshell. The Government cannot defend its standpoint by an acknowledgment of the facts as they stand. I want to take the example of the hon. the Minister of Finance, who spoke last Monday. He told us about the conditions in which South Africa had found itself prior to December. The hon. the Minister told us inflation had virtually been checked. He told us there had been hopeful signs that our balance of payments position had been improving. He painted such a pretty picture that we asked him by way of interjection: In that case, was it necessary for South Africa to devalue? The hon. the Minister drew us a comparison between the amount which a South African citizen pays in taxes and what is paid in other countries. He also employed all kinds of sarcastic references to those undeveloped countries to which my Leader had referred. But the hon. the Minister consistently omitted to take into account the loan levy, which the South African citizen has to pay, in those calculations of his. And by way of an interjection the hon. the Prime Minister said that was not a tax.

Of course it is not a tax.

Then what is it? May I refuse to pay it?

No.

Oh! It is a tax we pay with an undertaking on the part of the Government that we may get it back after seven years, if we are lucky. That is all it is. It reduces the income of the citizen, and its object was that the income of the citizen should be reduced. It is a levy, a tax. And how is it going to be repaid? Who is going to repay it? The taxpayer. It is repaid to us out of new taxes or by way of loans on which we shall have to pay interest for the rest of time. But it is not a tax!

Will you answer a question?

No, I have answered enough questions. That is my whole point. Those hon. members do not want to face the facts; they furnish half-facts in defending their policy. If those hon. members’ policy and their administration are so sound, why gloss over these things?

The fact remains that the highest rate of tax in South Africa is 78 per cent, taking into account the loan levy. And that is higher than in Britain, the country for which we have always been sorry because those people have to pay such terribly high taxes. These are facts.

On 23rd November—a month and a day before we devalued—the hon. the Minister went to the Johannesburg Chamber of Industries, and there he complained terribly about the fact that there was so much pessimism in South Africa. South Africa was supposedly doing so well; the Minister wanted to know how the people dared to complain. I quote—

Now you must listen closely—

Now I ask the hon. the Minister in all sincerity: Be a man; tell me …

Order!

No, I mean he must be manly enough to reply to the question immediately. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not want any misunderstanding. I am asking the hon. the Minister to give me a candid reply across the floor of the House. He is very fond of asking me questions across the floor of the House. Can the hon. the Minister give us the assurance that there will be no further increases in railway tariffs in the near future, let us say next year or the year after that? Last year the hon. the Minister of Railways said it became necessary every four years. Can the hon. the Minister now give us the assurance that railway tariffs will not be increased within the next four years?

I did not say that.

Wait a minute; can the hon. the Minister give us the assurance that postal tariffs will not again be increased shortly? The Postmaster-General has already told us that they cannot make ends meet with the money they have at their disposal. Can the Minister give us the assurance that no new or higher purchase tax will be imposed in the near future?

Criticize us when it is imposed.

If that is the case, why did the hon. the Minister tell the Chamber of Industries that this would not happen again in the near future?

Because we are dealing with the factual position of today.

I beg you pardon; I cannot hear. That is the position with those hon. members. They do not want to face facts. The Minister must not tell me now that the circumstances have changed as a result of devaluation …

Why not?

In the same speech he devoted seven-eighths of his time to the possibilities of devaluation and the realignment of monetary values and currencies. He did that because he expected these things. He said these things had to come, and now he cannot pretend that this is a new factor which he did not take into account. Let the hon. the Minister shake his head; I know it is hard to be found out.

I shall get the hon. member again in two weeks’ time.

Now I come to another hon. Minister, with whom I want to deal with the same matters. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs told us here that the cost of living in South Africa had increased by 3,8 per cent from 1970 to 1971.

In a year’s time?

Yes, in a year’s time. Fortunately I remembered that the hon. the Minister of Finance had told the same Chamber of Industries in Johannesburg that it was 6,1 per cent. At the time I wondered what was going on. I tried to investigate the matter and could not find out what was going on, until I got hold of the economic report of the South African Reserve Bank for last year’s financial year.

†There I found something most interesting. The economic report of the Reserve Bank said that the total increase of the cost of living was 6,1 percent from June, 1970, to June, 1971, but if you subtract the cost of administered prices, i.e. the Railways, the Post Office, the steel works and institutions directly controlled by the Government, it is less. Then if you exclude indirect taxes it is still less. If you exclude both the administered prices and the indirect taxes you will find an increase of 3,8 per cent. I want to ask the Cabinet what one must think of a Cabinet where the Minister of Economic Affairs juggles and conjures the figures like that

Do you refer to the Reserve Bank’s report?

It is the economic report.

Of the Reserve Bank?

That does not matter, because it is an official State document and the Minister of Economic Affairs relied on it. Why should we bicker about trivialities now? There we have it again; they want to get away from the facts at all costs. The fact remains that the Minister of Economic Affairs mentioned a figure in respect of the increase in the cost of living in South Africa. He mentioned that figure and he compared the rest of the world with it, omitting the impact of taxes and of administered prices.

You know more about the matter than the Reserve Bank does.

What I have mentioned is a fact or where else could the Minister have got the figure of 3,8 per cent?

From the Reserve Bank.

That is what the hon. member is saying.

I do not know what the hon. the Minister is up to now. After subtracting indirect taxes and administered prices the Reserve Bank said the remaining factors caused an increase of 3,8 per cent. The Minister did not say that. He compared it with the rest of the world as if that was the total increase. The Minister must not come to us with the story “once and for all”. It is not once and for all; it is there for all times. Every time you calculate taxes for the future, for years and years to come, those prices and the effect of those impositions will be reflected in the cost-of-living index. Some of them will go up automatically. As prices rise on imported goods as the result of the devaluation, the purchase tax which is levied on a percentage basis will be automatically more. The people will pay more, even more than one imagines, because this tax is levied at source and not at the point of consumption. Why did the Minister of Economic Affairs not tell us that? I say, and I repeat it: They cannot debate on the facts, because the facts are against them. The facts show that they have lost control of the situation in South Africa. The facts show that they are tired and effete and that they have had it.

There were lots of challenges about policy, challenges by members such as the hon. member for Langlaagte and, I am sorry to see that he is not here, my hon. friend, the hon. member for Potchefstroom. They challenged us to state the United Party policy on African affairs. I am not only going to state the United Party policy now; I am going to state it and compare it with Nationalist Party policy. That comparison alone is further evidence of why one can have no confidence in this spent-force of a Government. The first point of difference which I should like to tell the hon. member for Potchefstroom about is that the United Party stands for one authority over all of South Africa whereas the Nationalist Party stands for eight separate states in the Republic and another 14 separate states, I think, in South-West Africa. They stand for a diminished Republic of South Africa which they call the White Republic of South Africa in which the White people will be in the minority. They justify this separation on the grounds that this is a multi-national country and that every nation is entitled to its full nationhood which includes a homeland of its own. But then they have no homeland for the Coloured people, 2 million fine citizens of South Africa. They also do not have a homeland for the Indian people whom even they now accept as South Africans; they no longer want to repatriate them as they wanted to do in 1948. That is the first difference; that is the first illogicality.

The United Party wants to see the Bantu areas, the Reserves, developed to the utmost degree and administered by the Bantu themselves, but they should be joined to the Republic of South Africa in a federal relationship. The Nationalist Party wants to see them leave South Africa, sever their connections with South Africa. They are willing to face the consequences. The hon. the Prime Minister, in an interview with a magazine called “To the Point”, said last month that if they become communists he would regret it and would try to persuade them otherwise, but that they would be free to become communists. This makes me believe that the Government is as indifferent to the security of South Africa as it is indifferent to the living standards of the people.

The word “communist” was never used. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, this I cannot take; this is impossible. It is absolutely ridiculous. The hon. the Prime Minister was asked: “And suppose they go the way of Moscow or Peking?” That was the question. Is that not communism? The hon. the Prime Minister’s reply was—

What does “left-orientated” in terms of the question—Moscow or Peking—mean? The hon. the Prime Minister is free to underestimate my intelligence, but he must please not underestimate the intelligence of the people of South Africa.

Ask him to reply now.

No, he has replied. It is on record.

But it is being misinterpreted.

Mr. Speaker, the United Party wants to establish communal councils for all the races. Through those communal councils they will govern themselves in matters affecting themselves. These communal councils will be important especially for those people of different colours in South Africa who do not have so-called homelands of their own. There will be communal councils for our Coloured people, our Indian people and for our Bantu people in the cities who are no longer in a “volksverband”. But the Nationalist Party wants independent, virtually sovereign councils for the Coloured and Indian people, but unlike the United Party, no representation in the Parliament that will exercise sovereignty over their councils. Which is just and which is common sense?

I am sorry, the hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Speaker, as the United Party has come to this House with a motion of no confidence in the Government, and as the hon. member for Pinelands has said today that this Government should make way so that the United Party may take over, one expects a party with such an attitude to have the courage to outline very clearly, in this House as well as outside, as it does at its congresses, the policy it wishes to follow. During the past month we witnessed congresses where the United Party did everything in its power to escape the fundamental question in this country. That is why I am very glad that the hon. member for Yeoville did in fact treat us here today to what is supposed to be the real difference between United Party policy and National Party policy. I am very grateful to him for having given to us, amongst other things, the basic statement that the United Party stood for “one authority” over South Africa, to use his own words. I did understand the hon. member correctly as saying that they stood for one authority over South Africa, not so?

Very well understood. I am glad you listened so attentively.

As against that, the National Party stands for various peoples, separate peoples in their various …

You stand for sovereign Batustans.

That is correct, we do stand for that. The United Party stands for one authority over South Africa. It is most important that this should be said again today. I am particularly pleased that the hon. member has phrased it in such clear language today, for this does indeed contain the fundamental difference between this side and that side: How is that authority to be constituted? This is the fundamental question with which South Africa is faced, on which this side differs with that side: How is the United Party’s one single authority for South Africa—the 3½ million Whites and 15 million Blacks—to function and to be constituted?

During the past recess we did have a number of references to that matter. Although the United Party sought to evade at their congresses this fundamental question at all costs—actually they only wanted to discuss economic matters with a view to the next election—they were nevertheless forced by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to discuss this matter at several of their congresses. As a result a few members on the other side were in fact obliged to say something about this fundamental question. At one of their congresses the hon. member for Durban Point, amongst others, said something of great importance, which I want to quote from one of the newspapers that support them. The newspaper concerned is the Sunday Times dated 14th November, 1971, in which Mr. Vause Raw spoke about the one authority which had to obtain for South Africa. The newspaper reported—

I do not know what all of this means, but these are the words printed here—

This is a reference to this central authority. But this central authority was explained even more fully to us by another hon. member …

Finish it.

Mr. Lionel Murray explained this central authority even more fully to us. He also spoke during the recess. According to a report in the Cape Times of 16th September, 1971, he spoke about the “Fundamental non-White right in Parliament”. The report reads as follows—

Is that what the United Party wants? Do they want the four million urban Bantu to have representation in this Parliament?

Yes.

Are they also in favour of the two million Coloureds having representation in this Parliament?

Yes.

Are they also in favour of the half-million Indians having representation in this Parliament?

Yes.

Added to this there is the standpoint of the hon. member for Durban Point, who says that this plan for eight representatives for the Bantu is not “the end of the road”. The attitude of the United Party in their struggle against the hon. member for Bezuidenhout should also be viewed in this context. At their congresses they tried to solve this problem. They said that if they came into power, they would recognize those Bantu home lands already in existence, and with those in the process of becoming independent …

No, on the point of becoming.

Very well, then. You will negotiate with those that are on the point of becoming independent.

We shall negoate with all of them.

Very well. The United Party will therefore negotiate with all of these homelands with a view to their becoming members of the federation and having representation in the federal parliament. I just want to ask whether any person who is really and truly in his right mind can tell me whether the Transkei, for instance, would give up its whole legislative and independence position in order to gain one White representative in this Parliament? Is there anybody in his right mind who would tell me that Zululand, supposing that it will already have gained its independence, would give up its legislative and independence position in order to gain one White representative in this Parliament. Can one conceive of anything more foolish than that? It is not only foolish; to my mind it is the height of dishonesty to try to hold up to the public something of that nature.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? I should like to hear from the Minister Why he does not study our policy. After all, it is available. [Interjections.]

This question does not astonish me at all; it is typical of the escapism we have encountered in the past few months and also in the course of this debate. The United Party does not want to pause in order to state their policy to us here; they do not want to tell us clearly what their policy is in regard to these matters. Now we find all this talk about the urban Bantu, but they need not concern themselves on that point. Under the guidance of this hon. Minister and his colleagues and their departments, this policy is being implemented to the satisfaction of the multi-national policy of the National Party. The success we are achieving with that policy, is the reason for all the dust raised here today. It is because this policy is succeeding and founded on this firm principle that the United Party has been raising such a dust.

The United Party is supposed to be so concerned about the interests of the urban Bantu, and want to integrate them with the national economy as part of the central authority. Now I want to ask any person who knows human nature, politics and the United Party whether, with this representation of the Bantu homelands in this Parliament, the United Party will not be placed under tremendous pressure by those representatives who are inside and outside this House, in that they will ask, firstly, for their representation to be extended and, secondly, for that representation to be converted from White into Black. On previous occasions we had the experience in this Parliament of the United Party confessing that it had changed its standpoint as a result of pressure. We know the United Party, which has given way under pressure before. It is for this reason that I want to state that under the pressure of the urban Bantu, who would then probably be represented here by one member, plus the others who are to make up the eight, the United Party will in fact change its standpoint. This policy of theirs is not a policy. Let me tell you, Sir, that this is an attempt to deceive the electorate of South Africa. Our people will not allow themselves to be deceived by something of that nature, because we are guided by the facts and the realities. Since that is the case this National Party will continue to govern South Africa for all time, because we, as the Minister said a moment ago, are pursuing a Bantu policy which will ensure that the Whites in this central authority will remain in charge in the future as well.

But now I also want to refer to a labour matter. During this debate the United Party also exploited the manpower shortage. In his motion the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the better utilization of available manpower. Of course, we know that in referring to “available manpower”, the Opposition is thinking mainly of Bantu manpower. What is more, this was stated very clearly. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the “Black manpower”. What they have in mind, is chiefly the better utilization of Black manpower.

May I ask a question?

No, I do not have any time to reply to questions now. You may do so in the course of the discussion on my Vote. When it comes to the better utilization of Black manpower, the United Party has a standpoint which it has been stating here and outside this House over the years, a standpoint which does not only amount to the Bantu having to be trained in their own areas. That least of all! This is the matter about which the United Party is least concerned. Its concern is with the training of the semi-skilled and unskilled Bantu here in the White and metropolitan areas, so that they may take over skilled work in White areas. With the United Party that is the first consideration that counts. The second is that this “vast reservoir of Black labour”, the Bantu in the homelands, should be allowed to enter the White areas freely. In regard to this matter this side of the House has by now probably stated its attitude clearly enough to the United Party, i.e. that we are not prepared to enter into any compromise on such an uncontrolled inflow of Black labour into our White cities. As far as this matter is concerned, we have already made it very clear that the National Party has no intention of exchanging our White heritage for a mess of pottage. With regard to the better utilization of Black manpower, this Government cannot be reproached with not having taken the necessary realistic steps in that regard. The White Paper that was published last June, i.e. the Riekert Report, announced a series of steps that could be taken in order to improve manpower utilization. In view of the fact that the Government announced in this White Paper a series of steps which could promote industrial development, and that it proceeded to convert the Geyser Committee—a committee on which the employers, the trade unions and Government departments are serving—into a standing committee to advise the Economic Advisory Council on the better utilization on all manpower, this Government cannot be accused of not taking the necessary steps for the most effective utilization of our manpower. Now I want to say this to the United Party: If they are not satisfied with the proposals made in this Riekert Report and White Paper, it means just one thing, namely that the United Party is not satisfied with these concessions because they want all restrictions on the entry of Black labour into White areas to be lifted. This party and this Government have no intention of compromising on this matter. This Government definitely has no intention of allowing the uncontrolled employment of Black labour in White areas. As far as the better utilization of labour is concerned, I think a major task awaits our employers in the field of increased rationalization, and they can also do more in the field of the better utilization of the Black labour employed in their factories at present. They can do what was done by Sasol, which during this past year increased its production by R4 million and, at the same time, reduced both its White and non-White manpower. It is only by those means, through the better utilization of labour, that we in this country can enhance our productivity as well as our production capacity in this country. But to think that this can be done in this short-sighted manner, which certain industrialists want and which this integration-obsessed United Party wants, is definitely not the ideal course for South Africa to follow.

Nowadays the United Party has so much to say about the labour pattern they want to put to us, but during the past recess we came across what was certainly one of the most shocking examples of the immorality underlying that policy. We found this example in the arrangements made by the Johannesburg City Council in connection with labour remuneration. Those hon. members are continually saying across the floor of this House that, by way of equal pay for equal work, the United Party will protect the White worker. Have we not heard on countless occasions that job reservation could not do this, and that it need not do this as equal pay for equal work would do so? What did we find during the past recess? During the past recess we heard inter alia the standpoint of Mr. Oberholzer the leader of the United Party-controlled city council. According to The Star of 15th October, 1971, he made this “No rate for the job for Africans” statement. Amongst other things the following was said in this report—

That is what Mr. Oberholzer had to say. However, this double-talk is not all we have found. Here in this House we never hear this “if” story. In this House we are told that “equal pay” is the salvation. This double-talk was by no means the end of this matter. There was more. Mr. Oberholzer went on to say the following—

Yes, just imagine that! This “rate for the job” is no longer a protective measure for the White worker. No, the United Party is now using it as a lever to force the White workers to abdicate from the posts they have traditionally held, and why? Why are they being forced in this way? It is because the Trades Union Council and the United Party are now advocating “equal pay for equal work”, and that is why this trade union must now be prepared to swallow this extortion. It must be prepared to make the concession that Coloureds may also be bus-drivers in Johannesburg, along with its members. To those people who asked me as the Minister of Labour to protect their sphere of employment and for whom I established an industrial tribunal for the purpose of protecting that employment for them, the United Party is now saying, “Look, if you withdrew that request of yours, if you were prepared to give up that protection of yours and to allow Coloureds to work with you, we would be prepared to pay equal pay to the others”. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine anything more immoral? This is nothing but extortion. Here we have an example today of what the United Party does when it governs. It is in a position of authority in the Johannesburg City Council; that is where it governs, and this is the criterion and the pattern in terms of which the United Party acts when it governs, and that is why I want to put this question to the United Party today: Is that also the attitude they will maintain if they should ever happen to govern South Africa? Is that the attitude the United Party will maintain in South Africa? Is that the attitude the United Party will maintain throughout the country in order to force our White workers to abdication by those means? No, Sir, it is because this is the case and because the United Party adopts that attitude that they also lack the courage to go to a workers’ constituency like Gezina; that is why they do not have the courage to go and state this standpoint of theirs over there; that is why they have to hide behind the Hertzogites in that constituency—because they do not have the courage to state this standpoint; and because that is the case, that party will remain in the wilderness, the place it deserves in South Africa.

I would not attempt to deal at any great length with some of the economic matters that the hon. the Minister has dealt with, but I do think that before he comes and talks in this House about the policy of this party he ought to find out what in fact the facts are. He comes here describing a situation which does not exist. He says, for example, that we believe in an uncontrolled influx of Black labour.

What nonsense!

The hon. gentleman should know better then anyone else that it was the United Party that introduced influx control. We introduced it for the protection of the very people who were permanently resident here. Sir, he has got it all wrong again. That is our policy. It is the policy of the Progressive Party to have an unrestrained influx of Bantu labour into the towns. Sir, if the hon. the Minister talks in these terms, then I am afraid that the rest of his arguments fall away and that there is really no point in discussing the matter further with him.

But, Sir, I do want to discuss something else here this afternoon and I am glad the hon. the Minister of Justice is here. I am sorry the Minister of Police is not here, and I am sorry the Prime Minister is not here; I hope that he will be here later. You see, Sir, during the recess there has been a tremendous over-reaction by the Government to criticism in respect of the matter raised yesterday by the hon. member for Zululand, that is to say, the administration of the legislation relating to the detention of persons without trial. Sir, the incompetence and the lack of appreciation of public feeling displayed by the hon. the Minister of Justice and the hon. the Prime Minister has done more damage to our image overseas than I think almost anything else that could have been done during this recess. Let us examine the situation that arose. A man fell out of a window from the tenth floor, at John Vorster Square, and it was said that he had committed suicide. Now, this was not the first one, and immediately there was a reaction from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. His reaction was that there should be a judicial commission of inquiry, not only into that event but also into the general methods of interrogation that were being employed, and, as well as that, the question as to why section 6 of the Terrorism Act is used for interrogation and why section 22 of the General Laws Amendment Act of 1966 was not used for interrogation. And what did we have? The first thing we had was from the hon. the Prime Minister, who reacted immediately. His reaction was that it was unnecessary to have a judicial commission of inquiry because there was going to be an inquest into the death of Timol. However, we did not need the hon. the Prime Minister to tell us that. There is always an inquest into the death of anyone who dies from unnatural causes if there are not going to be any criminal proceedings. One knows therefore that there were not going to be any criminal proceedings at that stage; that was not contemplated, and so there was to be an inquest. The inquest is confined to the circumstances and the cause of that death. That is all. That is not what my hon. Leader called for. My Leader was aware of the public feeling that existed at that time. The hon. the Minister shakes his head. It is not only my hon. Leader who felt that; we know what the feeling was. What is more, his own newspapers knew it at the time. You find Rapport on the very next Sunday saying about the Police that they must protect the State in dangerous and often painful circumstances; they must not leave themselves open to the serious charge that the totally extraordinary powers which exist for this purpose are being used unnecessarily widely. That is what his own Press says, and then they go on to criticize the conduct of the hon. the Prime Minister and those concerned. I will come back to the hon. the Minister of Justice in a moment. I just want to say that the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday, when interjecting during the speech of the hon. member for Zululand, said that in his view a judicial commission of inquiry and an inquest were the same thing, and he said it twice. Well, Sir, this is obvious nonsense to anyone in this House. Surely the hon. the Minister of Justice does not agree with that either. But the hon. the Prime Minister said that twice. There are all the differences in the world. There is the question of what evidence is led, the question of what evidence the Commissioner wants, and the question of the wide nature of his terms of reference. These are the things that the magistrate cannot inquire into during an inquest. He merely hears what evidence is put before him by the persons who are entitled to put it before him, and that is all. He is confined purely to those two aspects of investigation, and then he makes his findings. He does not make recommendations. He does not do anything further than that. Sir, the hon. the Leader of Opposition asked for that not because this was one event and he wanted that one looked at, but because this is, as the hon. the Prime Minister said yesterday, the ninth; he said there were only nine. How many do you have to have before this Government feels that it ought to give the Police some protection and give the public some assurance by having an inquiry into this matter? Will you tell me, Sir, why you cannot have an inquiry? Surely, the Police would welcome such an inquiry. The Police have never been slow to “sort out” anyone in their own ranks who behaves improperly. What is more, Sir, this is what the Minister of Police said when he returned from Europe, and spoke at the passing-out parade of the Police College:

Who is going to tell them the full and true facts, no one knows. They refuse to have an inquiry and the Ministers all sit there “tjoepstil” and say nothing at all. leaving the very situation and the feeling of unrest amongst the people described by our side, and by their side, to carry on, to the detriment of the public, to the detriment of the Police and to the detriment of this country. Then the hon. the Minister went on—

That is right, and who is responsible? That hon. Minister, the Minister of Justice, and the hon. the Prime Minister, who was the acting Minister of Police at that time.

He referred to the Pietermaritzburg case and you know it very well.

This was another speech.

It was another speech.

He made a lot of extraordinary speeches—I agree—but that was a completely different one. I am not talking about that one. That was one which I think the hon. the Minister of Justice would prefer to forget as well, knowing what he knows about a subject called “contempt of court”. The hon. the Minister is aware of this because he was obliged to do something about it—at least, his Department was. Then the hon. the Minister went on—

Why did that situation arise? If you had a judicial commission of inquiry, the whole thing would have come out into the open. This was done recently in Britain. There was an inquiry on the turn, immediately, into the question of whether there was police brutality in Ireland, where there was a state of emergency. The inquiry was conducted and they found that there was not brutality; there were isolated instances of this and that, but the public was reassured, the Police’s name was cleared and all this was done in a matter of weeks.

What was the reaction of the hon. the Minister of Justice to all this; and what was his contribution?

I think you must read more of that speech. [Interjections.]

Order!

All right, I shall read a little more to the hon. the Minister—

And what did Rapport say to that?

The Government Press, the Nationalist Press, who are the organs and the instruments of this Government, every one else is doing it; apparently the Bar Councils are doing it— even the Free State Bar Council is doing it … [Interjections.]

All communists!

That was the beginning of the non-answer of this Government, leading up to the smear campaign with which I shall deal. What was the contribution of the hon. the Minister of Justice? Immediately he says: “Oh, it has nothing to do with me; it is a matter for the Police.” That is what he said last year and that is what he says now. This arises as a result, as I say, of our wanting an inquiry, and we want an answer too, as to why section 22 is not used and why section 6 is used. The difference is that in 1966 section 22 was passed, with which we agreed. We gave this Government the power of interrogation, because we felt it was necessary in the circumstances in which we found ourselves. We did that because there was also a safeguard that the matter had to come before a Judge within 14 days and he could lay down the conditions of the detainee’s further detention or he could order the detainee’s immediate release. In 1967 came the Terrorism Act and its section 6 with unlimited powers of detention for an unlimited period, without access to any court. This was specifically excluded.

But you agreed to it in principle.

No, we did not. We said we wanted this other power used (section 22) and what was their reaction? The reactions of both these hon. Ministers are very important. My hon. friend from Zululand yesterday read an extract from a speech by the hon. the Minister of Police as to why we needed section 6 and why we could not use section 22. One of the reasons was that the terrain was so inaccessible that one could not get through the jungle. Then he also said in the same speech: “There are certain practical problems in regard to the combating of terrorism in South-West Africa which make it impossible for us to take proper action in terms of the provisions of section 22.” In the course of that same speech he also said, “But, of course, we found section 22 very useful, but we need this for the borders.” What did the hon. the Minister of Justice tell me last year?

No.

What does the Minister mean by saying “no”? What is he saying “no” about?

I shall prove to you what I said.

I am not talking about you; your turn is coming; I am talking about the hon. the Minister of Police.

Such confusion.

When section 22 was introduced in 1966, which, as I have said, we agreed to and which provided for access to a Judge, what did the hon. the Minister of Justice say? He said (Vol. 18, col. 4642)—

What is his attitude towards that section? Surely it is the same. He went on to say—

It is hard to believe that those are the same words …

What did I say in 1967?

Those words came from the hon. the Minister. In the Committee Stage in 1967 he hands over to the Minister of Police and says: “Look, he needs these powers for these purposes.” As far as one can gather from the questions which were asked, five people only have been detained for “interrogation” in terms of this section 22. All the rest have been detained in terms of section 6. What is more, I would venture to say—from what one can gather this is so, because one gets no information from the Minister—the overwhelming proportion of them, 90 per cent of them, have been detained in urban areas. The hon. the Minister, having said what he said, namely that a Judge does it in his discretion and that it is entirely for him to decide, is now prepared to allow the Police to decide instead. By doing this he is doing the Police a disservice.

You agreed to it.

He must not avoid the issue. When he was asked: “What about section 6 and section 22”, he said: “It is for the Police to decide.” He is the Minister responsible; does he ever inquire? Has he ever inquired from the Police when they send the names up to him why they are detaining these people? Has he ever asked them why they did not detain the people under section 22 and why under section 6?

Yes.

I hope you will tell us why this section was used for people in urban areas. For the life of me I cannot see one reason why it can make any difference to interrogation if you have to go before a Judge within 14 days, justify the detention and then have the Judge lay down conditions. I cannot see how it can possibly effect the issue.

However, that is not enough. Yesterday when the hon. member for Zululand said that it was agreed that detention without trial as a principle was something that both sides of the House accepted, that hon. Minister who is the Minister of Justice of this country, whether we like it or not, said: “We do not have detention without trial.”

I still maintain that.

The hon. the Minister says that he still maintains that.

Of course, yes; you know it is nonsense. [Interjections.]

My goodness! What is nonsense? Let us make no mistake about what my quarrel is. My quarrel is not that you should not interrogate these people. We agree that we should have the power to interrogate because you cannot deal with these people without such power. But the point is: Why not use that section which the hon. the Minister himself introduced? Then the public is assured that these people come up before a Judge and the conditions are …

But they do not come up before a Judge.

The matter comes before a Judge. I know the hon. member for Houghton is …

They do not; they may make written representations.

The hon. member for Houghton is in any event upset about this because she voted against that provision.

You bet! And I would do it again.

That is the hon. member’s right.

And you should have voted against the other one.

Order! The hon. member for Durban North must continue his speech.

It is quite extraordinary that the hon. member for Houghton, after the behaviour of her supporters in Johannesburg during the recess, can dare to say anything on this subject here when we are talking. We had a lunch-hour meeting in the city hall of …

Yes, and I am going …

Odrer! The hon. member for Houghton must stop making interjections.

The city hall was full, and what did we have? We had a number of young Progressives and other strange people trying to break up the meeting. Why? Because we had the impertinence to vote in favour of certain measures which were aimed at subversion and terrorism; because we did not agree with the hon. member. They tried to break up a meeting protesting against the behaviour of this Government in respect of detention without trial. It is very hard to know.

As I have indicated, this attitude is certainly not fair to the Police. There has been no action from anyone. Will the hon. the Minister of Police tell us why he does not tell the Police that they must use section 22 in urban areas? Why will he not say that? Why does the Minister of Justice, after all he has said about this, not do something about it? And, indeed, why does the hon. the Prime Minister not do anything about it? This hon. Minister of Justice does not seem to know what is going on. The hon. member for Prinshof said the United Party was against magistrates and prosecutors. What a lot of nonsense! In the recess that hon. Minister made the statement that he would like to be the first Minister of Justice to appoint a regional magistrate to the Supreme Court Bench. There was a tremendous “gewalt” and uproar about all this. All over the country Judges were upset and what happened? Did that hon. Minister do anything again? No, he hides behind the Secretary for Justice who is obliged to make a statement and he has sat “tjoepstil” ever since.

We will have an opportunity to discuss it.

These are matters of public concern and there the hon. the Minister says that we will have another opportunity to discuss them. But his attitude is: “Just leave it to the Police”. He does not know that there is detention without trial. He does not know much about magistrates either, but he makes a statement and then leaves it there. That is what has been happening here. This Cabinet has been hiding behind the petticoats of the Police Force and section 6 and just left them there with all the criticism which I have indicated and all the bad feeling which is not just my imagination. It is there in black and white, set out in his own Press and in ours, indicating the feeling. One knows what that feeling is. They are just left with all that criticism instead of the Minister doing what was suggested by their own paper, namely to have an inquiry into the matter immediately. This is exactly what my hon. Leader asked for. But, Sir, they do not. What was the best action they then had left? All they had left was a smear campaign. They tried to smear the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the United Party, starting with that miserable little speech by the hon. the Minister of Police. From there it went right through, and all the hon. the Ministers went around the country doing this. It ended with the most disgraceful performance, in this regard, that I have ever seen and I hope I will never see it again. I am referring to the hon. the Prime Minister’s Press conference —luckily for him he only has two per year —in which he was specifically asked whether he seriously means that the official Opposition, the Bar Councils, the newspapers and so on are allowing themselves to be used as tools of the communists. He says: “Well, you know, if this had been the first time, I might have said that there is something to be said in favour of these people but. you see, I have had occasion to deal with these matters personally for years and I just went through my files and found the Cape Times …” With this he found a little pink herring, which he then proceeded to read.

What are you talking about?

What am I saying? I am saying that the hon. the Prime Minister has, in fact, said that he indeed does mean that the official Opposition is allowing itself to be used as a tool of the communists.

You are too stupid to know that you are being used for that purpose.

Order! When I call for “Order!” the hon. member for Pretoria Central cannot simply continue with the speech he is making from his bench. The hon. member for Durban North must not pay heed to all the interjections.

As I have said, this is the smear campaign. What answer have we had from any of the hon. Ministers responsible, who have allowed this situation to continue? What have they done? The hon. the Minister of Justice, for example, does not want to issue a statement concerning magistrates going to the Supreme Court. He uses the Secretary for Justice, which is unfair to him and not very proper or courageous on the part of the hon. the Minister. What does the hon. the Minister of Police do? True, he was away in Europe when most of this happened, but what happened later? By whom did we have a radio talk? Not by the hon. the Minister of Police, the hon. the Prime Minister or the hon. the Minister of Justice, but by Gen. Van den Bergh, who is the head of the Bureau of State Security. Why Gen. Van den Bergh, for goodness sake?

Why not?

Because, apart from the fact that he is a civil servant and should not be placed in that position, Gen. Van den Bergh, when he was asked a question said: “I want to make it very clear that the Bureau of State Security and the Security Police are two different things; that is not my department.” Why then is he asked to come along and make a statement? Why not have, if you are going to have someone, the Commissioner of Police or the head of the C.I.D.? This is what has been happening and I wish that the hon. the Prime Minister were here to tell us whether he means what he says, because he would not answer that question and implied clearly that we were allowing ourselves to be used as tools of the communists. The public will not swallow that about a gentleman such as Sir De Villiers Graaff, nor about people of the capacity, the calbre and loyalty of the United Party supporters.

The hon. the Prime Minister, having said that, seems to have forgotten that last year, when the Prime Minister’s Vote was under discussion, he said—referring to the Potgieter Commission on State Security—

Then, the hon. the Prime Minister announced in the Press that the members of the Committee which had been set up to examine the Potgieter Commission’s report, had agreed upon what should go in it, he also added that, when it comes to matters concerning the security of the State, the Opposition can be relied upon; there can be no difference; we are at one. How does one reconcile these statements?

They are losing control.

Not only are they losing control, but they appear to be losing control of what they themselves say. Before I close I want to say that the country can have no confidence in a government which can behave in this manner and which has no balance between one thing and another. This Government believes everything must be an extreme and does not know how to balance things. We agree that you have to have powers, extraordinary powers, to deal with these people, but we also believe that it is possible to contain and to constrain them through the medium of the courts. That is why this Government is losing ground and we are gaining ground. The public is satisfied and confident that we as a government, especially on our record, will deal very harshly with terrorists, saboteurs and underminers. They also know that we are able to respect and understand the fundamental principle which makes a democracy, namely the freedom and dignity of its people. That is the foundation of our society, and it can only be achieved through the medium of the courts as we have always maintained. We have always supported this Government on every measure which relates to the killing and routing out…

But you do not want it effected.

No, we do want it effected, but you seem to be incompetent to do it. What is the point? You do not even understand what the law is and what the powers are. You do not even understand the difference. As far as you, the Minister of Justice is concerned, you can leave it to the Police. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I shall leave it to the hon. the Prime Minister to reply to that part of the hon. member’s speech which affects him, and in the same way I shall leave it to the hon. the Minister of Police to reply on his Vote to the part which affects him. I shall deal with the hon. member’s speech as far as it affects me. I should like to deal with the speeches of the hon. member for Zululand and the hon. member for Durban North at the same time. Before doing so, however, I should like to tell the hon. member for Durban North that he spoke of the feelings of shock and indignation which existed amongst the public last year, but that he was the man who was responsible for those feelings of shock and indignation. He was the man who had made statements in order to see reports in the Press the following day about “Mike Mitchell, the Shadow Minister of Justice.” Such reports appeared ad nauseam day after day. Rapport has been quoted several times in this debate, but I want to refer to a strange report which appeared in that paper on 7th November, 1971. The hon. member’s photo appeared above the report and the heading of the report was (translation), “They are beginning to feel ashamed Mike.” I quote (translation)—

The crux of this whole dialogue is section 6 of the Terrorism Act of 1967. I want to commence by saying that the hon. member for Zululand did me an injustice yesterday. He accused me, in the first instance, of “detention without trial”. I said no such thing as “detention without trial” existed. The hon. member should simply read the Terrorism Act. We empowered the Police to detain a person for interrogation or to have him detained for interrogation until the Commissioner ordered his release when satisfied that he had satisfactorily replied to all questions or that no useful purpose would be served by his further detention. This is what we have. Now what is the general rule? He has to appear in court within 48 hours. But when one deals with this kind of people, I say, one departs from that rule. I make no apology for that. I said that if one wanted to sup with the devil, one had to have a very long spoon. It is out of the question to think that one can deal with these people in terms of our ordinary democratic methods. The U.P. maintains that if they were to come into power, they would get the better of communism and terrorism, and that all this would be done through the courts. We, too, do this through the courts, but only after proper interrogation by the Police.

There is something else I should like to say to the hon. member for Zululand. I challenge him and the hon. member for Durban North to prove to me where I said at any time that the Terrorism Act of 1967 was aimed at combating the terrorists on the border in South-West Africa. He said this repeatedly in Natal during the past recess. I can give him quotations of where he did so. I tell him and the hon. member for Durban North that any person who makes this allegation, either inside or outside this House, will be guilty of telling a gross untruth. I may not express myself in stronger language, although I should have liked to do so.

Let us see what happened in 1967. When I introduced the Terrorism Bill my first words on 1st June, 1967 (Hansard, col. 7023), were the following (for their sake I shall quote the English version)—

Could you read that bit about making provision for detention for unlimited time?

Do not talk nonsense. I shall come to that point. I continued as follows—

Further on I said—

I said this very specifically—

I proceeded and said (Hansard, Volume 21, col. 7024)—

Persons in Johannesburg and in various other places, such as the Cape, where some of them were caught, can get into touch with them. That is the reason for their detention. I told this House so. I continued as follows—

I did not use any unclear words. I stated the position very clearly. I proceeded (col. 7026)—

This is what is happening. They do not just make statements within a day or two.

Read to us what you said about clause 6 in the Committee Stage.

Yes, I shall come to the Committee Stage. At the moment I am dealing with the principle for which that side voted. I proceeded as follows—

I mentioned both, and now the hon. member asks why we do not apply it in South-West Africa and how we can do so here in Johannesburg. I continued as follows—

This is why we are detaining people in Johannesburg today. This was put clearly to this House. That side voted for the Second Reading. The only person who had the courage to vote against that principle, was the hon. member for Houghton. Today those hon. members are spreading gossip ferreted out by the hon. member for Durban North. Then there is the piece of gossip bruited about by the hon. member for Zululand, i.e. that I said that this measure was intended for South-West Africa.

When?

He did so yesterday. I have the hon. member’s Hansard here. I just want to say that I did not say that. I deny it.

An advocate of the Supreme Court!

Yes, he is, and so is that member. Sir, I want to continue quoting from what I said at the time of the Second Reading of this Bill (col. 7030)—

That is why it takes so long. I continued—

And this is why I am obliged at times to detain these people for long periods. One cannot have these people taken to court within 14 days. I said in this document that we had received every assistance from the Judges, but that we had discovered that this period of 14 days was too short. I said that if after a period of 14 days one had been unable to bring anything before a Judge, one could not, after all, make out a prima facie case. That was the reason for that, and I think it is mean of that hon. member to go and sow suspicion in the Natal newspapers and in various other newspapers. I quote further—

There is nothing dishonest in this, but now the hon. member sows suspicion and that hon. member allows himself to be used in this regard.

It is a disgrace!

Sir, I want to quote here what the hon. member for Transkei said in the Second Reading debate; he said—

“Or internal plotting continues,” this is what he said, and now colleagues of that hon. member bring this accusation. Sir, I think it is a disgrace. I want to make only one further quotation; I summarized the Second Reading debate as follows—

†“Indefinite”, not detention without trial but detention until he has replied to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Police, or until he has satisfied the Commissioner of Police that it will serve no useful purpose to carry on. (You cannot ask questions in reply to a question by a member).

Is the position not that during the period that detention is indefinite, as the hon. the Minister has stated, it is without trial?

Naturally. During the usual period of 48 hours which is ordinarily allowed, he is also without trial. The detention is also without trial under the 14-day provision. We discovered our mistake and I came openly to this House; I laid my cards on the table and the Opposition agreed.

*Sir, I just want to make one further point. Reference was made to people who had died under detention and the number was given as nine. Nine died in our prisons while the people were being detained under section 6 of this Act. Since 1967 nine have died and hon. members know how many people are detained. Of those nine, three died of natural causes.

Of natural causes?

Of those nine, three died of natural causes. Of the six remaining cases, one has not been finalized; that is Timol’s case. Of the five remaining cases, three were clearly cases of suicide. There is not the least doubt about that. About two cases there was not certainty. [Interjections.] One of them was the Imam, in whose case the hon. member for Wynberg took a special interest. Now I want to say what happened. The Imam family, just like the Timol family, had a pathologist at the examination. After everything had been completed, the papers were forwarded to the Attorney-General, as is customary. The Attorney-General found nothing further. At my request he examined the papers a second time and again he said he could find nothing which would justify a prosecution. And then the hon. member for Wynberg came to this House. This was absolutely irresponsible. She came here and said—

She besmirched the man—

When the Attorney-General requested me to kindly inquire of the hon. member whether she would be prepared to give that information, her reply to me was that “she claimed parliamentary privilege”.

Disgraceful! [Interjections.]

May I ask a question?

No, remain seated. I said at the beginning that if one wanted to fight these people, if one wanted to sup with the devil, one had to have a long spoon, and at that stage I was looking for a document on which I could not lay my hands at that particular moment. It is an extract from a directive issued by the South African Communist Party a few years ago. The document from which the quotation is taken is entitled “Directive by the South African Communist Party”. The portion which is of importance reads as follows—

They cannot do that, but you expect us to do so. If you were to come into power one day, you would discover that you could not do so. It goes on to say—

This is their attitude. The document continues—

†And you are assisting them! [Interjections.]—

This is what they are doing, and you are assisting them.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. the Minister entitled to say that we are assisting communists and other subversive elements who are the enemy of the State?

Order! Did the hon. the Minister say that hon. members were assisting the enemy?

Mr. Speaker, I said this directive read, inter alia—

Then I said. “You people are assisting.” [Interjections.]

Order!

If ever an unfair insult has been slung at this side of this House, it was the statement by the Minister of Justice to the effect that we wanted to help the enemies of South Africa. It is on the same level as the words of the hon. the Minister of Police when he accused the Press of assisting communism. I shall come to that later. We do not take second place to one single person on that side of this House as far as our love of our father-land and our patriotism are concerned.

†Let me deal with one statement made by the hon. the Minister in his speech, namely the statement that he did not introduce detention without trial in section 6 of the Terrorism Act and that the Government is not responsible for such things. Let me read his own words from Hansard, i.e. the first words on the Second Reading of the Bill. His first words were—

He then added—

Detention for an unlimited time can be detention for a year, two years and till death without a trial. And then the hon. the Minister says that he did not introduce detention without trial.

In the second place he made the statement that section 6 was not introduced for this special purpose in regard to terrorism. Let me read the rather ambiguous words of his in col. 7029 during that same debate.

He then said—

There you are. Why does he come with that statement here? That statement was further explained during the Committee Stage of the Bill. Then the hon. the Minister himself did not speak on clause 6. He left that to the hon. the Minister of Police. He probably did so for quite a good reason, because the hon. the Minister of Police knew more of the terrorist activities on the borders. The hon. the Minister of Police made it quite clear that section 6 was insufficient for action against terrorists on the border. After all, justice is supposed to be blind bearing scales equally weighted. I have never yet seen such an hysterical outburst for a man who is Minister of Justice in this country. I shall now leave him there.

I should like to come to the hon. the Prime Minister. I think we are entitled to ask a very important question at this stage of the debate. That is why—and this phenomenon is continuing—the Prime Minister refuses to come into the debate of no-confidence at an appropriately early time. His predecessors, Dr. Verwoerd, Mr. Strydom and. as far as I can remember also Dr. Malan, did it. He reminds me of a weak captain of a weak cricket team. The Prime Minister is the captain of a cricket team and he does not want to come in as first, second, third or the middle batsman, because he is afraid the score board would read: B. J. Vorster, bowled Graaff, caught Marais Steyn—a duck. He leaves it until the very last so that the score board may read a bit better, namely: B. J. Vorster, not out, nil. These are the signs, the classical signs, which are recognized by political scientists, of a party which is on its way out. Scientists throughout the history of the world have recognized the signs. I shall mention them one by one and I shall prove them this afternoon. The first is that a Government on its way out can no longer carry out its own policy. The corollaries of this are that they try to take over the Opposition’s policy, that they make blunders and are involved in political scandals. The second sign of a Government on its way out recognized by political scientists is that it loses support in all spheres and particularly amongst the uncommitted voters. By-elections go against it, its finances come in more slowly and the youth desert it. That can be read in the books of the political scientists, and the Government can apply it to itself, the third sign recognized by political scientists is that criticism mounts in the Government’s own ranks, becomes more open, and even their own Press becomes highly critical. The fourth sign is that a Government on its way out is that it starts looking for scapegoats, as this Government has been looking for scapegoats amongst the ordinary people of South Africa. The last sign is that they speak of desperate measures and that they try to apply desperate measures, from indoctrination onwards. Furthermore, they make violent attacks on the Press, secret police activities are intensified and at last, desperately, they get their Press to speak about the possibility of a coalition.

*Let me deal with each of these points now. The first sign that a government is collapsing is that it can no longer implement its policy. Its road comes to a dead end. Just look at their economic policy. They wanted to stop inflation by subduing the economy, but what happened? Inflation continued, but the economy had been subdued and prices increased even more. We were kind to the hon. the Minister when we told him that the growth rate was 2,4 per cent per head of the population; but that 2,4 per cent itself is misleading, too, because it is represented mainly by the increase in salaries, wages in our national product. The value of those increased salaries and wages dropped in buying power. I have here the authority of a competent man, the Secretary for Trade and Industry, Mr. Steyn. His words were (translation)—

Therefore, it is not higher production, not more trade, but simply inflation which arose as a result of higher wages becoming worth less and less. The increase in the growth rate was not even 2 per cent. The hon. the Minister of Finance elaborated so much on the position in other countries and on how much worse things were going there. I have a wonderful reply for him. Dr. Jan Marais gave the reply when he returned from overseas a month or two ago. He said the following—

†And now let the hon. the Minister of Finance listen to the words of Dr. Marais …

†That is your policy, a policy of a set of negatives. When is that positive policy going to come?

But, let the business people speak themselves. Look at this headline: “Business majority want a change.” The first paragraph reads as follows—

Disgraceful!

Those hon. members say: “Disgraceful!” But who said this? It was Dr. Jan Hupkes, former head of the Bureau for Economic Research! in Stellenbosch, and today manager of Federale Volksbeleggings. Seventy per cent of them no longer want this Government. Economically that Government is sick today; it is on its way out. For a long time I have been thinking of a name for that serious ailment from which the Government is suffering. However, I have not been able to think of a good name. Fortunately, however, in a recent speech the hon. the Minister of Finance provided a name for their ailment. It may be found in his Hansard.

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

No, I am sorry.

The hon. the Minister of Finance said: “The country is suffering from a discrepancy in the rate of exchange”. This is the trouble with the Government. Just look, there they are all sitting with “discrepancy in their rate of exchange” among the whole lot of them, from A to Z. Their economic policy is coming to a dead end. Their Bantu policy is coming to a dead end. My goodness, even Dr. Banda rejects their apartheid. Here someone is saying, according to a newspaper report: “Apartheid must go, or else …” Who was it? It was Chief Jonathan. The report reads as follows—

†Speaking like the hon. the Minister of the Interior indeed!

Violence might come next year or in 10 years or even 20 years”, he said, “but it will eventually come”.

*Is this the way in which the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development wants to tell us that the Bantu in South Africa or in Basutoland supports its policy today?

But, what is more, Prof. Jan Moolman …

He is sitting behind you.

No, that is Dr. Jan Moolman. We have two clever Jan Moolmans; the one is a doctor and the other a professor. [Interjections.] No, I have all my notes here. Prof. Moolman was a member of the Tomlinson Commission, and that same Prof. Moolman made a speech last year in which he stated that the policy in terms of which the Bantu could be separated into self-governing states, had already proved itself a failure. Furthermore, he added to that—I have the cutting here—that something would have to be done in regard to the Bantu in the urban areas.

What were his actual words?

I shall read out the precise words to that hon. member. The report reads, inter alia, as follows—

This was one of the members of the Tomlinson Commission, which laid down their policy, saying that that policy had already been rejected. Their policy has reached a dead end.

I do not want to speak about their sport policy here this afternoon, but now I see the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation sitting over there. Perhaps I can say something to him. Does the hon. Minister know where his sport policy comes from? I have here a document, a secret document. I get secret documents fairly often. At the top of this secret document one reads (translation) “Sport policy; circulated April, 1971”. It comes from the Executive. The Executive of what?—of the Broederbond. Let me read the first paragraph (translation)—

Then these words followed (translation)—

I never received that. [Interjections.]

I know, That is the trouble. The hon. the Minister of Sport has replied too soon, because the next part of the sentence reads as follows (translation.)—

He never saw it. The Broederbond by-passed him. He, the Minister of Sport, is only finding out for the first time that he, who cannot even become a member of the Broederbond, is now a mouthpiece of the Broederbond. Do not let me attack the hon. the Minister of Sport too much. After all, he has introduced something which is quite commendable; I am referring to the introduction of this system …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

… of jogging.

Order!

No, I am not prepared to answer any questions.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

He introduced the system of jogging.

Order! There is another member Who would like to put a question.

No, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to answer any questions. My answer to the hon. members is that jogging is the thing. Inter alia, it provides that every Cabinet Minister over 65 years of age, who can do 4 000 metres in 40 minutes, can get a bronze medal. That is quite an excellent idea. My objection to this Government is that, instead of showing the activity of a genuine jogger in their politics, they are not doing so.

Is this still the Broederbond?

One would wish they would show some of the energy of a jogging enthusiast in running the country, but, unfortunately, they jog without moving forward. Indeed, their jogging compares with the advice given in “Knees up, Mother Brown! ” [Interjections.]

*Yes, this is the discrepancy in their rate of exchange.

† Blunders and stupidities continue. Political scandals are rife throughout the land. We hear about the Agliotti and Marendaz affairs, Bell, Land Bank loans, fishing concessions and more in the same vein. Blunders …

Oh!

The hon. the Minster says “Oh!” What about his sacking of the Secretary of Tourism, Mr. Vladimar Steyn?

What were the sources of information of the Cabinet in regard to Owambo? There sits the hon. the Minister of Information. Out of the public purse he is paying for dozens upon dozens of information officers in the Bantu areas and, I presume, in Owambo too. What kind of information did he give his Government from his information officers in Owambo? Utterly wrong information! Let me quote what Rapport said:

His own paper says that, and he is one of the chief sources of information in this regard.

*There are follies I can mention. We have heard about the shunters and train compilers, but do hon. members still remember this folly? I read from a report which appeared in the Sunday Express of 24th October entitled “White cinemas can use Coloured usherettes”—

†This seems to be official policy—

*To what endless folly can a government which is on the way out, descend! They cannot implement their own policy, therefore they are trying to implement our policy. However, they cannot do this either, because their hearts are not in it. Television, which the Government has at long last agreed to introduce, is the policy of the United Party, and look how badly they are carrying this out. The independence of the Post Office is the policy of the United Party as well. All the Government is doing at present, is ensuring a larger shortage of telephones and tariffs rising to unprecedented heights. No, this is “discrepancy in their rate of exchange”. One can see this in every hon. member opposite. They speak of enlightenment, but what is their type of enlightenment? Is their enlightenment something which they tackle vigorously and something which causes them to take progressive decisions? Oh no In what light is their new “enlightened” sport policy for example, viewed by their own people? I have here an article written by Arrie Joubert, the Sports Editor of Rapport. He is explaining the new sports policy to his people and says (translation)—

†To them their sport policy, their enlightment, is a bitter pill to be swallowed. I have never been bluffed by the story of their enlightenment. Their enlightenment is as weak as the light of an ancient firefly on a cold winter’s night.

The second sign that the Government is on its way out is that it is starting to lose the support of the mass of the voters.

*In this House there are at least four National Party members of the House of Assembly whose constituencies are represented in the Provincial Council by members of the United Party today. Will they rise now?—Springs, Westdene, Boksburg and Randburg are going to be added as well. The pending by-elections prove this too. Let us take them one by one. For example, there is Kensington, a good middle-class constituency. The Government boasted that they had eventually removed the non-White postmen there and appointed Whites in their place. However, did the National Party dare put up a candidate there? No, nothing was heard from them. They jogged out of Kensington with a white flag in front of them. Then they came to Randburg. There the mayor and the members of his executive, who are acknowledged Nationalists, did not even dare to stand as candidates in the Randburg municipal elections. Once again they jogged out of Randburg with the white flag in front of them.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No, I am not going to reply to questions now. Let us analyse what happened when they came to Johannesburg. There are 47 wards in Johannesburg, of which the Nationalist Party held 17. In other words, they needed only seven more seats in order to take over the whole of Johannesburg. But what did they do when the nominations had to be made? Did they put up those 24 candidates? Did they put up 20 candidates? Mr. Speaker, they did not even nominate the 17 they had. They nominated only 15! There they jogged out of Johannesburg with the white flag in front.

I want to mention a third case; a third sign that a Government is on its way out, is that criticism builds up within its own ranks to an unparalleled extent. One of their own newspapers reported in very bold type (translation), “Connie disagrees with Theo”. Who is Connie and who is Theo? Then a voice came from a back bench which became vacant on Monday when ex-Minister P. K. le Roux resigned He conducted an interview with Rapport. Incidentally, talking about a vacant back bench, I see that not much trouble was really taken to fill it, if one looks at the member sitting there. This is what Mr. P. K. le Roux said a few days ago (translation)—

I wonder why he did not remain here for the no-confidence debate. (Translation)—

This is an ex-Minister, a front-bencher of theirs saying this (translation)—

Then follows this wonderful little sentence. He says (translation)—

He concludes (translation)—

I cannot deal with all the points I should have liked to deal with, but I should like to point out the contrast. Where they are retrogressing, the United Party is progressing today. Its policy can be implemented. Even the Government is grasping at it. The majority vote is turning to us, as is being proved in by-elections. There is little criticism, and what there is, is constructive within our own ranks. We are very firmly behind our leader. Here are the words of Sakkie van der Merwe, one of their political columnists (translation)—

Look how they are warning their own people. Another political correspondent of theirs, Mr. Thys Human, wrote the following (translation)—

It was a National political columnist who write that. The report continues in that vein. He goes on to say that the time will come when the will of the people will rise and the voice of the people will also be able to say to them: “Well, now you are going to jog out of Pretoria with the white flag in front of you.”

I think that in the course of this potpourri of a speech the hon. member spoke of a jockey. This amazes me. There was a report in the Sunday Times—if he still reads it—that also dealt with horses, and I should like to read it to him. On 19th September, 1971, this heading appeared above a report—

The report continues—

This report continues—

Sir, now I come to the horse story. They then said that the voters of Orange Grove thought they were getting a good Member of Parliament, but—

Sir, if the hon. member again takes the floor during this Sitting, I hope he will have worked out what jockey is riding the Shetland pony. This heading, “this was an unpleasant egg-dance”, interested me in one other respect after I had listened to the hon. member today. I also believe that the hon. member frequently does an egg-dance; all of us know it. The only objection I have—and I say this as an Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaner—is that the eggs on which he dances are frequently not so good anymore and that he succeeds in breaking them to the cost of the people’s language he is speaking. And there I want to leave him, Sir, because I think we have already learnt to rather leave him to one side.

†Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, in moving this motion, made these introductory remarks; he said—

Hear, hear!

Hon. members on that side say, “Hear, hear!”. I can well understand it, because I believe there were many columnists, too, who said the same thing. There were many people who thought that this would be a real onslaught on the Government benches and that they would have success in this connection. The climate was there; world conditions had affected South Africa, but I need not go into the details. That has been done adequately by several members, but what I do want to say is this: We have now had four days of this debate on a motion of no confidence, and I think that even those people who were inclined to agree with the introductory remark of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will bear me no grudge, or will even agree with me, when I say that after four days of debate we can add something to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said. To his words, “I do not suppose that any Leader of the Opposition at any time in the history of South Africa has ever had an easier job in moving a motion of no confidence than I have this afternoon”, we can now add the following words after four days of debate: “And never in the history of South Africa has he failed so dismally in his task.” Let me state, too, Sir, that in a way I sympathize with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, because the debate has proved, too, that in making a mess of this whole motion of no confidence, he was very ably and competently assisted by several members on the other side of the House, not least by the hon. member who has just sat down.

Sir, I do not want to go into detail about economic matters; that has already been done, and we will have an opportunity during the debate which will come later in the Session to debate in detail what the different Ministers have done. I can only say that one thing has been proved, and that is that whenever a point of real interest has cropped up and we on this side of the House have started to deal with it, the Opposition started running immediately. It happened in the case of the urban Native question, and it also happened in the case of quite a few other matters that were raised. [Interjections.] If the hon. member for Port Natal, who has just interjected, will give me the opportunity, I will come to him later on, if he will only exercise patience. Hon. members on the backbenches over there are very rowdy.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that many of these things have been adequately replied to already, but there are just a few points that I would like to mention in passing. I think I must say, just to warn the hon. the Leader of the Opposition against something in his own party, seeing that he has issued warnings to the hon. the Prime Minister, that he must be aware of the fact that there is a leadership fight in his own party.

Go on!

Sir, the hon. member need not come to me for the details of this.

A dogfight.

I think the details are well known all over. I must warn the hon. member for Yeoville, too, that at the moment he seems to be losing the battle for the leadership in the Transvaal.

He will be “Harried” into defeat.

I say this, Sir, because after having listened to the speeches of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Hillbrow, I find that the phraseology of the two gentlemen is increasingly becoming the same. All the other things which are being said bears this out. Let me mention one instance. Take the Civil Service.

*The hon. the Leader of the Opposition found it necessary to belittle the Public Service here and to try to get at the Government by those means. He said that the Public Service has, in recent times, grown so tremendously that shortly, in the year 2000, all White workers would be in the service of the State. And who was the man who had to work that out for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? Not the hon. member for Yeoville, but here it stands in the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s speech. The hon. member for Hillbrow had to work it out, the hon. member for Hillbrow who later also said, in amplification of what his leader had said, what he thought of the Public Service and its expansion. Sir, I just want to make a correction here. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that the projection had been made that the numbers would, by the year 2000, be so tremendous that not a single White worker would be available for any other work. Sir, I thought that the members of the Select Committee, who are also sitting on that side, would have corrected him before he began making projections which his leader must come to light with. But because this was not done, I thought I had better obtain the figures from 1948 to the present day. The claim was made by the hon. member for Hillbrow, who is making these projections, that there is a 400 per cent increase in the Public Service establishment. I have before me the report of the Public Service Commission for the year 1947. These figures apply to 31st December 1948; then there were 105 051 in the Public Service establishment. I tried to determine what the subsequent increases were. On 31st December, 1967, almost 20 years afterwards, with the inclusion of the Post Office, the number was 212 788, an increase of just more than 10 per cent in this rapidly-developing country. Subsequently the Post Office staff was excluded, and the latest official figures in this report have been tabled. If the hon. member for Hillbrow would do less crystal-gazing and rather do his homework, he would see that on the service record, which has been tabled here, there were 128 822 employees at the end of 1970. Is that a 400 per cent increase? Sir, I do not have a degree in economics, and I am not an authority on economics, but I think that an elementary calculation would tell you that not only is the hon. member’s projection hopelessly at fault, but also his facts.

But that is not all that happened. Assertions have been made here that must, in any case, be answered, and these concern the standard of living. The public at large must be told that in South Africa “we cannot enjoy the good things of life”. Those were the words that have been used repeatedly, and this is once again why I said that this question of leadership is relevant, because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition never differs much from the hon. member for Hillbrow. Who does the teaching I do not know. “The good things of life!” I am not a traveller overseas. I cannot speak with authority about that. And if I could go overseas, I perhaps could not stay at the luxury places, but I also kept my eyes open when I had the privilege of being there, and let me now say this: In some of the European countries with which we must be compared, as well as in other countries of Africa, I also stayed with well-to-do people who served one meat once a day because it was not available and because it was too expensive. I also stayed with people who had to make do with a part-time servant and wash their own dishes. There were also places where they could not travel to town singly in a motor car, because they could not afford it, having to go to work in groups. I say again, perhaps I was not staying with the well-to-do people, but I am one of the people who has the privilege in South Africa of sharing “in the good things of life”. I want to mention an example, and this for the benefit of our young people of today as well. Sir, I have three children at university, two boys and a girl, and in the holidays they work to earn pocket money and help pay for their studies. The one boy works at the Department of Justice. He has not graduated yet, but he obtains a salary of R170. My daughter went to work after her first year, in part-time work in which she is not qualified at all, and she is paid R120 per month. My second son worked in an office and later came to me and said: “Father, because I need the money for my studies I would prefer to drive a lorry.” He then went out to do part-time lorry-driving and he gets R217 per month.

And you say there is no shortage.

The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. If I have time later I will explain to him over a cup of tea what it is all about. I am speaking of the standard of living our young people can maintain, even in a part-time capacity. I am speaking of the things we enjoy here in our country and which we should start appreciating. I also had to pay for part of my studies. Sir, I do not want to go into that in detail, because times are not comparable, but you should imagine for yourself what was paid out then.

We have a high standard of living, and then along come people from whom we expect responsibility, and they say: “We do not want to be compared with a fifth-rate nation.” I now want to know from the Opposition and from their Leader: If in this highest Council you can speak so scornfully about a small country of the world, which must forge links of friendship, or of any nation in the world, by calling it a “fifth-rate nation”, which is the “fifth-rate nation” you are speaking about and want to compare us with? I studied the comparisons: France, England, America, New Zealand, Australia, which have again been quoted here by the hon. the Minister of Finance and other speakers. Which of them are also “fifth-rate nations”? And in the same language and idiom the crystal-gazer of Hillbrow comes along and says, “When one country comes begging”—comes pleading for alms. In the interests of South Africa, is he not ashamed of himself? What up-and-coming African country and people with any self-pride— and we have been warned that in Africa they are up-and-coming—would tolerate in the highest Council Chamber in this country, a reference to them as being a “fifth-rate nation” or as being a small country that comes begging for alms? And this comes from a responsible Opposition! No, I think that if we want to make comparisons with Africa and the world, it is clearly indicated that we have reason to be deeply grateful and to continue fighting for this heritage.

But lastly I want to come to that new word which is used so frequently. I went and read it up in the speeches. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition used it five times. He virtually made a whole speech about it, and the hon. member for Hillbrow used it three times. The word is “ideology”. The suggestion is that there are people here who are now simply supporting something that hangs in the air. And it has increasingly come to the fore in the debate that these two hon. gentlemen are competing with each other to see who can use it the most. Then the accusation is also levelled that the hon. the Minister of Finance and this Government “are trying to bend the economy to suit the ideology”.

You are bending the economy.

I am indebted to the hon. member for saying it, but now I want to tell him that if he still has a shred of love left for the Fatherland, as I know he has: What do you choose? Must the economy be bent for your ideals, or must your ideals be bent for temporary gain? What is your standpoint and the standpoint of that side of the House. Our standpoint, and I am not ashamed of it, is that it is not an ideology; it is an ideal and it has been throughout the years. I can understand the hon. member for Yeoville laughing in his typical manner about that. He no longer knows what an ideal is. He does not understand that language. We are on different wavelengths when we speak of these things. There are exceptions, but there are more of them in the Opposition who are on a different wavelength. It is true what the hon. the Minister of Finance said, and every member on this side of the House endorses it wholeheartedly, as do the people of South Africa. If our economy must temporarily be detrimentally affected for the sake of achieving the ideal, for the sake of the preservation of our culture, our Christendom, our White people, this foundation, then bend the economy so that we can remain intact. That is the gist of it. I had hoped that in this debate this would at least come to the fore, that in this House the alternative would be proposed for the policy implemented by this Government these past years.

Sir, we may have differed with many people over the years, but our country has produced its great statesmen. We did not always agree with them. I differed radically with some of them, even as a young man, but no one can deny that General Louis Botha, General Hertzog, General Smuts and all who succeeded them were great statesmen. I do not think anyone would be fool enough to say that they did not have ability. In the course of this debate it was also mentioned that in 1946 and 1948 the great statesman, General Smuts, held the reins of Government in his hands. I just want to indicate this afternoon, from a debate of those times, what has happened to the Opposition today. On 21st January, 1947, the late Dr. Malan, as leader of the Opposition at the time, moved a motion in the House as a result of the decision of the U.N. to reject South Africa’s request for the annexation of South-West Africa. This had serious repercussions, as hon. members may still remember. That request was made because a White and non-White mandate in South Africa requested annexation and the U.N. refused it. Dr. Malan then submitted a five-point motion in which he asked, with a view to this decision, that the entire South-West Africa position should, in the first place, be reconsidered, but secondly, because there was also, at the U.N. meeting, a serious charge by India against South Africa, he also included in his motion the question of Indian intrusion and Indian legislation. And lastly he asked that a joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to work out a comprehensive policy for the Union in respect of the Coloured question in general, and more specifically in respect of the Native, Coloured and Asiatic population groups, etc. It is worth reading this prophetic speech by Dr. Malan in 1947. Several people took part in that debate. I want to quote what some of them said because it could perhaps prove of value to both sides of this House. I particularly want the hon. member for Hillbrow to hear this. One of the persons who took part in the debate said this in connection with the decisions of the U.N.—

He then said—

Then in connection with the Indian question, when India asked, as hon. members will remember, that full equal rights should be given to the Indians in the country, he said, inter alia, (Hansard, 1946-’47, column 10920)—

The hon. member for Hillbrow, through you, Mr. Speaker—

And in the same vein he continued (column 10923)—

I view this whole matter very seriously. I have learned during the past few months that South Africa is in a much more dangerous and much more difficult position than ever before …

I shall now quote from column 10921—

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member for Hillbrow, who spoke of a “Utopia”, the 1948 paradise. This happened in 1947, and the speaker was General Smuts. He was the one who said these things, also for the benefit of South Africa in 1972 and particularly for those people who speak disparagingly and humiliatingly about these things the Government must try with difficulty to bridge. I know those people say here that the Government is wrong when it says we must be careful of what we say. Those people state that the Government says so because it is sensitive to criticism. I do not know, but if it could be any worse at all, the situation has surely become more serious for many countries through the years. I should like to quote to you what the Prime Minister of the time said. This is what General Smuts said (column 10912)—

Has the hon. member for Houghton been listening? I think of these sort of things that are said in this House and at meetings, as the hon. the Minister of Justice stated here, intending it for the hon. member who spoke before him, the hon. member for Durban North. I do not know whether people suffer from a publicity complex, as the hon. Chief Whip said, but to issue statement after statement in a period of such conflict, in a difficult period, and about delicate situations, can detrimentally affect our country. I think we ought to be convinced that what has been done over the years was done with dedication, love and zeal. I know that the non-White population does not always understand this, and I cannot blame them for that either. I know there are problems—and it is a fool who tries to dismiss problems as if they do not exist—but the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said yesterday that adjustments would be made as we developed. I also want to say this for the benefit of our own people because criticism frequently comes even from well-intentioned academicians, theoreticians, authorities in politics and even from people serving on party executives. Adjustments will have to be made; it cannot be otherwise, and a government must be trusted to make those adjustments in the best interests of South Africa. And when, at times, ad hoc decisions are taken, the Government deserves the absolute loyalty and fidelity of each of its people and also those people who benefit from that government. This side of the House will give that loyalty to the Government because we are convinced, as we have been throughout the years, that only along these lines and with this policy can South Africa be administered to the benefit of us all.

I told hon. members that in that debate, in which he was humiliated, General Smuts adopted the standpoint that we should band together for South Africa. I am not calling for coalition because I want nothing to do with that; but I do want to call upon everyone with good intentions towards South Africa to stop stealing these political marches. A week of the House’s time is too valuable to have to listen to speeches such as those the hon. member for Orange Grove and a few others made. I want to state what General Smuts said, and although I did not agree with his policy, I agreed with a great deal he had to say (Hansard 1946-’47, column 10923)—

I also want to ask the hon. members on the other side of the House to view it seriously, if that is possible for them. I specifically ask this of the hon. member for Newton Park—

Thus, say I, shall we maintain it, but I must add that if there is one thing that has been proved in this no-confidence debate, it is that there is no alternative government on that side of the House; not at all, never! If there was one debate that proved this, it was this one, i.e. if further proof is necessary. This Opposition proved themselves in this debate to be a party which is unqualified, incompetent and unworthy even to be an Opposition in a country like South Africa, a country having its own difficulties, but also a country with a future.

Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member for Witbank got carried away by his enthusiasm for his political ideals, he alleged that this side of the House was running away from the argument in certain aspects of this debate. I intend using the limited time at my disposal on a subject that has already been covered fairly widely by speakers on this side of the House, but one from which I consider the Government and every Government speaker who has spoken on it have run away. They have run away from the questions which we have put. I am referring to the economic position of this country. This has been fairly widely covered, but I intend focusing attention this afternoon on one aspect of the financial management of this country which has been worrying us, namely the disregard of the Government, and particularly of the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, for their responsibilities in regard to the fostering, protection and encouragement of business confidence.

Business confidence is a very important element in the economic health of our country. On it depends the willingness of businessmen to take risks; on it depends the willingness of businessmen to risk their capital, to invest their capital, to expand their productive capacity so that the future expansion and the future growth of the country can be taken care of. Without that expansion the economic problems of this country can never be solved. But business confidence is a fragile and sensitive commodity. It takes a long time to build up but it is very easily broken and fractured. To flourish it needs a climate of certainty. It needs clear, definite and frank guide-lines as to what the plans and policy of the Government are in regard to the economy of the country. Business is not afraid to face difficulties. Difficulties it has to face, difficulties beyond its control, difficulties beyond the control of the Government even. But when, in addition to those difficulties, it also has to deal with vacillation, weak policies, weak decisions, ill-considered decisions, then that business confidence gets near to breaking point. If there is anything that can be read out of the latest issue of the opinion survey of the Bureau of Economic Research of the Stellenbosch University, it is that business confidence is at a very low ebb at present.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with three glaring examples of what I mean by Government actions that have damaged business confidence that took place during the recess. The first one that I should like to deal with is the directive issued by the Department of Finance to financial institutions to the effect that a percentage of new investments in participation mortgage bonds had to be applied to the purchase of Government stock. That was a particularly ill-conceived instruction, because not only did the public debt commissioners, the financial institutions themselves and investors find in practice that it was virtually impossible to comply with this instruction, but this directive itself was clearly and patently in conflict with the law governing participation mortgage bond schemes. I maintain that it is faux pas of that nature that do so much damage to business confidence, and the confidence of business in the Government’s ability to manage the finances of the country properly.

Secondly, I should like to come to a subject which has already been voiced in this debate and which I can only term as the import control fiasco. There have been certain replies, and particularly one by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, on this subject. However, I regard the reply that he has given us as completely unsatisfactory and not answering the position. It is a fact that, on the 22nd October last year, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs issued a statement, from which I now quote. He said—

That was not just a general statement of policy. It was clearly a green light to importers to go ahead and make their arrangements for 1972 and enter into commitments with overseas suppliers to import for that period. Barely a month later, on the 24th November, 1971, the hon. the Ministers of Finance and Economic Affairs issued statements which had the effect not only of completely revoking the statement made on the 22nd October, but also of retrospectively invalidating, to the extent of 50 per cent, balances of permits still available to be used in 1971; in other words, permits against which importers had made their commitments to import. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to discuss the merits or demerits of import control at this stage. I think that import control is one of the prices we must pay in this country for the misguided policies of this Government. What I want to criticize in the strongest possible terms is, firstly, the complete reversal of import control within a period of one month, when no new factors had entered on the economic scene that would have any bearing on the balance of payments problem. Secondly, I want to criticize the harshness with which the import control measures have been applied. This has done immeasurable harm to commerce. It has done immeasurable harm to the good standing of our country with suppliers in overseas countries.

Mr. Speaker, when I say that no new element entered into the economic scene between the 22nd October and the 24th November, I am saying that the problems which were caused by the American decision to suspend the convertibility of the dollar into gold and to levy a general surcharge on imports, were the same on the 22nd October as they were on the 24th November. The uncertainties caused by by the general international currency situation at the time, which were causing the leads and lags situation and which were causing the flow of capital into the country to diminish, were no more uncertain on the 24th November than they were on the 22nd October. Surely it was just as easy on the 22nd October to forecast what the future trend of exports and imports would be as it was at the later date? This complete volte-face on the part of the Government has left this side of the House, and certainly businessmen in general, with the impression that the financial management of this country is completely rudderless. I am reminded of a businessman who is getting into trouble and who does not take any action. He optimistically thinks that things are going to turn out right, until he suddenly finds that he is in real difficulties and then has to take panic and drastic action. That impression is reinforced in my mind by the harshness with which the import control measures have been applied. It is virtually unheard of in the commercial world, once an authority has been issued to do something such as to import, and once the people to whom that authority has been issued have taken action on it, to withdraw that authority. But this is exactly what has happened, with the result that importers have been placed in the position that they have entered into commitments which they then have to cancel and that they have to repudiate contracts or have to break them. Just imagine what that is doing for the commercial reputation of our importers and of our country abroad. I know for a fact of one company that, as a result of the revoking of import permits, has had to cancel orders to the tune of no less than R188 000.

Even more unheard of than that is what has happened in regard to the application of retrospective financial penalties on importers who placed orders perfectly legally against permits that were valid at the time they placed those orders. When those orders were forwarded to this country the importers were unable to cancel them and were penalized as a result. This is what has happened and, although I have asked a question in this House as to the extent to which these penalties have been collected, so far I have not yet received an answer. Imports which were shipped after the 25th November and which arrived without a valid import permit for the only reason that the permit against which they were originally placed was revoked, have been subjected to a penalty of 20 per cent of the value of those imports or to confiscation by the Customs. Importers who have paid that penalty can apply to Pretoria for a refund, but the decision as to whether they get that refund is in the hands of civil servants and there is no appeal to any court. The fate of many thousands of rands is involved in this manner. It may happen that when they apply for a refund, that refund is refused to them even if they have done nothing that they could have helped doing. They may get a letter like this, as have some importers. This is a circular letter addressed to them by the Director of Imports and Exports. It reads—

Mr. Speaker, what an impossible position; what arrogance on the part of the Government!

Then I would like, in addition, to mention some of the practical difficulties which are put on the shoulders of importers as a result of the manner in which import control is administered. Surely it is ludicrous that an import permit that covers a single item, such as a piece of machinery, should have been cut in half. What is the importer supposed to do? Is he supposed to have half a machine or half an aeroplane? If for any reason, which is obscure to me, it is necessary to do these things in this way for the sake of administrative procedures, surely it would have been possible to speed up the restoration of the 50 per cent cancelled on those single items, so that the importers do not have to go through the tortuous procedures that they do have to go through.

Is it advisable also that on issues of import permits for plant there should be a condition that importers, if they want to use their permits, or if the permits are to be issued to them, should have to arrange for three years’ credit with overseas suppliers? Three-year credit is an expensive condition. It puts up the cost of imports. It puts up the cost of machinery. To me the insistence on three years’ credit gives the impression of a country that is very hard up. These are some of the difficulties with which importers are faced as a result of the imposition of import control, and particularly the way in which import control has been reimposed. I know of importers who are barely able to keep their businesses going as a result of these difficult requirements. I know of one manufacturer who exports practically the whole of his output and has had to reduce that output which would otherwise have been exported, because he has not been able to get one imported ingredient. These are the things that put business into confusion. These are the things that damage the confidence of businesses in the ability of the Government to run the economic affairs of this country. These are the things that damage the image, the reputation and the commercial standing of the country with overseas suppliers and in overseas markets.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few words to those which have already been said on the subject of devaluation, because I do not believe that the consequences and the implications of devaluation, as far as its effect on business confidence is concerned, have been fully explored by members on the other side of this House.

They do not know what to explore.

Speakers on that side of the House who have explained or excused devaluation have only touched on the advantages of devaluation. On the whole, the impression that I have got is that they have been trying to convey that devaluation has been a wonderful thing for this country. I do not think that as a Government they have been responsible by failing to be completely frank with the country as to what the full implications and consequences of devaluation are.

That is the biggest nonsense.

The Government has not put to the country clearly what the disadvantages of devaluation are; it has not put to the country clearly what has to be done if the advantages of devaluation are not to be dissipated and it has not put to the country what it intends doing to help the private sector to take advantage of the situation. Mr. Speaker, let us be quite clear in our minds as to what devaluation actually is. In the first place it is an act of insolvency; it is an act of compromise with our foreign creditors, and because on balance we are heavily a debtor nation—that is to say, we owe abroad much more than is owed to us—it means that we, or our creditors, stand to lose much more when our foreign debts are repaid and when our foreign debts are serviced by way of interest …

You are talking nonsense.

… than we stand to gain in respect of debts owing to this country.

You repay more rands for your foreign loans.

Unfortunately in this respect the hon. the Minister of Finance has been anything but frank in advising the country what the cost of devaluation is going to be.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, devaluation is a deliberate act of lowering the standard of living of our country in comparison with the standards of living of countries which have devalued to a lesser extent or not devalued at all. This is so, and the hon. the Minister of finance cannot argue with this, because in order to import from those countries the same amount for consumption and enjoyment in this country, as a result of devaluation we shall have to export more in the way of goods to them for them to enjoy. If that is not a relative lowering of the standard of living, then I do not know what is. This lowering of the standard of living is obviously going to be reflected in higher prices, and because we are a country which depends heavily on imports, those higher prices are going to be reflected in virtually every area of the economy. The people who are going to be hurt most are the people on fixed incomes, such as pensioners, and people with low incomes who, generally speaking, are the non-White sections of the population, and particularly the African section of the population These are the sections of the population which have no power to defend themselves against higher prices because they have no bargaining power over their own incomes. I should like strongly to endorse the remarks made by the hon. member for Johannesburg North in regard to the position of the Africans. They are the people who are going to be hurt by another dose of inflation. The problems of poverty will be intensified and all the problems that are associated with them, the social problems, the political problems and the racial problems, will be intensified.

Already we have had an indication of higher prices for motor vehicles as the result of devaluation. Already we are having to pay 14 per cent more for foreign air travel. We are threatened already with increases in the price of clothing, which I believe will probably not be less than 12½ per cent and maybe as high as 25 per cent. However much the Government may try to play King Canute and try to push back the tide of rising prices, it cannot get away from the fact that a 12,28 per cent devaluation means that we have to pay just that much more for our imported goods; and because imported goods are used in practically every area of the economy, the cost of locally produced goods must sooner or later be affected also.

Thirdly, devaluation is an act of admission that the productivity in our country has been lagging behind the productivity of other countries because the underlying reason behind changes in the balance of trade is changes in relative productivity and was an adverse balance of trade which caused devaluation. I would like to take issue with the hon. the Minister of Planning in this regard because I believe that had the Government over the years fully developed the productive resources that are available for development in this country, particularly the labour resources, then the rand would have been in a position to follow the strongest currencies and not sink with the weakest.

Sir, those are some of the problems and the Government has not been frank in putting those problems and difficulties to the country. But even more disturbing I find— and this is what affects business confidence —is that the Government has not put to the country what measures it proposes taking to meet the position. Remember that devaluation is only a device for buying time to put our house in order. If we do not put our house in order in the time we have available to do so, the cost we will have paid for devaluation will be a wasted cost. Other speakers on this side of the House have given a fair indication as to what measures should be taken. I have grave doubts whether the Government has the ability to take them or whether it will take them on account of the fact that its policies put ideological considerations above the material welfare of the country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with amazement to the hon. member who has just sat down, for the simple reason that it would appear to me as though the United Party now wants to change its standpoint in regard to devaluation completely. After the speech made by this hon. member, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition owes it to this House and to the country to say precisely, when replying to the debate, what his Party’s standpoint is. In saying that the hon. the Minister of Finance was not frank in connection with the advantages and disadvantages of devaluation, that hon. member said something which has no foundation whatsoever. The hon. the Minister of Finance pointed out the advantages and disadvantages very specifically. The hon. the Minister of Finance naturally stressed the advantages, but he also stated the other side of the case very clearly. Every hon. member in this House knows that. But, Mr. Speaker, surely one’s memory is not so short, not even that of the hon. member for Constantia, who has just resumed his seat. Since he is now reproaching us for having devalued and has said very ugly things in this regard, to which I shall return, does he recall that when Britain devalued a few years ago and we did not follow her, it was in fact my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition who reproached us across the floor of the House for not having devalued? He reproached us with being unable to make use of the great benefits of devaluation because we had not followed that course at a time when it was not necessary. Now the hon. member for Constantia makes the amazing statement that devaluing in the way in which we have now done so is “an act of insolvency”.

Disgraceful!

Something like that one does not expect even from a back-bencher of the United Party. When will hon. members on the opposite side of this House learn that they have a duty towards South Africa as well? Then, Mr. Speaker, as my friend here rightly says, the hon. member speaks about confidence in the economy. I want to ask hon. members in all seriousness: What confidence can an outsider who knows nothing about South Africa’s circumstances have in South Africa if they have only the speeches of hon. members opposite at their disposal to judge South Africa on? Do we not owe more to South Africa, in spite of our political differences, which will always be there and which we are fully entitled to discuss across the floor of this House? But, Mr. Speaker, surely we are all South Africans who have or ought to have a sense of loyalty to South Africa?

The other day I had the opportunity of having a discussion with a businessman from abroad. He told me that he had read a great deal about South Africa, that he had called for information and that he had made himself thoroughly conversant with the position in South Africa. This, he said, induced him to come to South Africa for the first time in order to investigate conditions here personally and to make investments here. He said that when he came here and made a personal investigation, he saw that the information he had received was perfectly correct and that South Africa was a country with tremendous potential. He also stated that he had already been in South Africa for about a fortnight and that he had had discussions with South African businessmen in that period. And then he said the following: “If I had known nothing about South Africa and had not been here personally to investigate matters and had not acquainted myself with the position before making my decisions and had had to listen to the businessmen with whom I have had discussions during the past fortnight, I would not have touched South Africa with a barge-pole.” I want to make so bold as to say that this is unfortunately the type of person which the hon. member for Constantia showed himself to be in the House this afternoon. Surely South Africa does not deserve this from us. Take the other theme which has also been mentioned) across the floor of this House. From the hon. member for Durban Point we heard the word “bankrupt”. We heard it across the floor of this House last year already, and when you listen to hon. members on that side you get the impression that South Africa is in such a state that a stream of insolvencies is going to ensue. This is in fact what has been said, but what are the facts? I called for the official statistics of insolvencies for the past year; this is after all the best barometer one can use to see whether a country or the people of a country are going downhill in so far as their economic position and standards are concerned. What do we find? As far as individuals and partnerships are concerned, there were 682 insolvencies in 1968—only 682 insolvencies for the entire population of South Africa.

And the amount?

Yes, quite rightly the question is asked: “What about the present?” I shall tell you …

No, the amount.

I called for the number of insolvencies, not for the amounts. What difference would the amounts make? If a man is insolvent he is insolvent, not so? Surely hon. members know that! [Interjections.] I know the hon. members do not want to know how well South Africa is doing; they do not want to hear that. As I have said there were 682 insolvencies in 1968. In 1969 there were 641, in 1970 644 and in 1971, the year in which all of us would allegedly go under, the year in which, according to hon. members opposite, everybody would become insolvent, there were 684. This means that there is a difference of 2 when the figure for 1971, i.e. 684, is compared with the figure for 1968, i.e. 682. In other words, the position remained normal; we had the normal number of insolvencies, in spite of the fact that the volume of trade and the volume of production had increased enormously. In spite of the fact that the population increased enormously during those years, the number of insolvencies increased by only 2 from 1968 to 1972. I also have to express my amazement at the hon. member for Constantia’s speech because of the fact that he as it were gave out—I could not hear him very well, because he spoke indistinctly—that we had in actual fact perpetrated a swindle with devaluation. Why does the hon. member say this? Why does he say that devaluation was a “deliberate act of lowering living standards”? That that is why we devalued? I also want to refer again to the reproach made across the floor by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. There are times in the economic development of a country when it has no option but to devalue. We have now devalued by 12,28 per cent, but when Britain devalued we did not follow her. When France devalued we did not follow her either, and it has now not been necessary for these two countries to make any adjustment in their currencies, because they devalued at the right moment at that time according to their circumstances. For this reason it has not been necessary for them to make any change now. Has the hon. member for Constantia not noticed that as a result of our devaluing we have once again reached approximate parity with Britain, as we had at that time? Has he not noticed that we have once again reached more or less the same parity with France as we had with them before they devalued? I really feel that South Africa is entitled to the loyalty of every one of us, irrespective of whatever political convictions we may have. [Interjections.]

We never sabotaged the country …

Order! Did the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District say, “We never sabotaged the country”?

That is right, Mr. Speaker.

What did the hon. member insinuate by that?

Mr. Speaker, what I implied was whether the Prime Minister was insinuating that we have sabotaged the country.

I warn the hon. member, if he does that again, I shall take action against him.

Mr. Speaker, because I now want to proceed to another point, I wish to move, with your leave—

Agreed to.