Mr. Speaker, I believe that this debate on the Second Reading of the Part Appropriation Bill gives us an excellent opportunity to view the state of the South African economy. It gives us a chance to see what has happened in the past, to assess what is happening at the present time, and perhaps even to speculate about the future. Obviously we must relate what is happening now, to the hon. the Minister’s Budget speech in 1971. When the hon. the Minister presented that Budget I, like some of my colleagues, tried to give my assessment of what was likely to happen. One does not want to hark back too much to the past and one does not want to retrace one’s steps too much, but the hon. the Minister at the time obviously took umbrage to the remarks I made and to the views that I expressed. That is why I have taken the trouble to study precisely what transpired at the time of the 1971 debate.

Quite clearly what happened in the Minister’s Budget speech in 1971 must be related again to the events that preceded it, particularly his Budget of 1970. It will be remembered that 1970 was election year, and during that election year the Minister and his colleagues could not have thought it wise, but they obviously thought it essential, to do very elaborate window-dressing. Everything we had was put into the shop window. The hon. gentleman and his colleagues were in the guise of Father Christmas; they were giving bountiful gifts to everybody. We remember the salary increases to civil servants and Railway workers. We remember, too that during that year salaries and wages increased to the extent of 12 per cent. The hon. the Minister at the time also told us that our country was one of the richest in the world, that our growth rate was higher than anywhere else, that our currency was stronger than practically anywhere else in the world. What he suggested was that our flourishing economy was in no small measure due to the economic expertise of the present administration. We did not believe this; it was believed only by those who are extremely gullible. What is more, it was clear to us that sooner or later somebody would have to pull the chestnuts from the fire and that in this process their fingers would get burned.

This was the unenviable task of the hon. the Minister in 1971. We will remember the additional taxes that were imposed upon the country. We will remember how additional loan levies were slapped on and we will remember how even customs and excise duties, to use his own euphamistic term, were “reviewed”. In that one year the hon. the Minister took millions of rand out of our pockets. But perhaps it is not so important to look at what he actually did. Perhaps of greater consequence is what he told us what his Budget would do. He indicated to us that this was a Budget that was calculated to stop inflation; this was to be a Budget that would cure all our ills. He told us in the second instance that this was a Budget which would establish the foundations for sound and stable and economic growth. Mr. Speaker, he indicated that all these things would flow from this Budget, and he ended his oration on a highly optimistic note and told us that the country could now face the future with great confidence. Again we did not believe this; again we did not accept this, and we were prepared to say so.

What I in my own case tried to indicate to the hon. the Minister was that I thought his diagnosis was wrong, that his Budget would lead to an unfavourable prognosis. What I tried to indicate to him was that he might achieve the opposite effect of what he had in mind. You see, Sir, when the South African economy becomes sick, the hon. the Minister, like the quacks of old, brings on the leeches for some economic blood letting. This invariably leaves the patient, the economy, weaker and worse off than it was before. But more particularly, Sir, in my own case I tried to indicate to the hon. the Minister that his Budget would not lead to increased productivity, because prior to his Budget UAL (Union Acceptances Limited) had indicated that during the previous two-year period our productivity had increased by only 3,2 per cent. This is less than half of what is necessary to attain the economic growth rate as set by our planners. Certainly there is nobody in this House today who would deny that salaries and wages constitute more than 50 per cent of net output value. This is a situation that should concern all of us.

What did happen? Did productivity increase? The hon. the Minister gave the reply when he spoke to us on Monday. He said that during the last year employment in the non-agricultural sector grew by 5 per cent, but the contribution of this group to the net domestic product came to only 4 per cent. This obviously meant a further decline in the productivity, and hence we were right and the hon. the Minister was wrong.

I tried to indicate in the second instance that this Budget would not lead to increased exports. Indeed, I tried to suggest that it would stimulate imports and in fact lead to an endemic balance of payments situation. Again, what has transpired? Last year, on balance of trade, we were in the red to the extent of R1 350 million, and if you were to include invisible losses, this amount would be greatly increased.

The Government is in the nature of a board of directors; they are running the economy of this country. Can you imagine what would happen in the private sector if you had a board of directors that gave you this kind of profit pattern after a year? They would all be fired immediately. I believe that the shareholders of South Africa, who are in fact also the voters of our country, are eagerly awaiting an opportunity to do precisely this. Mr. Speaker, as a result of these developments, our foreign reserves deteriorated from R1 239 million in 1969 to R328 million in December of last year. When I look at those figures, Sir, I can describe them merely as brilliant mismanagement of what is technically one of the most favourable economic situations in the world.

In the third instance I tried to suggest to the hon. the Minister that his Budget would not lead to increased growth. What are the figures at the present time? Last year our economy grew by something like 4 per cent, which is way below the target rate set by our economic planners. But if we were to express this in per capita terms, it means that our growth rate was probably only in the region of about 1 per cent. This means that in fact we are all working hard in order to stay more or less where we are. We are not moving forward, we are marking time. When I made this point, the hon. the Minister did not see it this way. If he did, he chose to hide it. He chose to hide it by not dealing with my arguments or with whatever merit they might have had. On the contrary, he subjected me to a violent personal attack. Sir, it was quite an exhibition for a gentleman who is ordinarily somewhat phlegmatic. He really became quite excited about it, but it was quite clear to me, even at the time, that his agitation was merely a measure of his vulnerability in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, in the fourth instance, I tried to indicate to the hon. the Minister the contrary to what he had told us—that his Budget would lead to increased inflation— and what is the position today? Our cost-of-living index has gone up by 7 per cent. Now the hon. the Minister is trying to camouflage it by saying that if you exclude certain Government taxes then the figure is only 4 per cent. This is a conjuring trick, and a very poor one at that. This is a strategy that is falling completely flat. He has only got to go and talk to the workers and the housewives of South Africa and they will tell him in very forthright terms what they think of this form of arithmetic wizardry.

Mr. Speaker, as the result of all these developments, we now face two other important issues. First of all, we have import control. Contrary to all the pious promises that came from that side, additional import controls were slapped on last year. Secondly, we have devaluation. I want to say a word about devaluation, too. Hon. members on the other side are now trying to suggest to us that devaluation is in fact an act of very considerable economic statesmanship. It is, of course, nothing of the kind. Devaluation is a sign of weakness and not of strength. Devaluation is a cause of shame because it meant that we were no longer in a position to pay our way. Devaluation is a disgrace in a country that has all the natural resources that we have, and if the hon. the Minister does not accept my word for it—he used to be so eager to quote from the Financial Mail; now I notice that he no longer does so—let me quote to him what the Financial Mail wrote after devaluation—

What is more, Sir, they have a picture of the hon. the Minister looking somewhat woebegone, and the caption, is “Devalued Diederichs”. Mr. Speaker, our economy is in a sorry state, and again, if I may quote from the Financial Mail which the hon. the Minister used to quote but which he no longer quotes, they wrote as follows—

The question arises: Did the hon. the Minister know this? Because every single economist of any standing in the country knew this, and they warned against it. In fact, the hon. the Minister referred to them sneeringly as “prophets of gloom”. But these “prophets of gloom” were right; they have been fully vindicated. The only people who did not see it this way were the hon. the Minister and the small group of sycophants who can never find any fault with the Government. But, Sir, if the hon. the Minister did not know this, then it raises a very serious situation. Is he then so isolated from current events? Did he have so little information about the trends overseas that he was not in a position to see what was happening? Sir, if he knew what was happening and did not choose to tell the country, then it raises a far more serious situation, because then it means that it was an attempt to mislead the people of South Africa.

Disgraceful!

Judging by the hon. the Minister’s personal attack on me at the time, I could only deduce that not only was he wrong, but that he knew the was wrong.

Mr. Speaker, we now face the situation where we have both import control and devaluation, and in terms of classical economic thought, if there is one situation that you should avoid, then it is precisely that. Because what does import control do? It restricts the goods available in relation to supply. It creates demand for new import goods and it inhibits exports because it raises your domestic cost structure. If there is one thing that will create inflation, then it is precisely import control. But this position is greatly aggravated by slapping devaluation on top of it. Devaluation under certain conditions could be advantageous and it certainly is normally the case when you are an exporting nation. South Africa is not an exporting nation. We are still primarily an importing nation. Devaluation, Sir, is also advantageous when certain other conditions obtain: When there is a slackness in your productive capacity; when there is unemployment, and when capital is available at relatively low rates of interest. But none of these conditions obtain in South Africa. We have practically no unemployment. There is very little slackness in the productive capacity of our country, and judging by the investment pattern in manufacturing industry over the last few years, we are not going to have it either. Mr. Speaker, interest rates today stand at a margin far higher than they have ever done before.

At a record level.

Sir, what will happen as a result of these developments? We are not treating the basic causes of this disease; the hon. the Minister is treating the symptoms. Although devaluation is a temporary palliative, although it might well boost our foreign reserves, I suggest right here and now that in a few years’ time the situation will be right back to where it was. Sir, if we do not take the steps which are now urgently necessary, we will be forced in a few years’ time to devalue again, and the crucial period will come once the full effects of Britain’s entry into the Common Market are felt.

Sir, this is the situation at the present time. What about the future? This is what distresses us so greatly. On Monday, when introducing this measure before the House, the hon. the Minister showed no sense of urgency whatever, no understanding of what is really involved and of the need for urgent action. But even if there is understanding of that, our argument goes further. We believe that the Government is incapable of taking the measures that ought to be taken because these economic measures would clash with the Government’s political philosophy, and the Government cannot move in this regard because it is caught up in the vice-like grip of its own ideological folly. Sir, whenever we on this side mention the question of ideology, the hon. member for Witbank has always got to give us an emotional dissertation and try to suggest to us that we are against idealism. But idealism and ideology are two entirely different words that do not mean the same thing and have nothing to do with one another. “Ideology” comes from the word “idea”; it means an obsession with an idea, and it is usually a bad idea. That is why the Oxford Dictionary quotes Nazism and Communism as ideologies, and we group with that this Government’s obsession with separatism.

Mr. Speaker, the Government is quite incapable of doing the things that ought to be done but we, Sir, would be in a position to do them. The first thing we would do would be to restore business confidence, because there is an air of gloom; there is uncertainty, and I have no better authority for saying this than the Bureau of Economic Research. They write—

The Government has no cohesive and coherent long-term economic strategy. Like a crab they move forward, and when they see a shadow on the one side they scuttle across to the other and then there is a shadow there. So we are becoming involved in a crazy kind of economic crab dance which is sapping the economic energies of our people, and by the Minister’s own words on Monday, has brought us to the brink of a recession.

In the second instance we would improve productivity. I have never in my life yet found a Government which is so anxious to govern through the Opposition. They always get ideas from us and when they apply them much later they do so in such a ham-handed fashion that all the effects are lost. Sir, productivity is improved by having greater mobility of labour, not only in the lateral but also in the vertical sense, by moving workers from the less productive sectors of the economy, often like farming, to higher productive sectors, like manufacturing. That is why in productive countries like Japan and the U.S.A. you find that 5 per cent of the people who are economically active are engaged in farming. In South Africa this figure is 30 per cent. But the Government is inhibiting this movement through its Physical Planning Act and related measures. In the second instance, productivity comes from allowing workers to move up in the vertical sense, but here again the Government, by means of job reservations and other measures, are inhibiting precisely this. In the third sense, productivity is also the function of salaries and wages. The less you pay your workers generally speaking, the more unproductive they are. In this country we have for years thought of Black workers as a form of cheap electricity that can be switched on and off at will. That is why the hon. the Minister of the Interior is quite right, although his terms might be somewhat exaggerated when he says this wage gap must be closed. But what is the Government doing about it? In his reply to the no-confidence debate the hon. the Prime Minister dealt with this issue. And what did he say? He said it was the Government’s policy to close the gap; “we are compromised on this issue”. But in the very same speech, in practically the next breath, he tells us that since 1948 to 1970, the period of that Government’s régime, the wages of Whites went up four times and the wages of non-Whites almost three times. If arithmetic means anything, it means that the gap has not narrowed but has grown wider. It is symptomatic of this Government. They always have a stated policy but in practice they work in precisely the opposite direction.

But in the third instance what we would do, and what this Government is capable of doing, is to give our people the education and the training they need. When my hon. Leader two years ago pleaded for a crash training programme, he was greeted by jeers from that side of the House, especially by the hon. the Minister of Labour. I want to put it this way. Sir. Is there anybody in South Africa with any understanding of our economic situation who would deny the fact that a crash training programme of that kind is not only needed but is years overdue?

You are a crashing bore.

When we put before this House a measure to provide improved industrial training for our people, what did the Government side do? Under the leadership of the hon. the Minister of Labour they voted solidly against the Second Reading, against the principle of supplying our people with better training. The argument was that we wanted to open the gates to the training of non-Whites. Now I pose this question. Is there any hon. member who sits on that side who denies the need for the training of our non-Whites? By 1980 we will require 3½ million skilled workers in South Africa, and the Whites cannot even supply a half of this figure. Is the contention of that side then that 1¾ million non-White workers must fill all the skilled occupations without any training? But this seems to me what is happening in practice. I saw the other day in the latest schedule that in the 15 trade schools administered by the Department of Bantu Administration there are at present 2 200 trainees, out of a population of nearly 16 million people. When two days ago my hon. friend from East London asked how many youths were serving apprenticeships in the homelands, and this after 25 years of separateness with equality, the answer was nil—not a single one. Here we have the situation where they preach the one thing and they are working in precisely the opposite direction.

The fourth thing that we would do is to do away with all the excessive controls and regulations. The hon. the Minister tells us that ours is a free enterprise system. It is beginning to look less and less so, because where the industrialist today sites his factory and whom he employs, are no longer business decisions; these decisions are subject to direct scrutiny and control by the Government. Here in the Western Cape if you want to employ one additional Black man, you must go to three or four Government agencies to seek their permission. Does that look like a free enterprise system? As a result of this our Civil Service is burgeoning so that today 40 per cent of the Whites who are economically active in this country are in the Civil Service. That is why we must pay such high taxes. From 1965 to 1969 this hon. Minister took an additional 60 per cent in the form of taxation out of our pockets. That is why we have inflation because Government expenditure is running at a rate 20 per cent higher than the growth of our gross national product.

In the fifth instance we would get South Africa’s economic priorities right. Here in a situation where our people are reeling under the blows of cost of living, where we were forced to devalue our currency, they continue with ideological extravagances like border areas. These are the things which should be eliminated, which should not feature in our present list of priorities. We live in a country that has nurtured and sustained us throughout the years from her bountiful resources. We live in a country In which there is no limit to progress and advancement, except for limitations in our own vision and sense of purpose. But this is the difficulty with this Government—it no longer has any vision and where it has vision, it is in the nature of an optical illusion.

Famous philosophers throughout the years have told us that people get the Government they deserve. However, I believe that the people of South Africa deserve better. We must loosen the economic chains so that the South African economic giant could flex its muscles and then there will be progress. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, if one strips away the words from the hon. member for Hillbrow’s tirade, after having just listened to it, in an attempt to identify what he was trying to say, one finds it reduced to two basic accusations the hon. member made in pursuance of what some of his colleagues said. He retraces these problems we have in our country to two specific facets. In the first place the hon. member retraces the problems we experience in our economic life to a particular ideology which he alleges that this side of the House endorses. Secondly he advocates that we should remove the restrictions on the movement of labour and the employment of non-White labour. I must say at once that when the hon. member reads the hon. the Minister’s 1970 and 1971 speeches he must not suppress certain aspects. It is important to remember that a Government can only establish a broad, framework for economic life, and that the population and the specific sectors in our economy have a corresponding responsibility. It is true that the hon. the Minister repeatedly warned against the fact that in our country we are too inclined, to import, and lodged pleas that the imports be restricted to bare essentials. The hon. members opposite, and the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, did not endorse these pleas. The hon. the Minister also said that we should form capital by means of our own saving, but did the hon. members opposite support him in that plea? No. The hon. members said that the electorate should not listen to the Government, because the Government is prepared to overspend yet asks the electorate to reduce its spending. If there was ever a party responsible in our country for a state of mind that does not accord with the patriotism we should stand for and should serve, then it is that of the hon. members opposite. [Interjections.] I shall come back to the hon. member and his arguments, and also to the hon. member for Parktown and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I now first want to ask the hon. member for Hillbrow a question. When devaluation was announced by the hon. the Minister, the newspapers consulted various Opposition leaders and speakers on their standpoints. In respect of this their standpoints were, as they always are in respect of other problems and questions in our country, a model of contradictions. What did the hon. member for Yeoville say? Re welcomed devaluation as a principle. What did the hon. member for Parktown say? That hon. member welcomed devaluation as a step and as a principle. That is what he said to the press. What did that hon. member, who is characterized as an oracle, with all the wisdom of words without sense, do? He said: “I do not want to comment.” He wanted to wait for this particular occasion to comment. What is his comment? If words mean anything, his comment was that devaluation should not have taken place. I want to know from him if that is correct. No, he is as silent as the grave, because he does not have his crystal ball in front of him, as he apparently did not have either when the Press approached him. The fact is that he silently confirms my conclusion, i.e. that he differs with his hon. colleagues on his side. I now want to tell the hon. member that before wanting to come along and teach this side of the House a lesson, he must go and convince his own group, his own caucus and his own colleagues of his standpoint. As long as these divergent views exist in their ranks, he must not expect us to take much notice of his standpoint. I want to go further and refer to the hon. member for Parktown. I read the report of the hon. member’s speech and came to the conclusion that we have now reached the stage where the speeches of hon. members opposite are not only written for them before a debate, but even rewritten after they have delivered them.

Who wrote yours?

I can at least present mine without having to read it. That hon. member cannot even read well. Let us look at the true situation. What does the hon. member for Parktown really say? I want to emphasize that in speaking he frequently associated himself with people who advocate individual and group interests and ignore general ones. When he listens to certain industrialists and businessmen, he is not prepared to allow a certain percentage of discountability for their subjectivity of judgment as a result of their own private interests. No, Sir, the standpoint of that hon. member and other hon. members opposite in respect of our economic policy and the handling of the problems existing in our economy, is not their own, but is determined by sectional interests that they make propaganda for. Just go and look at their speeches and compare them with those of the people I am speaking about; it would then be found that they speak the language of whatever company they may happen to be in. It is their good privilege, but it is not their duty. Yesterday the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens made an appalling admission in his speech. He said it is the Opposition’s duty to identify weaknesses and point out shortcomings. But of course.

We are working overtime.

If their only function, then, is to identify weaknesses, what is the hon. member for Yeoville doing here, because he is the weakest of all. I now want to ask hon. members opposite whether they agree that their only function is to identify weaknesses. [Interjections.] No, I am asking whether this is their only function? That is our problem: Hon. members opposite regard it as their only function …

You say so.

No, the hon. member for Gardens said it. Hon. members opposite regard it as their only function to identify weaknesses. I say that their function is much more than this. I think the Opposition has to tell us not only how we can identify weaknesses if they exist, but also how we can eliminate those weaknesses. Do they then not have a contribution to make to the government of this country? Are they not part of a system? What does the hon. member for Parktown do? He knows that I have a very high regard for him as a person. The hon. member has a magic formula: He says we must increase productivity. But who differs with him there? What was the standpoint of hon. members opposite when this side of the House advocated that everyone in the country should work harder? What did hon. members opposite do when this side of the House advocated a greater propensity towards saving in this country? The hon. member for Parktown says that we must increase productivity, but he does not say how this must be done.

But he did say how.

No, he did not. He mentioned thirteen points and apparently this was an unlucky number for him. He says that we must stimulate exports. Of course everyone agrees with him that exports should be stimulated. But surely the hon. member is saying nothing new.

Why do you not do it?

I shall come to that. The hon. member also said that we should curtail State expenditure. However, he did not say where. He does not determine priorities. If hon. members opposite want to make a meaningful contribution, why do they not, after having identified the weaknesses, want to co-operate with this side of the House and say that we can eliminate the shortcomings in this or that manner? That is the point I want to make.

Are you seeking a coalition?

Oh no, I am very fastidious about the company I keep. The economy of the country and our economic life are surely not a goal in themselves. The economy must, after all, assure us of certain things. Inter alia it must assure us of growth, but not unbridled growth as hon. members opposite advocate, not uncontrolled growth, but growth that is correlated with the country’s growth potential, its potential in respect of capital, raw materials, labour and the infrastructure. But a country’s economy must also bring stability and permanence in its wake. Thirdly it must also bring justice. These are the three demands the economy must comply with. That is why I say that it is not possible to conduct a meaningful debate about the hon. the Minister’s proposal unless we first determine the basic differences between the points of departure of hon. members on that side of the House and on this side of the House. The fact is that hon. members and their party have been roaming around dejectedly for a quarter of a century in a political desert in which they are looking for a slogan, a propaganda slogan that will enable them to win an election. What do they get in the process?—support for only 12 hours. That is all they get. Then the hon. member for Yeoville calls it a “trend symbol”, but this is not a symbol of trends signifying blessings. What are the facts? Fortunately for South Africa this endeavour of theirs to win and rule by means of a slogan was unsuccessful. If I read the signs correctly, the chances are very rosy for the hon. members of the Opposition to continue to be unsuccessful for a long time yet.

What is really alarming—and I want to emphasize this—is that in their striving to win and to rule, which I should not like to deprive them of, they have apparently become so irresponsible and so desperate that it no longer makes any difference to them in their endeavours whether they harm the country or not. I want to say that if ever we have had cause to level an accusation at those hon. members opposite in this connection, it is specifically that they do not care what methods they apply to discredit this side and to harm South Africa. [Interjections.] Hon. members may make as much noise about this …

Do you represent South Africa?

No, but I serve South Africa much more effectively, efficiently and patriotically than that hon. member. It is the responsibility of this side of the House to expose the falsity of their arguments. I want to say that an election cannot be won on slogans. An election is not won by propaganda means, whether anachronistic or new. After all, these hon. members do not appeal to the reasonableness of our people. They do not appeal to the patriotism that I also want to advocate for our fatherland in our economic life. Do the hon. members not realize that the order and stability we have in this country, for which many other countries envy us, is specifically attributable to the strength of our economy? For us the economy is not a goal in itself; it remains what it ought to be, a means to a specific goal. Therefore we cannot serve the economy by propagating private interests. When we enter a debate we cannot do this by ignoring the cardinal point that must be there, i.e. what I do I do for South Africa.

What is the point of attack which ran like a thread through this debate and also cropped up outside, and which was again given prominence in this debate and taken to absurd heights with even greater virulence? The hon. members for Hillbrow and Cape Town Gardens said—the hon. member for Parktown said it in more civilized language—that we are sacrificing the economy of this country for a particular ideology we are pursuing and that we are bending economic laws for the sake of this ideology.

Your own Minister said it.

The hon. member must then listen to what he says for a change. Then he would not be the hon. member for “Orange Grave”, but the hon. member for Orange Grove who has a message. The problems in this country offer hon. members opposite neither an opportunity nor a challenge. They are merely manna from heaven for an attack on the Government Party. No-one denies that we have economic problems. However, other countries have them as well, frequently to a greater and wider extent. No-one denies that this Government subscribes to a particular ideology. I want to emphasize today that I am not apologetic to the other side of the House for the fact that we do so. A political party that is not supported by a political ideology becomes, after all, what we see before us: directionless, purposeless, without creativity and destructive. A party which states, like the hon. member for Yeoville, that people’s grievances are a new opportunity, and that the party should not put its policy to the electorate, but only exploit their grievances and protests. I shall try to give an answer on what the causal connection is, if one does exist—I am doing so in reply to the hon. member for Hillbrow, and he must not leave now—between the ideology of this Government and the problems that do exist in our economic life. I want to repeat that no political party can exist without an ideology. Every policy is supported by such an ideology, and specifically by a particular view of life. Why do hon. members opposite and ourselves differ? They differ from us because they do not share with us this particular outlook on life. This party is accused of having made the policy of separate development an ideology. Is that true? What is, in fact, true, is that this Government endorses a particular ideology, i.e. to maintain western, Christian civilization in this southern part of Africa. In order to do that, order, peace and stability are a pre-requisite. As a means, this policy is specifically aimed at ensuring this. It must ensure that we can have peaceful co-existence with various peoples and population groups. What are the facts? Is it not a fact that in comparison with all comparable countries in the world, we have experienced in this country in the last 25 years a measure of economic and political stability that the world envies us for? Do hon. members have no appreciation for that, and do they not see in that an opportunity for preferably consolidating and strengthening this stability and durability? Internal stability and durability are dependent upon a sound economy, but what is the United Party’s ideology? By what are they motivated? If I may describe it so briefly, I want to say that they are driven and motivated by a blatant irresponsible materialism. With this ideology they will gamble with the survival of our country’s civilization. They live in a lotus land of peace and happiness in which they avoid thought stimuli and where our problems course over them as if they did not exist. They live without effort. I want to warn them that for their obsession with growth and material prosperity, seen in isolation, we shall pay a tremendous price. They are willing to sacrifice everything on this altar, including the stability and peace that we have. Everyone knows there are benefits involved in economic growth, but everyone knows too that there are disadvantages connected with uncontrolled and unbridled growth. Everyone knows that we can retrace the present problems, to a large extent, to a condition of too rapid growth, but any responsible government is always weighing up the social advantages of economic growth against the social disadvantages to ensure the best net result. The time has come for us to realize that hon. members opposite are not interested in long-term benefits; that they are only interested in transitory gain, a temporary benefit. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that our per capita growth in the past year was 2,4 per cent. He says it compares unfavourably with the Western countries and Japan. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and members ought to know, surely, that such a comparison is unscientific. They ought surely to know that the labour performance of three-quarters of this country’s population is much lower than the average of the Western countries.

Why?

I shall come to that. The second point I want to make is that the growth of this three-quarters of the population is twice as high as the average of other countries in the world.

Why?

The hon. member for Albany would probably know; he lives in that vicinity.

Tell us why.

Order! The hon. member for Albany—I am addressing him.

If we want to judge South Africa, we must compare it with countries with a dualistic economy, where the ratio in the developed and the traditional sectors is more or less the same as ours. If we make this comparison and the adjustments to make the comparison meaningful, I maintain there is not one comparable country in the world that has had the economic growth and progress of our country in the past 25 years.

It is easy to thrive on grievances. This may even bring a temporary gain. But this House is sick and tired of this story, this accusation that we are bending the economic laws for the sake of a political ideology. The U.S.A. spends more on defence than we in our own country spend on defence and parallel development. Do hon. members want to accuse the U.S.A. of advocating a particular ideology? Why then do they accuse this side of the House? The U.S.A. only spends that amount on defence with the specific purpose of preserving the Western, capitalistic system. Why then are we accused when we want to ensure a particular way of life in the country? The arguments of hon. members of the Opposition are basically tantamount to two things, i.e. we must remove all the restrictions on the employment of non-White labour. That would be the answer to our problems. But is this true? In the first place, there is, after all, no shortage of unskilled labour in our country, but there is a shortage of skilled labour. Let us take this a step further. The uncontrolled employment of non-White labour in all sectors of our life could possibly make a transient anti-inflationary contribution.

Who is asking for that?

Go and listen to the hon. member for Hillbrow. Then you will hear who is asking for that. What is this going to mean? Is it going to have a growth effect? What is the situation in point of fact? If we must maintain a growth rate of 5,5 per cent which is set as a goal by the economic development programme, there are already employment opportunities for more than the available labour supply can provide. That is why we have to bring people into our country. Sir, hon. members ascribe all our problems to this particular cause, but surely when it comes to our inflation problems we also have imported inflation to a large extent. More than 80 per cent of our imports represent capital and intermediary goods. It is significant and important that specifically when we are trying to stimulate and increase the growth rate in our country, and while greater real capital formation is taking place, we must import even more capital goods. As a result of inflation abroad, our source of imports, there are higher price structures, and that is why the prices here are also higher. This is a large and contributory cause of our inflation problems.

We agree that there are disadvantages attached to inflation, but one matter we do not agree on is that we cannot painlessly and without sacrifice combat inflation in our country or elsewhere in the world. I challenge hon. members, and the individuals they quote, to give us the recipe according to which we can combat inflation in this country painlessly and without sacrifice. I challenge the hon. member for Parktown to do so, and then still to ensure a higher growth rate. The industrial countries of the Western world who adopted damping measures against inflation found that they had an unemployment figure of more than 6 per cent of their total labour force. What is the position in respect of unemployment in South Africa? Hon. members now ask us to create employment opportunities. I think that good advice would be for us to employ and utilize the labour we have more efficiently for the sake of our undertaking and also of our country. Would hon. members opposite be magnanimous enough to admit that we can only combat these problems with effort and sacrifice? Hon. members say that we should just cut State expenditure, and then a Utopia would descend upon us.

Who spoke of a Utopia?

I am trying to sketch it for the hon. member for Yeoville so that he would also know what this means. Sir, I ask hon. members to come to us and determine their priorities in this debate this afternoon. They must tell us what State expenditure must be cut. Must the expenditure on defence be cut, or that on the infrastructure? What did hon. members opposite do last year when the railway tariffs and the rental in respect of telephone services were increased? They said we were now being taxed three times over. Which of the hon. members opposite, or the company they keep, will tell us what priorities they formulate for State spending, and precisely where there must be cuts? Will they tell us whether expenditure must be cut for defence, education, pensions or salaries? [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for False Bay will understand if I do not reply to his speech this afternoon. He is having a private argument about economic priorities with the United Party and I feel sure that they will reply to him in their own way. I have another priority I should like to raise this afternoon, and I am very fortunate indeed in finding that I have a captive audience consisting of the hon. the Minister of Justice, the hon. the Minister of Police and the hon. member for Prinshof. I have a few words to say to all of them about a matter which I believe requires full discussion in this House and which has not yet earned it. That is the very burning matter of the numbers of people who are in detention in South Africa who have not been charged with any crime.

There was some discussion of this matter in the no-confidence debate, where there was an exchange between the hon. the Minister of Justice and the hon. members for Durban North and Zululand. That discussion ranged largely over the question of Mr. Timol and his alleged suicide. The matter was not taken very much further, except to debate the semantics of detention without trial, and I intend to come back to that aspect at once. I do not want to get engaged in the actual discussions about Timol, nor the discussion about whether or not the Government is failing to honour assurances given during an earlier debate as to whether it used section 22 of the 1966 Act or section 6 of the 1967 Act. I am not interested in that particular aspect. I would just like to point out that the hon. member for Durban North is giving the country incorrect information when he says that section 22 of the 1966 Act entails that a detainee is brought before a judge after 14 days in detention and that the judge can then decide whether or not the man shall continue to be held. In fact, section 22 of the 1966 Act makes no such provision whatever. It does state that a judge in Chambers may require a detainee to make representations in writing, but that is all. There is no question of a detainee being brought before a judge, and I am now quoting nothing but the hon. member’s own words; he has said it over and over again, and indeed he used these words in an interview with the Sunday Times. Sir, whether it is section 22 or section 6 does not matter to me. I voted in principle at the Second Reading, at the Committee Stage against the relevant provisions and at the Third Reading against those Acts, and I did it for very good reasons which I fully explained at the time. But, Sir, what I am interested in is this whole question of detention in South Africa. The hon. member for False Bay talked about our being the envy of the Western world. Well, I want to tell him that there is one respect in which we are not the envy of the Western world. There is one respect in which we cannot justify at all our statement that we belong to the community of Western civilization, and that is the practice in South Africa of confining or detaining people, without charging them in the courts of law, for an indeterminate period of time.

Sir, I want to come to this question of whether one is or is not entitled to use the expression “detention without trial” in South Africa. The hon. member for Prinshof and, I might say, the hon. the Minister of Police when I saw him, were both very disturbed about the use of this term. They said it is completely inaccurate.

I did not say a word about it.

The hon. member for Prinshof says that he did not say a word about it. Well, Sir, I heard his speech and I have read his speech and I certainly remember his quoting the case of Angela Davis. Does he not remember that? He quoted the case of Angela Davis, the Black militant, avowed communist, a professor of philosophy.

She may be found not guilty.

Of course, she may be found not guilty.

She has been in gaol for over a year.

He says that she has been in gaol for over a year and that is exactly the point he was making. He said, “There you are; in America they keep people in detention without trial. Why talk about South Africa then?” Sir, this is precisely the point I want to make. For the hon. member to use such an analogy is pure sophistry. I have never heard of anything so absurd. He was quoting out of an American information service bulletin, which I have here, when he said: “Angela Davis, the militant Black communist, has been in gaol for over a year.” But, Sir, what he forgets to tell us, and what this same bulletin tells us, of course, is that Angela Davis has been charged on several occasions. In fact, she was originally indicted by a Grand Jury. Surely “detention without trial” does not apply to someone who has actually appeared in a court of law and has been charged. She is awaiting trial; she is not in gaol without trial.

That is sophistry.

I want to point out to the hon. member who used Angela Davis as an analogy that Angela Davis has not only been charged in the courts on several occasions, but she has her own doctors attending to her. Her case differs from the case of Mr. Essop, where a judge in fact ordered or recommended that a doctor should see him, because it has not been done to the best of my knowledge …

What has that to do with holding her in gaol pending trial?

Sir, I wish the hon. member would keep quiet and let me complete my argument. I am quite sure he will be given an opportunity of speaking afterwards. Angela Davis has special visiting hours. She has attorneys, witnesses and people who will play a role in her trial visiting her every night from 8 to 10 p.m. She is permitted to hold a Press conference once a week. She holds weekly Press conferences. She generally takes full advantage of this opportunity. How can the hon. member for Prinshof use as an example of detention without trial the case of Angela Davis? I would like to point out to him some of the differences in the treatment of Angela Davis and other persons who have not been charged and are detainees. Sir, they do not appear in a court of law until after their period of detention is over, and they have never been brought up before a court. No impartial legal mind has been brought to bear on each case as to whether or not that person should be detained. That is surely a very important difference. Angela Davis has access to legal defence and to legal advice. No detainee until charged in our courts of law has any access to legal defence or legal advice whatsoever.

She is in gaol.

I am not saying she is not in gaol. The hon. member, who is a legal man and trained in the law, should surely see the difference between somebody who has been charged and is an awaiting-trial prisoner with all the privileges of an awaiting-trial prisoner, and our detainees, our unknown number of detainees—to which I will come back in a moment—who are held in police cells throughout the country and in prisons throughout the country incommunicado, in solitary confinement. Surely the hon. member can see that there is a distinct difference between those two cases. Let me give the hon. member the example of Ramotse. This man was not allowed to hold a weekly Press conference. He was not allowed to consult legal advisers and yet this man spent over 702 days in solitary confinement. Now, will the hon. member tell me whether there is any other country in the world, outside of countries with declared states of emergency and which purport to belong to the community of Western civilization, where these conditions apply? I do not believe you will be able to quote me one single solitary case like that. I have not seen the South African Digest issue dealing with the case of Ramotse, the way the United States Information Service put out an issue on the case of Angela Davis.

Now I want to take up the cases of the present detainees.

What do you say about your friend Kaunda?

What about my friend Kaunda? What the hon. member does not realize is that I do not justify detention without trial anywhere in the world.

Why did you not mention it to him?

I did, as a matter of fact, mention it to him. I had a much more interesting conversation with President Kaunda than I have ever had with the hon. member for Carltonville, and a much more intelligent exchange at that. [Interjections.] Now, Sir, I want to know about these detainees. We have no information in that regard and indeed the Act does not give anybody access to this information. Everything is done, as the hon. the Prime Minister remarked at his Press conference, not long ago, strictly by law in South Africa. It certainly is. Even if it is not the rule of law, we have rule by law. There is no doubt that section 6 makes it possible for the hon. the Minister of Police or the hon. the Minister of Justice to refuse to give access to any information whatsoever about detainees, and that is exactly what these hon. Ministers are doing. They are giving no information at all and they tell us it is not in the public interest to know. But leaving the law aside for a moment, under the 90-days law, information had to be given to this House, and even under the 180-days law, information has to be given. [Interjections.] I am criticizing the way in which this law is being administered. The hon. the Minister’s argument is not that the law does not allow the information to be given; the argument is that it is not in the public interest, and this is the point I am disputing with him.

I want to know why it is not in the public interest of South Africa to know just how many people—scores, hundreds, thousands, who knows?—are being held throughout the country in solitary confinement. We know of course of the cases as they eventually come up for trial. We know from the relatives who inform the Press and if one keeps a careful eye one can at least see some of these figures. We know, for instance, that after those pre-dawn raids—also very much the hallmark of Western civilization!—on all sorts of prominent people—academics, churchmen and all sorts of people—inter alia something like 46 persons were detained. That much we know.

You have vented your spleen now; sit down!

Again by following the Press reports we are able to tell that perhaps 23 or 24 of those have been released.

The English Press?

Yes, the English Press. I do not think one gets very much information about this from the Nationalist Press.

Why do you suggest that there are thousands being held?

Well, I am not suggesting it. I do not know.

You said that a moment ago.

I said I did not know. “Who knows?”, I said. The hon. the Minister knows. That is why I say it is in the public interest. My suspicious mind thinks it may be thousands. Let the hon. the Minister of Police therefore set my suspicious mind at rest, and also, I might tell him, the suspicious minds of other people and let us know exactly how many there are who are being held in detention.

Did you read that suggestion in the Rand Daily Mail?

These raids took place on October the 23rd/24th of last year. That is nearly four months ago. The raids were on about 100 people, but I know of 46 who were arrested. At that time the Commissioner of Police stated that these raids were routine investigations —you know, just part of the normal way of life in South Africa. Pre-dawn raids a normal way of life!

Who said it was a normal way of life?

I say that. The Commissioner said that a few people were detained and that certain people would appear in court “in the near future”. The hon. the Prime Minister a few days later issued a very stern warning that the Security Branch was indeed engaged in widespread investigations about terrorism and sabotage. “It can be expected,” he said, “that more persons will be detained in the course of the investigations.” Prophetic words! More people were detained. At the time and at no time since then, of course, have we had any real official information. I know, as I say, that perhaps 20 have been released. I know that three have been charged under the Suppression of Communism Act, although there are no details yet of the charges against these people. One was charged under the Suppression of Communism Act and the Customs and Excise Act—a dangerous terrorist this; he was found in possession of a banned book. He had been held for 19 days. Another dangerous terrorist was released unconditionally after paying a fine of R20 for possessing dagga, but held under the Terrorist Act, mark you, Sir, originally. Then, of course, there is the unfortunate Timol, about whom we all do know and who was alleged to have committed suicide a few days after his arrest. One has been charged after being held for 84 days, according to my count, under the Terrorist Act and the Suppression of Communism Act. That leaves something in the neighbourhood of 18 to 20 people still being held as a result of those raids. I do not know anything about the others; there may be lots of “Ramotses” for all I know.

Why do you call them “raids”?

Because they were raids; what else were they but raids? When people knock on your door at 4 o’clock in the morning, what are they—friendly visits? Routine calls? Dropping in for a cup of early morning tea?

You know those were not raids.

What nonsense; of course those were raids!

Why do you not come back …

Yes, I am coming to you in a minute; hang on. On the 26th November I had a long interview with— and I must say a very courteous reception from—the hon. the Minister of Police. The hon. the Minister of Police gave me on the 26th November, when I saw him in Pretoria, the assurance that it would not be long before everybody was charged. The cases would be heard in court or the people would be released. On the 6th January, the Chief of the Security Police stated that the persons still being detained would appear in court or would be released before the end of that month at the latest. On the 18th January he said that they would appear in court the next week at the latest. Well, that was in January. The end of January has come and gone. The middle of February has come and gone. However, still these people have neither been released nor charged. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us —I do not know to which one I should apply, because they have a sort of dichotomy of responsibility here. Apparently the hon. Minister of Justice sort of puts his stamp of approval on the chaps whom the hon. the Minister of Police has seized and after that he hands them back to the Minister of Police. I should like to know from either of these two gentlemen if they can give us any new information as to how much longer people are going to be held in detention without being charged. I am not going to use that rude term “detention without trial”; I am going to say “are going to be held in indefinite solitary confinement”. Perhaps that is a more accurate term and perhaps the hon. member for Prinshof thinks that it sounds better. I personally think it sounds worse, but since it may be more accurate, I shall in fact use it. I want to tell the hon. member for Prinshof that I am not the unwitting tool, as he put it in his speech in the No-confidence Debate, of dark powers who are using me to further their ends inside and outside this House. I am not the unwitting tool and I am not the unwitting fool that he apparently thinks I am. I do everything quite consciously and I know exactly what I am doing. I am not being used as a tool by anybody. I have taken up the matter of detainees and I have taken up the matter of abrogations of the rule of law from the very beginning, since I was in this House, because I have a very old-fashioned respect for the rule of law. I have an old-fashioned respect for things like habeas corpus and I am not the tool of communists, terrorists or any of those dark powers. I take up these matters because I believe very profoundly that South Africa set out on a dangerous slippery path years ago, 10 years ago when the first 90-day law, the first detention incommunicado law, was passed. I believe that every one of the fears that I expressed then have in fact been justified since then. I am nobody’s fool and nobody’s tool and J want the hon. member to realize that I take full responsibility for everything that I say and do in this House as well as outside this House.

I have also a very old-fashioned belief that a man is innocent until presumed guilty. It is one of those old-fashioned ideas that happen to have been drummed into me and in which I believe. I do not assume that all these people are communists, as the hon. the Minister of Justice did the other day, when he, after having made that assumption already, said that they were all using devices such as suicide, pretending to be tortured and badly treated, because they were taking directives from the communists. He has prejudged these people. They have not even been charged in court and some of them may never ever be charged in court, but the hon. the Minister of Justice has prejudged them. The hon. member for Prinshof very often does exactly the same sort of thing. I want to tell these hon. gentlemen that it is not only professional protesters like myself and liberals like myself …

[Inaudible.]

Yes, liberals like myself who are worried by these things, who are worried about these detentions and who are worried about these dawn raids. Very ordinary, respectable citizens in South Africa are deeply worried about what is going on, and they do not like what is going on. Therefore I believe it to be in the public interest that information should be given and that we should get some idea as to when, if ever, these people are going to be charged. I believe very strongly that all the accusations made against police methods of interrogation should be investigated, and not by a departmental committee which, with all the will in the world, cannot really be impartial. I believe it should be investigated by a proper independent judicial commission on the lines of the Compton Commission in N. Ireland, where the many accusations of brutality against the citizens of Ulster by the British Army are to be investigated. I believe this ought to be done in South Africa to set peoples’ fears at rest. Why should it not be done? The hon. member for Prinshof said the other day that he could remember no case where policemen have been found guilty of ill-treating a detainee. No such case existed. I want to remind him that a number of cases have been settled out of court, just when they were about to appear and when all sorts of evidence was going to be produced. It is just possible that some of the charges may have stuck. I have made a list of those cases. There are several of them, apart from the most notorious one, the Imam Haron’s case, where R5 000 damages were paid out in settlement to the widow of the Imam. There were other cases—R3 000 was paid out to Mbindi, I think his name was, who was about to appear in court. There are three other cases that I can name here. I remember the case of Stephanie Kemp and two others where damages were paid. There is at least a reason for doubt.

You do not want these people to receive these ex gratia payments?

I would rather that these people had appeared in court and that the Judge had awarded them damages, which might have been higher than these ex gratia payments. I would much rather let these cases be aired in court so that the evidence can come out in the open. Then at least we would know where we stand. It is the next best thing to a judicial commission and therefore I would rather that that happened.

In the few minutes at my disposal I want to ask the Minister why the relatives of detainees are not informed as to where they are kept. These places are all maximum security places and it cannot do any harm to inform the relatives of a detainee where they are being kept. I know of cases where the relatives have run from one police station to the other trying to track down somebody who was taken by the Special Branch at night. That sort of thing, where a man disappears in the night and nobody knows where he is, has an ugly ring to it. The hon. the Minister told me that magistrates are paying regular visits to the detainees. If I can have the attention of the hon. the Minister of Justice for one moment, I presume that he studies the reports of magistrates about detainees quite conscientiously. I understand that magistrates are visiting detainees regularly.

Most regularly.

And the hon. the Minister studies those reports most conscientiously?

Every one.

Can the hon. the Minister of Justice or perhaps the hon. the Minister of Police tell me whether detainees are informed of the one right that they have under section 6, namely to make written representations to the Minister?

They know about it.

Everyone knows.

They all know?

Yes, they all know.

Does the hon. the Minister receive those written representations?

They make representations to me regularly.

They are well instructed. You know it.

I do not know it. In fact, my information is that they are not told of their right to make written representations. [Interjections.] You would not know anything about it. You just worry about what Albert Hertzog is doing. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, if the hon. member would stop muttering to me about “kaffers” and “kommuniste” I will continue with my speech.

They know, before they … [Interjections.]

How do they know? Who reads these emergency regulations? Who reads section 6 of the Terrorism Act? What nonsense!

That brings me immediately to the case of the Owambos. The hon. the Minister says they know. I have in my hand, my hot little hand, the latest Government Gazette proclaiming regulations applying to the Owambos. This sort of thing goes from one area to another, from one district of South Africa to another. We had Proclamation 400 and we still have it in that land of milk of honey, the Transkei. The Transkei still has Proclamation 400 with the most wide powers given to the authorities to detain people without trial. We have it in South Africa under section 6 of the Terrorism Act and now we have it in Owambo as well. We have the same sort of regulations. They are practically on a par with Proclamation 400. Will the hon. the Minister of Health tell me whether the Owambos have read this regulation, whether they know, for instance, that they can be detained as they can be under section 19? Section 19 lays down that whenever a Native commissioner or a noncommissioned officer of the South African Police is satisfied that any person has committed an offence or intends to commit an offence under these regulations or under any other law—that is breaking the Masters and Servants Act, for instance—such person can be detained and held incommunicado indefinitely without access to any legal advice. A specific clause excludes legal advice. The hon. the Minister of Health tells me that they know before they go in. Will he tell me whether the Owambos know of this before they go in?

They need not read it. Your friends tell them about it.

Do not talk such nonsense. Do not interrupt a perfectly intelligent argument with that sort of nonsensical interjection. [Interjections.] I want to look at section 11 (f). One of the offences under these regulations is laid down in section 11 (f), which reads as follows:

Have you ever heard of anything so absurd? That is an offence under these draconian laws, draconian powers which are given to a Native commissioner …

Order! I do not think the hon. member should call them “draconian laws”. The hon. member must withdraw the word “draconian”.

Very well, Sir, I will call them the extremely wide powers that have been given to what is still known as Native commissioners in terms of this regulation. I do not know what the Government is up to. Is it unable to handle the situation in Owambo? I thought that everything had been settled since these regulations, which they tabled yesterday, were gazetted, the new agreement between the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development on behalf of the South African Government and the Governments of Owambo and Kavango. Here they are and I will read through them. I must say that they are an improvement on the old system. At least the man will know what sort of work he is going to do. He may even be told the wage he is going to earn, lucky fellow! I wonder, though, whether wages will rise very considerably as a result of this, because there is of course no mention of the wages increasing by a particular percentage or in any other way. At least the man sees the contract, knows the sort of work he is going to, and, mirabile dictu, he can have paid leave too! It took 13 000 men to go out on strike in order to get these elementary rights for the workers of Owambo. I put it to this Government whether it would not be better to anticipate the genuine grievances of, say, people like the Owambos and people in South Africa and do something about them rather than letting it reach the stage where the men go out on strike and, consequently, the whole area is paralysed. At that stage the Government must come along—naturally there is still unrest, because the basic contract labour system, which the Owambos hate and which they have told the hon. the Prime Minister and Pretoria they hate, has remained unchanged although there are improvements within that system—and once again give these wide powers and impose these very wide restrictions upon the people of South-West Africa. I can think of nothing more stupid from the point of view of South Africa’s international standing, and I can think of nothing more stupid from the point of view of the internal security in this country and in South-West Africa. One can hold a situation by force for a long time. Indeed, we are spending over R400 million both on defence and police, which the hon. member for False Bay ought to remember. Those were last year’s Estimates, but no doubt they will go up in this year’s Estimates. We can hold a situation by force for a long time, but I do not believe that that is the sort of security we want for our children in this country. We want the security of contentment which is the only lasting security for this generation and for succeeding generations in South Africa. [Interjections.] Measures like these are not destined to bring about security and a contented population.

Mr. Speaker, I deem it a special honour to be a member of this House, and it is likewise a special honour to be permitted to take part in the discussions in this House. I may assure this hon. House that, in the short time since I had the privilege of taking my seat here, various things have made an impression upon me. Firstly, there are the major problems with which both South Africa and the world are faced. These are problems to which South Africa and its rulers have to provide an answer. Secondly, I have come very deeply under the impression of the exacting demands made on people who are wrestling with these problems, very exacting demands in terms of knowledge and expertise as well as the courage to do what is right. Furthermore, I am very deeply under the impression of the knowledge and expertise manifested in this House. For a newcomer like me it is encouraging and reassuring to know that at the head of affairs there are these very men who can be trusted with the leadership and the government of this country and who have the knowledge and vision, the courage and the energy to tackle and to face these problems and to find solutions to them.

I wish to adhere to the custom in this House of not discussing a controversial subject in a maiden speech. I am aware that any innocent subject one may raise can certainly also be raised and dealt with in a controversial way. I would almost say that even the way in which a person opens his mouth can be controversial. I shall try to put forward ideas here on which, in my opinion, there will be general agreement. What I want to present is in actual fact a kind of credo, a personal view or approach if you wish, a personal philosophy of life.

This view is in connection with our relationships problem, a problem in respect of which, I immediately and openly admit, one would straightaway land in troubled and controversial waters if one should go into detail. However, I am presenting it as a personal view on this problem, with which not only South Africa is faced, but which is a world problem and in regard to which, as I shall indicate in my concluding sentence, there are people who are even looking to South Africa to do spiritual pioneering work here and who expecting us in South Africa to do the right thing. It goes without saying that there are different standpoints in regard to this matter. On the one hand there is the group which I shall call the extremists. They are on the one hand the cosmopolites or world citizens, those who believe in one great world society, quite possibly under one world government. These are the people who regard nationalism as something evil, as obsolete and as an outdated concept. These are the people who regard the differences between peoples and cultural communities as being purely accidental and merely temporary and in actual fact as a sign of immaturity. For these people maturity consists in relinquishing these things and, in fact, in condemning them in the strongest terms.

On the other hand there are those whom one would call extremists on the other side. They would be those who idolize their own people, they would be the chauvinists, those people who are not prepared to grant any other people or cultural community any right and a place in the sun, who are not concerned at all about their rights and liberties and who live a life of being absolutely locked up and enclosed in their own circle. I think we would all agree that neither the liberalistic world citizens nor those who idolize their own race or people are in a position to tackle the relationships problem of the world on the basis of truth, with success, with knowledge and to good effect.

My personal credo is that I see these spheres in which people live as being everwidening circles extending around and away from one another to the uttermost ends of the earth. I would say that some of those circles overlap according as the individual is a member of more than one group or interest group. My point of departure is that there is a kind of inner circle for each individual. There is the inner circle of his own person and his own conscience. In addition, there is the inner circle of his own family life, his linguistic and cultural community and his national community. This is the community in which he is at home and is accepted, in which his rights and liberties are not only interpreted for him as it were, but are also protected, a community which is as it were the trustee of those rights, which interprets and protects them and which insists on their being recognized and maintained. But in a wider circle around that there are other communities, other peoples with characters of their own and rights of their own, with whom not only the necessary contact can and must be made, but also the necessary co-operation should be brought about in the interests of matters of common concern which are of importance to both. It is accordingly the position that for me as an Afrikaner, for example —and I say this with great humility, but also with conviction—there is an inner circle consisting of my own people, my own nation with its history, its traditions, its language and its culture, a community with its own rights and one which lays claim to its own freedom. It is also the position that I acknowledge the existence of other communities. I respect their right to maintain what is their own, and I want to co-operate and shall co-operate sincerely with them in those matters—and you: must permit me to say. Sir, that this has nothing to do with coalition—which are of common concern to us as citizens of the same country. Thus I also see wider circles around the Whites in South Africa. I see the non-White peoples, from whom my people in particular are differentiated and also want to remain differentiated, but to whom assistance is to be granted and to whom service is to be rendered, and whose assistance is needed against common enemies. Thus I see the wider circle of countries and peoples with which South Africa has and will in future have and wants to have contact on some level or other. Consequently there cannot be such a thing as absolute isolation from other peoples, not if we have common values to defend. There cannot be absolute isolation if we want to render assistance or if we need that assistance. We cannot maintain such isolation if we collectively want to resist the destructive forces ranged against us. Nor can we propagate such isolation if we think we have a calling to fulfil.

But I wish to return to the importance of the national and cultural community to which the individual belongs and within which the rights and liberties of that individual are guaranteed and interpreted. Permit me to say very emphatically that when I stress this idea, it has nothing to do with the so-called smear-word “racism”.

It has nothing to do with that. In rightly recoiling from racism and narrow-mindedness, we must not on the other hand fall into individualism with its over-emphasizing of the individual and its disregard for the national and cultural context within which that individual lives.

As far as this idea is concerned, I find myself in good company. I should like to introduce this company to you. I quote a Dutch statesman who said quite some time ago—before the rise of Nazi Germany (translation)—

He went on to say—

I repeat, Sir, this is not the language of the ideological obsession of Nazi Germany, but of a Christian patriot, a former Prime Minister of the Netherlands, a man who had taken stock of the spiritual, cultural and historical factors which united his people and distinguished it from other peoples. May I present another person to you, a Jewish philosopher of whose works I am very fond and whom I very much like reading, Martin Buber. He said on occasion—

Permit me to add to this the words of Professor G. van der Leeuw, who said (translation)—

Here too, Sir, there is mention of a collective consciousness. There is mention of a group consciousness with which the realization of an individual task is bound up. I do not think in this one is very far from what President Woodrow Wilson said on occasion in 1916. He said—

I do not think I shall be acting improperly towards this House if I quote a former Prime Minister here. He said (translation)—

In the circumstances concerned he meant the Afrikaner people—

These are strong words and they came from the mouth of Dr. Malan, the man who said in Durban in 1950 that it was not racism on the part of any section of the population to love or to promote its own language and cultural interests, but that it was manifestation of racism when these things were in theory or in practice denied or regarded with a feeling of impatience and antipathy.

Permit me to call to witness a person from the English-speaking world as well, an intellectual who writes with great wisdom about the distinctive individuality of peoples and their cultures. I am referring to Professor Richard Weaver of the University of Chicago. In his book “Life without Prejudice” he wrote the following—

Mr. Speaker, what he is saying here is that unless a culture—and a people is a bearer of a culture—can exercise the right to make its own choices, and those choices comprise what is acceptable and excluding what is not acceptable, it ceases to exist. He goes on to say—

You cannot throw open a community, a national and cultural community, absolutely and still think that it can survive with its own identity. The same author declared in another publication—

He is referring to a culture which has the right to draw a line, to set a limit, to include certain things which it can assimilate, but to exclude those things which are not assimilable and which therefore conflict with its existence and its identity. Then he speaks of “serious threats in the form of rationalistic drives to prohibit, in the name of equality, cultural segregation”, in other words, rationalistic motives in condemning the fact that a culture, a national community, sets certain limits. He continues—

I think these words speak for themselve The point the writer is trying to make is that there are groups of people, national and cultural communities, which, with a view to retaining their identity, to an extent—I say “to an extent”, I do not say “absolutely”, because that cannot be done —maintain a certain segregation so that they my preserve that character of their own, with which, too, the realization of a calling of their own is bound up.

I wish to conclude by quoting the point of view of a well-known Flemish scholar, a standpoint which he adopted last year, and which is to be found in the latest edition of Plural Societies. This person is Professor Max Lamberty. In the periodical Plural Societies he wrote about the rights of minority groups, a people and the State. In that article he criticized—in my opinion, rightly—the declarations of human rights to be found in the American Declaration of Independence in 1776, the French Declaration of Human Rights in 1789, and the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. As I have said, I think his point of criticism is a valid one. It is not that he has any fault to find with what is stated there; he has fault to find with what has been eliminated, what has not been stated. His criticism is that in these declarations on human rights there is too abstract a conception of human beings, and I agree with that. He complains about what is too abstract a conception of human beings—human beings are discussed without discussing them in their context, their context in life, the circle in which they live, the nation within which they live. Then he states—

No matter how far they have penetrated—

They have everywhere established that man lives in a group, that he is at all times part of a group: the family, the tribe, the nation.

It is unnecessary to say that this very idea found expression in the constitutional amendment made in Belgium, an amendment of a constitution which had been in force since 1831, but which was amended to do justice to the individual character, aspirations, language and interests of the Flemish on the one hand and the Walloons on the other. I think that attitude speaks for itself, and I think it confirms what I said at the outset, i.e. that every individual lives within a certain inner circle of family and of language, cultural and national context—not a water-tight circle, but one beyond which he can move and make contact, but within which he is at home and in which his rights and his liberties are guaranteed and defended.

Mr. Speaker, it is my conviction that South Africa is in the unique position of being able to show to the world to what an extent it is possible to protect national and cultural communities in their own character and that it is at the same time possible for communities which are protected in their own character in this way and which claim and, in fact, maintain self-determination, to help one another, to make contact with one another, mutually to fulfil a calling vis-à-vis one another, without the right to self-determination being endangered thereby. I believe, Sir, there is truth in the words of the historian philosopher Arnold Toynbee when he said of the people of this country that we have the difficult but honourable calling to be spiritual pioneers.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to congratulate the hon. member for Waterberg on his maiden speech in this House. The hon. member for Waterberg is a man who had advanced far in the profession he had followed until he became a member of the House of Assembly, and we expected him to address this House with confidence and conviction, which he has in fact done. I want to congratulate him on the way he did so. As time passes, he will find, of course, that he will not always be heard in such silence as he was today. He will discover that there are strong differences of opinion in this House, but I hope and trust that he shall soon learn what so many of us experience with gratitude in this House, i.e. that no matter how strong differences of opinion are, one can still respect one another as persons. I hope he will remain with us in that spirit and will make valuable contributions to the discussions in this House.

Mr. Speaker, shortly before we assembled today, I spoke to an elderly lady from the Transvaal, a lady for whom I have great respect. I asked her what she thought of the political situation in South Africa today, and she replied: “If one looks at the Nats, one sees that the harness is chafing.” I thereupon asked her what she meant. She replied: “You know, when the harness chafes a horse, it first chafes through the hair, then through the skin and eventually comes to the flesh, and then it hurts very much and that horse becomes impatient and rash and does strange things.” I think this is very applicable, Sir, because I have now for a long time been listening to this debate and to previous debates in this House that dealt with national affairs and I have noticed that there is criticism from the Opposition side—that is true—but concrete proposals as well. Some of the proposals are new and adjusted to new circumstances; others we have been making for years already. For example, we have been pleading for years that we should make more sensible use of our human resources, of our labour force in this country, and various other things as well, but we wait in vain for a positive, constructive reaction from hon. members opposite to the criticism and the constructive proposals and suggestions coming from this side of the House. We have the strange phenomenon that the Government is continually fleeing from and evading our arguments; they are running away. They come forward with matters that are not relevant. I just want to mention two examples of this. On Friday evening my friend the hon. member for Simonstown and I addressed a meeting in the Strand, the eighth and the biggest and most enthusiastic meeting which I have addressed in the Strand in my political career, and a reporter from Die Vaderland was present there.

How many people were present?

More than 400, much more than the two at a recent ministerial meeting in the Orange Free State. A reporter of Die Vaderland, one of our senior reporters for whom I have great respect, was present at the meeting. I see the hon. the Minister of Defence is getting quite upset, but this time the reporter did not do the National Party any harm. I was questioned about bus-apartheid. I am someone who likes to learn, because I believe that once you stop learning, you should lie down and die, and therefore I am prepared to learn even from the National Party Government. I told them I did not believe that inflexible separation on buses was the best idea; that in peak hours, when the people crowded together on the buses, the groups should be separated, but during the hours when the buses were not so busy, it would be better to have buses in which both race groups could travel together in separated seating, so that the empty buses would not run separately for separate races. Now I read in yesterday evening’s Die Vaderland that I have come with a brand new revolution and that I want to reject all the right-mindedness of the Afrikaans community. This is the impression created by this report, on the front page. But where did I get this idea from? Sir, in 1968 the Department of Transport of this Government told the Cape Town tramways, the two companies here, that they demanded that they should apply apartheid and that they should submit a scheme to the Department. The bus companies did this, and it cost them R2 million to implement it. Then the chairman of the Transport Commission said: “But we shall not apply it; you do not have the money and we cannot spend so much money on it; devise another plan.” Then they put forward a plan in terms of which they would have separate buses in the peak hours when there was crowding, and at other times, when the buses were empty, they would have “composite buses”. And we see these here in Cape Town. This is the policy of the National Party Government which was prescribed to the bus companies of Cape Town. When the buses are not full, all the races must travel together in the same bus in order to keep the costs down, and instead of R2 million it cost R400 000. But because I thought in all sincerity that the National Party does succeed in doing something good occasionally, I am now reproached with saying something which is in conflict with the way of thinking of the South African people. This is the sort of argument which is used in politics today by my friends opposite and their newspapers, because they have no answer to the case of the United Party. [Interjections.]

Sir, one has to listen until one is tired to a story of our elderly people not being able to make ends meet on R38 per month today. In order to console them, they are told: Yes, but you are receiving thrice as much as in the days of the United Party.

Yes, that is true.

Yes, it is true, if one is willing to be superficial and to create a wrong impression among people for personal gain. I shall tell you what happened. When Mr. Havenga presented his Budget in August, 1948, he said he had not had time to devise his own plans and had therefore taken over Mr. Hofmeyr’s Budget in which he had fixed the old-age pension at R12. Today it is R38. But is R38 today worth three times as much as R12 in 1948? We all know that today you get for R1 what you got for 45 cents in 1948. In the first place, this means that the R38 of today can only buy goods to the value of R17 as compared with 1948. This means, and this is significant, that the purchasing-power of the old-age pension has not risen by 300 per cent, but only by 42,5 per cent. But this is not all. I should like to know from my friends opposite whether they think the elderly people of today—there are more drawing pension today than there were in 1948, which strengthens my case—receive the same share of our national income as the elderly people did in 1948. In 1948 the income of the State on Revenue Account totalled …

I thought it was good then.

The national income of South Africa was R1 591 million then, but today, in spite of the Government, it is more than R10 000 million. In other words, the national income has increased six-fold, but by their own admission the amount of old-age pensions has increased only three-fold. If they gave the same proportion of the national income to our old people today as the United Party had given, the old-age pension would have been R60 and not R38.

You are not convincing anybody.

The most important point of all is this: we are more heavily taxed today than ever before in the history of South Africa. We are today paying a greater proportion of our national income in taxation than ever under the United Party. In 1948 the Government collected R242 million on Revenue Account; at the moment—this is the most recent figure I could obtain—this Government receive R2 496 million from the income-tax payer. Our national income has increased six-fold …

What a good Government!

… but taxation has increased ten-fold.

What sort of taxation?

What sort of taxation? Taxation is taxation.

It is mainly the taxation on companies. After all, the country has progressed.

The country has progressed to such an extent that the national income has multiplied six times—perhaps it is seven times—but taxation has multiplied ten times. It does not matter from whom it comes; the Government is still taking more from the people than ever before. What Nationalist can say that our old-age pensioners are receiving their share of the national income, because if they did, their pensions should have increased tenfold as well, and not a paltry three times. [Interjections.] The test is, and this is the only test: Who is there on the opposite side who can rise and honestly say that an elderly White man or woman—the position of the non-Whites is even worse—can exist on R38 per month today?

Did you say that in 1948? [Interjections.]

I do not know what the hon. member is trying to convey with those gestures.

But did you say so in 1948?

Will the hon. the Minister give me a chance; I heard him the first time. He need not keep on repeating it.

Order!

We granted pensions according to the means of South Africa, but this Government is not granting the pensions to which our elderly people are entitled according to the means of South Africa. They are the people who contributed towards the increased national income and the increased State revenue which has become available since 1948. This is a simple truth and a fact.

But this is not all. I say this Government can no longer meet us with arguments; they evade and skip and jump about. Not the hon. members opposite, but their propaganda is becoming vile, sordid and mean. It is becoming absolutely disgraceful. [Interjections.] I am saying the propaganda of the National Party—and I repeat that I am not saying the hon. members opposite—is becoming vile, sordid and mean beyond all description. [Interjections.]

Tell us what you are doing.

You are looking at the mirror!

I have here a pamphlet which is being issued in Brakpan, where things are going wrong for the Nationalist Party. The Nationalist Party is becoming desparate and this is the pamphlet it is issuing. This pamphlet of four pages contains pictures of murder, of demonstrations against South Africa in London by expatriates from South Africa. It is concerned throughout with terrorism and communism, and the theme of the pamphlet is that the United Party accepts these phenomena and does not want to do anything to combat them. [Interjections.] I say this is one of the most disgraceful examples of blatant ingratitude I have ever come across in my life. I believe that any member of this House—and I know them as honourable men—would rise today and repudiate it. Let us look at the sort of allegation made in the pamphlet. It is said (translation)—

What are they suggesting?—That the situation was serious when they took over in 1948.

It was terrible.

In the first place I must say it is true, communists did walk around in the streets, but at least we knew where they were. They were not underground as they are today; they were not on our borders as they are today. Who are they accusing of lying? Whom are the propagandists accusing of lying? Are they accusing the United Party or their own officials of lying? I have here a statement made by the Commissioner of Police at the time, Gen. Rademeyer. He said this in 1957, and it has been quoted repeatedly in this House and has never been denied. What did Gen. Rademeyer say? I have here the English Hansard and I am referring to his words—

He is referring to the communists. I quote further—

What does the hon. member say now? Is Gen. Rademeyer a liar? Does his evidence mean nothing? Does truth no longer matter in our politics? What does the pamphlet say further? I read (translation)—

What a half-truth; what disgraceful misleading of the public!

But you did vote against it.

We voted for an alternative Act.

Hear, hear!

That hon. Minister shouting “hear, hear!” is proud of it because he himself voted for it. We voted for alternative legislation which would equate the propagating, advocating and promoting communism in South Africa with the crime of high treason. In more serious cases, we said, the death penalty could be imposed, but the difference was that in terms of our policy they had to be proved guilty in court. Such a person would have had the right to defend himself. These were the main points of difference between us and that side of the House. Here one would get the impression that we were against the suppression of communism.

When you were governing, you sat with your arms around each other’s necks.

Let me say to the hon. the Chief Whip that he is accusing the present Prime Minister of being a liar. I shall prove it to him now. Here we have another example of the rubbish which is being published in the name of the Nationalist Party. If harm has ever been done to South Africa, it is by issuing a pamphlet which states that half of the Whites in South Africa are making common cause with communism. Surely that is untrue, surely it is creating a wrong impression of South Africa. It is irresponsible and surely it is unpatriotic to say that there was ever something like this in South Africa. I shall now read something in the pamphlet which is true. I quote (translation)—

The principle is the same, the rule of law, namely that the citizen should have the right to appeal to the courts in order to prove his innocence, but what happend in this House a few days ago? While the hon. the Minister of justice was speaking, he reproached us twice for having voted in favour of clause 6 in the Terrorism Act in principle. Everybody remembers this, because it happened only two or three days ago. Then he played Samson to the hon. member for Houghton’s Delilah, and laid his head on her political lap. He made the same allegation against us as she did. Now this pamphlet comes along and what do they do? For political gain they brand their own Minister of Justice as being a liar. But that is not all. The hon. the Chief Whip suggests that there is truth in this pamphlet. Or is he not suggesting that? [Interjections.] Whom is he calling a liar now? I am not doing so, but he is branding his own Prime Minister as being a liar. Recently the hon. the Prime Minister appointed certain commissions and spoke about certain investigations he wanted to have instituted into the Bureau for State Security Act. I shall quote what he said. He said—

What is that belief?—

This is to be found in col. 334 of this year’s English Hansard.

†Then the hon. the Prime Minister announced in the Press the members of the commission who would investigate the report of the Potgieter Commission. Members from both sides of the House were to investigate the report on a very confidential basis, on a secret basis, on a basis of mutual trust. What did the hon. the Prime Minister say? He said that when it comes to matters concerning the security of the State, the Opposition could be relied upon. There could be no difference. We were at one.

What does Uncle Pottie say to that?

Yes, what does the hon. the Chief Whip say to that?

Mr. Speaker, what does one make of a political party that, in order to fight a lost cause, because they know that the sand is slipping under their feet, indulge in political propaganda which is untrue, which is a pack of lies, which is deliberately intended to appeal to the emotions of the people in an irrational manner, with pictures of terrorist weapons, wrecked motorcars, wounded soldiers and wounded policemen, and insinuates that the United Party approves of it? Is there a decent man in this House who is not ashamed of this sort of propaganda? I always have to tell the people outside that it is not true to say that politics is dirty. I always say that you have some dirty people in politics, but that politics is not dirty. But how can I defend this? How can you, Sir, how can any Nationalist, defend this pamphlet? How can you, when it calls your own Prime Minister a liar?

I have not seen that pamphlet. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, now my respect for the hon. member for Brits rises considerably. I knew that he could not identify himself with this. I am grateful to him that he now tells me that it was due to a misunderstanding that I thought he did. I am very grateful to him. We are making progress in this House. I hope more Nationalist members will have the courage to dissociate themselves from this irresponsible propaganda put out by their officials in the Transvaal.

The pamphlet I saw was the one about destroying nationalism. You should speak about that.

We certainly can discuss that. But I am not talking about the misinterpretation by the Nationalist Party of something we said in 1948, 24 years ago. I am talking about something which is distributed in the streets of Brakpan at this moment by a man who hopes to come to Parliament as a Nationalist Party member of Parliament. That is what I am talking about. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite seldom get excited, but I have not yet heard one who says that this is the right way to fight politics in South Africa.

I know your politics.

The hon. the Minister may say that, but then of course he is a most exceptional gentleman.

We know you.

Politics is not a Sunday school picnic.

No, not with you.

Politics is a hard game, but it is not without honour. Politics is not without respect for one’s opponents. In politics, above all, whatever one does, one considers South Africa. I say that this pamphlet is a disservice to South Africa and the people of South Africa. It is scandalous. It is strange to me that only a few days ago I had to say here that we must be careful that, in the heat of our political arguments, we do not indulge in the techniques of a Senator McCarthy. But this pamphlet, which comes less than a week afterwards, leaves Senator McCarthy standing. At his worst, his most irresponsible and his most vindictive, Senator McCarthy was not capable of this. I am sorry to have to say this, but I am entitled to say it, that this goes back to the methods of the Nazis. All I still want to hear is that the town hall of Brakpan has been set on fire by stooges of the National Party. Then the picture would be complete and the parallel absolute. I regret that I must speak like this.

Oh yes!

I honestly thought that the days of “die swart gevaar” and “die Sappe wil hê julle kinders moet met kaffers trou” and that sort of nonsense were of the past. I thought we had become mature and had outgrown that sort of madness in our politics. Then comes this pamphlet. All I can say is if any Nationalist wants to take a bet with me that their majority is going to go down disastrously on Wednesday, more so than ever because of this pamphlet, I am ready to accept their bets.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would be best if I made a few observations about the pamphlet held up by the hon. gentleman over there. In the first instance, I want to say that I have never seen that pamphlet before. To my knowledge none of the members sitting around me have seen it before. The hon. member launched here into a political tirade on a pamphlet, in respect of which I do not know the exact words printed in it. Nor do I care much about what the words are, for if the pamphlet has to be condemned, then that has to be done. Now I want to discuss a few facts that became evident in this House in the past. Let me say by way of introduction that, except for the principle of section 6 of the Terrorism Act, that side of the House has never helped to cope with subversive activities. [Interjections.]

A scandalous remark!

For hours on end I could stand here mentioning the things that have happened in this House. Whether it concerned the legislation against communism or other subversive activities, or detention clauses, they have always said, “Yes, but …" They say, “Yes, it is a dangerous position, but …", and that “but” implies a spunkless attitude which would have made it simply impossible for us in the past to combat these subversive activities. [Interjections.] I should like to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that he should not become sensitive about something of that nature, because he is like “Owlglass”; he says, “The people hate me, but that is my own fault.” Surely, it was his own fault in the past that he had to be attacked and criticized for not supporting us in our attempts to cope with hostile activities and subversion in South Africa.

That is untrue.

The Opposition agreed with us on the principle of section 6 of the Terrorism Act, but mention to me any other occasion, on which we fought subversion, on which they agreed with us.

What about the dangerous organizations legislation, the “Poqo Act”? [Interjections.]

The hon. members will get a chance to speak. The hon. House knows what we went through in the early sixties, in the circumstances that led to Sharpeville. We know about the Rivonia Trial and about the powers the Police had to obtain in order to combat these subversive activities and communism.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

I do not have the time now; there are many other matters I still want to discuss, and the hon. member will get a chance to put his case.

You know very little about these matters.

The hon. member should not be sensitive about this matter. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition may also tell us where they agreed with us and stood shoulder to shoulder with us in combating communism and subversion in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Do you not agree with the Prime Minister?

It is, of course, a theory that hon. members opposite should stand shoulder to shoulder with us and that we in South Africa should present a united front. That is what we all desire. However, we did not get this from the United Party in the past. This afternoon the hon. member for False Bay said that hon. members opposite were a lot of materialists, preeminently the hon. member for Yeoville, who has just spoken. They are opportunists who want to take the opportunity of the moment in order to derive political benefit for themselves; that is why they are sitting in this House. That is why the hon. member for Yeoville also adopted this attitude this afternoon. What did he do? He made a big fuss about the contents of a pamphlet. I just want to tell him that that pamphlet will hit him back harder than he thought to hit with it this afternoon. The hon. member for Yeoville should rather put his own house in order and try to stamp out the impurities in his own party. He should rather settle matters with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. We should like to know where the United Party stands in respect of these matters. If the hon. members opposite regard themselves as an alternative government, it is not only us, but, after all, also the people outside who want to know where they stand. In the past we heard, as regards the United Party’s policy on representation in this House, that the Black man would be represented here by Whites. However, then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that it was a fool’s paradise to think that they would be satisfied with such representation. He advocates direct representation. Week before last, during the no-confidence debate, he said that this was an interim arrangement. [Interjections.] At the time he came forward with a brand new policy, i.e. that we should live in an interim fool’s paradise until such time as the Black man was represented here by himself.

You are talking nonsense.

He is opposed to that, you know.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said in this House that his Leader had said that this fool’s paradise to which he referred, was an interim arrangement. However, the other night the hon. member for Yeoville said at a meeting—I read this in the newspapers, and if it is not true he can tell me so—that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had never said that, and that what he meant by an interim arrangement, was to obtain the views of the people on this matter. Now, that is a brand new interim arrangement again.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

No, I shall make my speech and then the hon. member may speak again, because there is still ample opportunity for doing so.

You are telling an untruth.

Then the hon. member can put it right. I told him that that was how it was reported by the Press. If hon. members opposite want to play at politics, they should first get their facts clear and correct so that we may know where they stand, and then it will be much better, because we have been reading in the papers that there have been many discussions and disputes in their caucus, and that in this struggle Mr. Japie Basson came off best. The hon. member for Yeoville, one of the leaders of his party, should rather tell us where they stand in respect of these matters which concern our continued existence in South Africa. That would be better for him than trying to make a political issue out of a pamphlet, which I do not have before me and about which I cannot argue. What I can in fact say, however, is that the hon. member should not be so sensitive about it, for in that respect he himself is very vulnerable. I should very much like to take advantage of this opportunity. There were many other aspects that were raised by the hon. member for Yeoville at the beginning, such as pensions, income tax, and so forth. I think the hon. the Minister of Finance will reply to those matters. But there are a few matters of an economic nature which I should like to discuss on this occasion, and therefore I should rather make haste to do so.

In the first instance, I want to come back to the hon. member for Constantia and the attack he made on us in respect of the announcement of import control. On a previous occasion, during the No-confidence Debate, I referred to it briefly, but for the purposes of the record I think it is essential that I refer to it again and that we motivate import control a little further. The hon. member passed criticism on the fact that we made an announcement on 22nd October, 1971, and that the import control policy for 1972 was allegedly the same as it had been for 1971. A little more than a month later, on 24th November, we introduced intensified import control. The hon. member claimed that no new factors had emerged between 22nd October and 24th November, 1971. But, surely, this is not true. The hon. member knows that, or, at least, he ought to know that. He claimed that the American influences felt in our economy during that period—on 24th November, 1971, in fact—and those that existed on 22nd October, when the first announcement was made, were basically the same. However, the hon. member would be the first to criticize us, and justifiably so, if we had done nothing pursuant to the dangerous downward trend during that month in our balance of trade position, a trend caused by factors over which we had no control. On 22nd October, 1971, there was indisputable evidence that the fiscal and monetary measures in force at that stage, were beginning to succeed. When I made the first statement on 22nd October, it was undeniably true that our fiscal and monetary measures were succeeding. The high expenditure was becoming more stable than had been the case before. The level of imports that had been so high previously, was beginning to drop. As a result the pressure on our balance of trade position began to diminish, and there were indications that our gold and foreign reserves had improved. But the fact of the matter is that the suspension of the convertibility of the dollar against gold and the parity change, led to large-scale speculation on the international market within two weeks. As a result of those circumstances which resulted within two weeks before 24th November, 1971, the Government was obliged to do something. In November of last year various officials of the department proceeded to examine the position, our country’s balance of trade had deteriorated, and it was essential for us to do something about it. I repeat that if we had done nothing about the matter, despite the circumstances that had set in, that hon. gentleman and everybody opposite would have been first to blame us for having in fact done nothing about the matter. But, indeed, the circumstances forced us to do that.

Then the hon. member for Constantia proceeded to make an attack on the intensified import control introduced by us. His attack was specifically aimed at the fact that whilst, at that stage when we introduced the control, there were still unused permits to the value of R900 million, we reduced those permits by half. Over and above the fact that at that stage our imports were already as much as R400 million higher than they had been the previous year, we still had unused permits to the value of R900 million. That was the position whilst we were aware at that stage that there was in South Africa an accumulation of supplies amounting to R600 million in respect of the part of the year that had passed. Yet the hon. member criticized us for having reduced those unused permits by half. Sir, what were the circumstances? Subsequent to that we had to make concessions again, as we expected, to those importers requiring essential materials for processing in factories.

They are still waiting. They have received no reply.

Sir, the hon. member may come to me with administrative complaints of that kind, and I shall attend to them. Those are not matters that should be raised here in this House. Let us rather discuss the principles of the matter. What was our policy in respect of imports, and especially in respect of the unused permits for 1971? In respect of capital goods that are indivisible, such as a machine, we did not expect an importer to import half a machine. We granted him permission to import the whole machine. We also granted permission … [Interjections.] Those hon. members are laughing now. Is it from ignorance? What is the hon. member for Hillbrow laughing at?

Sir, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether it is correct that a person with an import permit for a machine still finds that his permit is being halved, and that he has to lodge an application in respect of that half of the machine which he cannot import?

From the nature of the case we divided the unused permits by two. We only permitted half of those permits to be used. Therefore, if there is a permit in respect of a machine, which is indivisible, that importer should bring the matter to the notice of the department and if he does so, we grant him that permission. Those hon. members do not know what they are talking about at all. The result was that in respect of that half, we had to return permits to the value of R120 million.

Sir, I shall make haste; I see my time is running out. In the meantime we returned, in respect of that unused part, permits to the value R120 million, and as regards import control, which we were obliged to apply under those circumstances, we shall apply it in such a manner that it will cause South Africa minimum harm and importers minimum inconvenience. We must allow capital goods to be imported, and as far as raw materials for factories are concerned, the position is different from what it was in the past. In the past it was much easier, and it was possible for us to eliminate unnecessary consumer goods. Today we cannot do so to the same extent, as the goods are now being manufactured in South Africa from imported raw materials, and we do not want the industry in South Africa to be prejudiced as a result of that.

In the last few minutes I still have at my disposal, I should like to touch upon another matter. The prophets of doom in this House have had a great deal to say and have indulged in a great deal of criticism and disparagement. I think the time has arrived for us to pass on some optimism to the public outside. There is no reason for being without optimism. We have a great opportunity for proving this. Everybody has been referring here to a “breathing space”. When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition refers to a “breathing space”, it makes me irritable straight away—as though we are drowning and have just been given a breather. I want to put this question to the hon. member for Parktown: “Is it not our task to take advantage of this opportunity so as to develop our economy once again? But how can we take advantage of this opportunity if he gets up here as a prophet of doom, complaining that the future looks bad?

What are you doing?

I shall tell the hon. member what we are doing. Sir, from the outset I have maintained the closest contact with the private sector. The evening before we introduced the intensified import control, I invited the chairmen of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, Seifsa, the Federated Chamber of Industries and Assocom to my home that afternoon, and there we had discussions. At the time I made an announcement to them in advance, more specifically to afford these leaders of the private sector an opportunity to know, when this announcement was made officially, how they had to react and what they had to tell their people in any statements they might issue. I think these people liked it; they appreciated it. I can tell hon. members that, except in the case of Assocom, whose attitude one can appreciate, these people welcomed import control. But hon. members opposite have been criticizing it as though it is something pernicious. Sir, we had import control when we took over from the U.P. Government. In 1948 we were almost bankrupt; we were on the brink of bankruptcy.

Nonsense!

Three years later we, too, were obliged to introduce import control. Sir, the import control we have had over these years, was not introduced for the purpose of protecting our industries, but it also happens to afford protection to our industries. Surely hon. members cannot dispute that. Import control is, therefore, a great challenge to industry; it is a tremendous challenge to industry to avail itself of this opportunity, when consumer goods cannot be imported from outside, to extend their capacity and to manufacture more effectively, because they are in a position to manufacture more now. We should like to afford industry that opportunity. But, Sir, encouragement must be given to industry. The hon. member for Parktown and others should encourage them and not express destructive criticism here. Devaluation has afforded our industrialists a major opportunity, since imported goods are now becoming more expensive for South African consumers, and domestically it is therefore possible for locally manufactured goods to compete more effectively. Not only can such goods compete on a more effective basis domestically, but because they are manufactured locally under devaluation conditions, they can also penetrate the markets abroad more effectively.

Those opportunities must be used, and that is why the hon. the Minister of Planning and I held a meeting with the Federated Chamber of Industries and Seifsa and the Flandelsinstituut here. When we discussed the matter with them, they described it as “a breath of fresh air”. We told them in what respects we could help them and what we were going to do to promote their interests. They appreciated that, Sir, and they are optimistic; they are keen on doing something, but all we hear in this House, is how bad the position is. Having held that meeting with the Federated Chamber of Industy and others, I promised them that I would have an interview with the Board of Trade and Industry because I also wanted to eliminate causes of friction there. I should now like to take this opportunity to make a statement in respect of the Board of Trade and Industry for the information of this House, but also, more specifically, for the information of industry. This statement reads as follows—

After my talks, I feel convinced that the policy of selective protection should be maintained. Stable industrial growth will be served best and the benefits of devaluation will be utilized best by concentrating effective and where necessary, increased protection on economic and efficient branches of industry which can compete effectively on both the domestic and the export market.

I am convinced that the Board has at its disposal methods for protecting South African industrialists against disruptive competition without the cost of products which must necessarily be imported from the traditional supplier countries, especially production goods, being increased unnecessarily.

The Government has requested the Board to investigate further possibilities for import substitution, and at the same time to grant every possible assistance to export industries by way of the protection policy.

Methods have been discussed for expediting as far as possible the granting of protection to deserving industries. The Board gives preference to urgent cases, and has over the past year made use of interim duties in order to protect new industries, the establishment of which is complicated by the stockpiling of imported supplies. Nevertheless, I have requested the Board to do everything in its power to dispose of applications for protection as quickly as possible.

It is unfortunately true that the disposal of tariff applications is sometimes delayed considerably in that applicants do not furnish correct tariff descriptions of their goods or are slow in furnishing the information on which the Board has to base its recommendations. It seems that the delays are often caused owing to uncertainty on the part of the applicant about formulating their applications or replying to questions. Applicants are free to consult with the Board and its staff on such problems, and this, too, could contribute greatly to eliminating delays.

Close co-operation between the industrialists and Board is very important, and is in the interests of those industrialists requiring assistance.

Mr. Speaker, I believe, and I think we should accept it this way, that this import control, holds benefits for the industrialists. It puts them in a better position, and so does devaluation, but I nevertheless believe that in the long run the protection of our industrialists is to be found in tariff protection and not in import protection. That is why I have been trying to make the tariff protection position as easy for them as possible through the control of the Board of Trade and Industry, and I hope with all my heart that the necessary use will be made of it.

Personally I believe that this is an opportunity we should use. We, for our part, my department and I, the Minister of Planning and everybody concerned in the matter, including the Minister of Finance, will try to find ways and means for assisting industries in this opportunity which has been afforded for their benefit, but I think that you on that side of the House also have a duty, not only to disparage, but also to help us by displaying some more enthusiasm and making a more positive contribution in regard to this matter. The hon. the Minister of Finance gave an indication that things could be done in respect of the provision of capital, and we are considering them, but do not sit there and tell us that nothing is being done and that the opportunity is not being used. We shall do what we can, but hon. members should not always throw a spanner into the works. They can help us a great deal in this regard.

In conclusion I just want to say this. I should have liked to have added a few words on the negotiations with G.A.T.T., but I am already running out of time again. In respect of the E.E.C. matters, I should just like to say these few words. This morning it was stated in a radio report that Prof. Dahrendorf, one of the commission members would visit South Africa. I am very grateful that he is coming, and I should like to confirm that he is going to visit South Africa. I have already had discussions with him on several occasions. Last year, during my visit abroad, I invited him to pay South Africa a visit on his way to Australia or back. Actually it was my task last year to try to create an opportunity for discussing with the latter South Africa’s problems as a result of Britain’s entry into the E.E.C. Here we have now the first favourable outcome of my negotiations, i.e. the fact that Prof. Dahrendorf is coming here so that he may see for himself what the products are that we want to sell and in what quantities and in what circumstances we are producing and living here in South Africa. I welcome it. I am very grateful for the fact that he will come. To us he is perhaps the most important person at the E.E.C., since he is responsible for financial and economic relations with third countries. I believe that his visit to South Africa can be very valuable to us.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a lone time since I have heard such an irresponsible speech from a Minister concerning a filthy document such as the one with which my hon. friend from Yeoville dealt. It is a speech which indicates that this Government has reached the depths of political despair when we find the hon. the Minister of Police saving: “Well, I have not seen this pamphlet,” and then going on to say the various things with which I am about to deal.

I did not deal with the pamphlet; I dealt with …

No, I know you did not. I just said you did not. Listen …

Why don’t you listen?

What did he sav? There he is, the hon. the Minister of Police, who ought to know better, grovelling around here in the bottom of a cesspool similar to the contents of this document. That hon. gentleman should know better. Last year he went on a tour of the border areas, both in Rhodesia and Caprivi, and he took with him members of the House. He invited us to go with him. We are very grateful. He took with him on this occasion, from this side of the House, the hon. member for Durban Point and myself—we are grateful for the confidence. Two years before I did a similar trip with him. A little while ago three hon. members from this side of the House, my hon. Leader, the hon. member for Durban Point and I, were sitting in a committee in Pretoria in the Prime Minister’s office with that hon. Minister and some of his colleagues dealing with matters affecting the Security of the State. On what basis was that done? On the basis that we could be trusted, that we had the interests of the safety of the State at heart, and the hon. the Minister knew it, otherwise it would not have been done—and the Prime Minister said so. At Goudini, where the Cape Nationalist Congress was held, someone tried to suggest that the “Sappe” were not patriots in the Army; there was some difficulty about that. The hon. the Minister of Defence said in the clearest terms that he could not do without the “Sappe” and that no one should say anything about their loyalty and their concern.

And now?

This hon. Minister who has been involved in all this legislation gets up here and has the impertinence to say that we have not at any time helped in respect of undermining activities, that we have never helped this Government.

You should be ashamed of yourself!

Now really! What does the record say?

But I did not say that you helped with undermining activities.

You said we have never helped you in putting down undermining activities. Is that not what you said?

No.

Of course you did say that. Let us have a look at the facts. In 1953 the Public Safety Act was passed. This was an Act to provide for the declaration of a state of emergency and the suspension of law altogether: that everything could be ruled by regulation in certain circumstances. That Bill had our unqualified support.

And now?

He has forgotten about that.

In that same session there was a Criminal Law Amendment Bill as well, dealing with the same thing. This Bill also had our support. Do you remember what happened under that Act after Sharpeville, Sir? Do you remember what happened? There was no law and order and it was necessary to declare a state of emergency. In terms of the Public Safety Act a proclamation declaring a state of emergency can be issued so that all laws are suspended and the Government may do what they like. We supported the issue of such a proclamation on that occasion, because we believe that you can not talk about rules of law or anything else unless you have law and order. We gave our support to that. It was very important that the official Opposition should give its support on an occasion like that, because it restored to the public the confidence that this was a necessary measure. The official Opposition did that, although there were others who did not support it. That is our record.

Would he have liked not to have had our support?

Yes, that is a good point. Does the hon. gentleman not want the support of the official Opposition? Is that what he is complaining about? You cannot have your cake and eat it [Interjections]. For example, you find in this pamphlet, “Onthou u nog Sharpeville?” There you are. We remember Sharpeville well and this Government will well remember that they had and were lucky enough to have here in the situation we found ourselves, an Opposition which gave support to that because we believe in law and order first. Another thing one finds in the pamphlet is: “Do you Remember Paarl?” Let me tell hon. members something about Paarl. After the Paarl riots my hon. Leader called for a judicial commission of inquiry into the riots at Paarl. As a result of his call for that judicial commission of inquiry, the Snyman Commission was appointed. As a result of the Snyman Commission inquiry at the instance of my hon. Leader, it was found necessary by the Commissioner to bring forward an urgent interim report. What he said in that report was that there was an organization called Poqo, a manyheaded Hydra—you chop off a head here and it appears somewhere else—which was such a great threat that if something was not done immediately we would lose control to that terrorist organization in certain of the Bantu areas. And what happened? That Bill came before this House and we supported it in principle. That was the properly called Poqo Bill. It also had in it the 90 days provision which we opposed, but we were prepared to give support to the Bill at the Second Reading, the main provision of which was to kill this organization called Poqo and to restore law and order in our African areas. [Interjections.] That is not all. In 1960 as well there was the Unlawful Organizations Bill which came before this House. Again, at the Second Reading, it had the unqualified support of this side of the House. In column 4797 of the 1960 Hansard the following appears—

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Mrs. Ballinger, Messrs. Butcher, Cope, Dr. de Beer, Messrs. Eglin, Fourie, Lawrence, Lee-Warden, Stanford, Dr. Steytler, Mr. R. A. F. Swart, Mrs. Suzman, Messrs. Van Ryneveld and Williams) voted against the motion, Mr. Speaker declared it agreed to.

He has forgotten.

Of course he has forgotten. They are trying to tar us with a brush when there is no paint. They must certainly not associate us with the activities of the Progressive Party which they tried to do very cleverly both in the pamphlet and in that speech. Now that hon. Minister who is a Minister of the State, and Minister of Police gets up here and says that we never supported the measure which was aimed at undermining activities.

It is not true.

Of course, it is not true. However, I have not finished with the record yet. Do hon. members remember …

That makes 12 untruths already.

Do hon. members remember that when the Government presented legislation to this House asking us to make the offence of training for sabotage for the purposes of an unlawful organization overseas or in South Africa a capital offence, it once again had our support? What is more, it was made retrospective. That also had our support because we are realists, and because you have to have law and order.

In 1966 we had the Terrorism Act. The hon. the Minister of Police …

He is reading the pamphlet.

It is too late now, Louwrens. We have finished discussing that Pamphlet.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could give me some attention.

The Terrorism Act was introduced in 1967. What happened at the Second Reading? We voted for it. Why did we vote for it? We voted for it because our attitude was that terrorism should be stamped out root and branch, and if that Bill would help it would in principle have our support. However, we voted against section 6 of that Act. We said that there were powers of interrogation in respect of which the courts came into the picture and could lay down conditions of interrogation. What was that hon. Minister’s reply? Has he ever denied it? He was the man who handled the Committee Stage, and not the hon. the Minister of Justice. The hon. the Minister of Justice said that the Minister of Police, who was the Deputy Minister then, was the man who wanted the powers and therefore he had to tell us all about it. He told us the story that he needed these powers in respect of the border. And now?

What now?

Johannesburg is now the border of South Africa.

Not by any stretch of the imagination. The hon. the Minister of Justice himself said the other day that we supported the stages of that Bill. The next thing that came along was the BOSS Act, sections 10 and 29 of the General Laws Amendment Act. I should like to deal with these in a moment. The hon. gentleman says that our support for these things is a matter of opportunism. I appreciate that he did not know what he was talking about. However, let me tell him that if that is opportunism, then it is the most stupid opportunism that a political party could ever aspire to. On every occasion that we supported a measure like this, we were pilloried by what you call our Press, the English language Press. We were pilloried for days and months.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if the hon. the Minister of Police has made an attack on this side of the House, is it not right that he should listen to the reply?

Order! The hon. member may continue.

Don’t be ridiculous.

You should be ashamed of yourself. Have you no manners?

I have that pamphlet now. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, it does not really matter whether the hon. member for Brits has the pamphlet or not, because that pamphlet is an expression in the vilest possible form of what these hon. gentlemen have been trying to do for months. They have been trying to tar the United Party with a communist brush, but that cock will not fight. They know it; it is an act of desperation. The hon. the Minister is also responsible. There was a time during the recess when all the hon. the Ministers were sent out to try and say something like this. They are now hoist with their own petard as a result of the actions that we have taken.

Let me come down to another matter, a related matter, namely the General Laws Amendment Act. We now have before us the report of the Potgieter Commission. This report is a remarkable document; it is an historical document in many ways. This is something which had to do with the security of the State, and with sections 10 and 29 especially of the General Laws Amendment Act. It consistently approves our approach which, with your permission, I will read. It is—

This is what this Government has to learn. I have demonstrated that we will not abide lawlessness at any price. We will not abide terrorism at any price and we will not abide any other subversion at any price. But we have to use methods which are Western, which are democratic, which are decent and which can be used. You can be strong and still retain your integrity and the integrity of your country. But what happened? Here we have the report of the Potgieter Commission. This is a commission which has bitten the Prime Minister. I suppose the hon. the Prime Minister appoints more judicial commissions per month at the drop of a hat than anyone has ever done. Here he is being hoist with his own petard. The Potgieter Report almost entirely destroys what remains of the hon. the Prime Minister’s credibility and the credibility of the hon. gentlemen who are here, of this Government, and of a lot of gentlemen who took part.

In what respect?

Just wait, I am going to tell you. It is coming. There were two relevant clauses in that General Laws Amendment Bill; one was section 10, which provided for an amendment to the Official Secrets Act.

According to the report?

Just wait a moment, it is coming. I know you have not read it yet, but I will tell you about it. Section 10 provided for, an amendment to the Official Secrets Act. It provided that it was an offence to disclose something which was a security matter and which was a matter defined as being something which the Bureau for State Security was dealing with. Our objection to that was that one could commit an offence without knowing it. In other words, there was no element of mens rea, as they say, i.e. that you should knowingly do something before you should be convicted and punished. Well, we were shouted down: “We won’t have that. You are quite wrong.” What do we find in the Potgieter Commission’s Report? The Commissioner has recommended, and the Government has accepted, that the amendment which we proposed and divided upon at the time, should be written into the law. The present section, as passed by this arrogant Government, should be repealed and replaced by the one the United Party suggested should be there, during the Committee Stage.

Louwrens knows nothing about that.

Then there was also section 29, which dealt with the question of State privilege in court. It provided that any Minister or official delegated by the hon. the Prime Minister could sign a certificate and exclude any evidence from court if, in his opinion, it was in the interests of the State or of the safety of the State to do so. Hon. members will recall what our attitude was. Our attitude was again that this went much too far and that there was an Appellate Division decision on the matter which made the law quite clear and which left the courts, where matters concerning the interests of the State were concerned, with residual powers. It also made other points. However, we opposed that and what happened? All our amendments were rejected. I shall indicate in a moment that Mr. Justice Potgieter now recommends that everything we said should be written into the law and that the section as passed at that time, should be repealed and replaced with a section such as the one we proposed. This is a lesson in and a demonstration of arrogance of power. I shall tell hon. members why as I go along. After this Bill was passed there was the most tremendous public concern that I have known during my time in politics. Every single Bar Council objected, including the Bar Council of the hon. member for Prinshof, who so eloquently spoke in favour of the provisions his Bar Council was against. Even Judges felt so strongly about this matter that they objected. The Side Bars, too, objected. The public, generally, was up in arms. The Nationalist newspapers were talking about it. Yet the Government was not going to do anything. We asked for an inquiry, but what was the answer? We had Mr. Sampie Froneman, who was promoted to an office of silence shortly thereafter, saying, under the heading “The Government stands firm on the BOSS Bill”:

That is not all. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development was also called in. In a speech to Nationalists at Witpoortjie, near Roodepoort, on the 18th August, 1969, he referred to the contentious section 29 and said that there had been an outcry to high heaven about it, even from the judiciary. In the end it all added up to “an assault on the Government planned in the inner chambers of the liberalists”. He called on Nationalists to stand firm on section 29. Even then they were wrong and did not know that they were wrong. They said, however, that one had to stand firm because the Government had done it and that they had to show their “kragdadigheid”. The opposition to that section was said to have been conceived by liberalists. It is a great thought. It is interesting to note that all the liberalists had done, Mr. Justice Potgieter, the commissioner, has found should in fact have been done and that the whole thing had been misconceived by this Government. It is interesting to note that when that commission was appointed, the hon. the Prime Minister was not concerned about what the public was concerned about, namely sections 10 and 29, because at the time he announced the appointment of the commission he said that a lot of nonsense had been spoken about section 29 by the official Opposition, by Judges, by all the Bar Councils and also apparently now by Mr. Justice Potgieter whose recommendations are now accepted by this Government. The hon. the Prime Minister was not concerned about this; he was concerned about Dr. Albert Hertzog and he was scared that he was going to give him a kick in the “tochas” in the coming election. That was what he was concerned about. The last thing the National Party ever thought would happen was that the Judge would find that his terms of reference included an inquiry into sections 10, 6 and 29. What happened as a result of this? All the hon. the Prime Minister could say was that a lot of nonsense had been spoken about section 29. He made a fool of himself. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of the Interior would like to know in what way the Prime Minister was wrong. I will tell him. He was wrong because he said—and I am leaving poor old Sampie Froneman out of it now, because he is not with us any more and cannot defend himself—that he would back up anything Mr. Sampie Froneman had said in this House. He did so from platform to platform and in this House. When we reminded him of the fact that he had said that a lot of nonsense had been spoken about section 29, he said: “Yes, and you spoke your share of it too.” What has Mr. Justice Potgieter found? He found that the hon. the Prime Minister was wrong in saying, in the first place, that the law in section 29 was what the law had always been. He found that he was wrong in the sense that he had these powers before and that he had exercised them. He also found that he was wrong about the English law, and that it had been the law for the last 100 years. He found that he was wrong when he said that officials had always signed certificates and in fact found that the very decision of Van der Linde and Calitz said that officials should not sign them and that only the political head of the Department should sign them. He found that he was wrong about the discretion of the courts in matters affecting the interests of the State. Most important of all, he found that he was quite wrong in his approach when it came to the question of what was in the interests of the State and what concerned the security of the State. It is a lapse in which the hon. the Prime Minister is perhaps the expert, but one in which he is very closely followed by the other arrogant hon. gentlemen who sit in his Cabinet. What he found—and I think it is very significant—has been our battle and message over the years. If the hon. the Minister of the Interior will look at paragraph 272 of the Potgieter Report, he will find:

In paragraph 273 he says:

That is what it is all about. He has recommended, and the Government has now accepted, that in fact his recommendation should be approved, and that everything we have said and all the amendments we have moved should now be put into the law. This commission has been sitting for so long to tell the country that this Government should have done what the United Party said it should have done in 1969. We are very fortunate to have this report. We have had one look into one aspect of Government administration which witnesses the arrogance which goes with that ignorance and insolence of it. This is its attitude, and this is its attitude to Parliament. I must say I am not at all impressed with the debate which took place the other day when the hon. the Prime Minister suddenly showed interest in Parliament. He wants to take Parliament into its confidence to deal with these matters when he wants to do a little smear on someone else somewhere else. My time is up, but this report discloses evidence of the most incredible blundering, incompetence and lack of leadership by a misinformed and arrogant bunch of Cabinet Ministers ably led in that respect by the hon. the Prime Minister.

But what happened? What has the hon. the Prime Minister done about it? Nothing at all! Sampie Froneman has gone to the Free State. In any event he defended it. This is the Government we have. Here the commission is saying that the Government was totally wrong in every respect. They would not listen to any opinion whatsoever. So what does the Prime Minister do? He defends Sampie Froneman, just as he defends the hon. the Minister of Health and Dirkie Uys, and just like he would defend any incompetence in his Government, as he has done right up to now. Here is the proof of the pudding, that it is incompetence and that they are not fit to sit here any more, as far as the interests of the State and the individual’s liberties are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, on the one hand it is a pity that I, who am not a lawyer, have to reply to this part of the debate, and in particular to what was said here this afternoon by the hon. member for Durban North. However, if one summarizes what he tried to say, that in fact amounts to his giving a few indications of what they did throughout the years, things which my colleague, the Minister of Police, indicated they had not done. The hon. member for Durban North happened to mention six or seven things they had succeeded in doing over the period of 24 years. That was to give support to this Government for this specific kind of legislation. Now, the position is that I have a few examples which I can mention to the hon. member this afternoon to show to him in what instances the United Party has played a double role in the course of these years with regard to legislation which came before this Parliament.

And what is more, we are a police state as well!

If one had time to draw up a list of the various Bills introduced in this House, the United Party would find that it had supported the Second Reading of those Bills probably in one out of five cases but that it had found fault with the legislation at a later stage, which resulted in their voting against the legislation at the Third Reading, or vice versa, so that they could tell the electorate at every opportunity that they had voted both for and against a specific piece of legislation.

What does the Potgieter report say?

I shall come to the Potgieter report. I think it is a highly immoral fact, as my colleague, the Minister of Police, quite rightly said here this afternoon, that the United Party has not made national security the primary consideration in dealing with legislation of this nature which has come before this House.

That is absolutely untrue.

Throughout the years the United Party has seen what party benefit it may derive from its manner of voting on a particular matter.

I agree with the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions; you are not worth much.

You are worth nothing.

The hon. member mentioned as an example the attitude of the United Party in 1953 when the Public Safety Bill was passed in this House, but I say that that is no indication whatsoever of the fact that that side of this House was essentially prepared to accept in legislation measures relating to the security of the country. If that had been the case, if that side of this House had given the Government full support throughout the years, it would not have been necessary to draw up the Potgieter report. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if you read the Potgieter report, you will find that there were major shortcomings, up to a very late stage, of national security, and one of the reasons for that, as I see it, was the very fact that the support of that side of this House was lacking.

The report does not state that.

Every piece of legislation passed here, was passed with a great deal of trouble by the National Party. The United Party opposed this kind of legislation every time.

Give me an example.

I shall come to that. Sir, if I wanted to speak this afternoon about the past 24 years in which the United Party declined to such a large extent, and if I wanted to reduce that to this question of its choice regarding how it was to vote on this specific kind of legislation, I would probably be able to mention many things to you here. Coupled to that there is the question of leadership on that side, to depart for a moment from legislation. I still have a very fine recollection of the days when the Leader of that side of the House was elected. At that time he was 44 years of age and I remember he said that he believed in leadership from behind, that he did not believe in standing too prominently on the forefront as leader. I think he will acknowledge that I am right if I say today that this actually is what he has been doing throughout the years. His leadership of that side of this House with regard to legislation dealing particularly with safeguarding the country, has been of such a nature that the United Party has been unable to take up a clear standpoint. One could also say that the whole idea of the interim settlement mentioned by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout the other day, was typical of what has been happening with the United Party throughout the years. The other day the United Party said in the newspapers that as many as 148 Acts had been introduced in order to render possible the implementation of our Bantu policy. Of those Acts the hon. member could mention only five this afternoon in respect of which the United Party had given its full support to the legislation or in respect of which it believed its support had made it possible for such legislation to be passed.

Sir, at this stage I should like to mention in passing a matter which has come very strongly to the forefront in the past week, and that is the story with which I, too, was concerned, i.e. the question of coalition. I happen to have been in the Opposition in Natal for 14 years, but the big difference between the United Party and myself is that United Party has been on the Opposition benches for 24 years, whereas I sat in the Opposition benches in Natal for 17 years, but never thought, as they do today, that I would get into power there. And because the United Party believes that it will come into power, it has, for that reason, come forward today with the kind of stories we heard here this afternoon. It will definitely not come about that that party will come into power, and as regards these stories concerning coalition, I just want to say that they have been spread more in the ranks of the United Party in Natal over the years and that we have had to kill them more times from our side than they have had to kill them from their side.

Where?

In Natal. I was a member of the Provincial Council for 17 years and this story was spread there as well.

What is the point?

Sir, I now want to come to the question of the task of the Opposition in connection with legislation of this nature. What is its task? In the first place I should like to refer to a recent statement made by the Chief Secretary of the United Party on the question of what really was the responsibility of the Opposition in connection with legislation. In the first place he said one had to oppose what had to be opposed. This is what he said 14 days ago.

I am trying to follow your logic. What is your point?

The hon. member for Durban Point need not look at me in that way; he probably saw that article himself. Two things were mentioned by the Chief Secretary of the United Party, two things which really ought to be the guidelines for an Opposition. The one is that one should break down what is wrong in the Government, and the second is that one should substitute for those things matters which would enable one to govern as an alternative Government. Sir, when one studies the article, it is interesting to find that three-quarters of what he mentioned concerned breaking down legislation introduced by the Government. The little bit mentioned by him which actually constituted the positive side of the United Party’s contribution, simply was an account of things accepted in other countries by all parties. Sir, the principle blunder in connection with this article was the following: The United Party did not realize that as an Opposition it also had a task and that as a responsible Opposition it should have given its support throughout the years to legislation dealing with national security. In other Western countries three important things are mentioned as matters which ought to have the support of an Opposition, and these are, firstly, legislation dealing with national security; secondly, legislation dealing with the dangers from the outside world, and thirdly, the inter-state establishment of ties with other countries in the world.

If you read the Potgieter report, which was mentioned by the hon. member for Durban North, you will find that the whole report deals with the question of internal national security, and to that, I, too, happen to have looked. After I had read this report, I came to the conclusion that the United Party, which, of course, is not mentioned in the report, had supported the Government on very few occasions. [Interjections.] The hon. member appeared before the Potgieter Commission and made statements there which led me to the conclusion that the United Party had not given the Government the support it ought to have given throughout the years.

Mention one example.

I shall read out the terms of reference to the hon. member. The Commission was appointed exactly 2½ years ago and was given the following terms of reference—

1. †(a) The potential threat of conventional and unconventional war against the Republic;
2. (b) the threat of terrorism and potential guerilla war on our frontiers and in the interior;
3. (c) the continual possibility of internal subversion;
4. (d) the necessity of the Government’s being fully informed and kept abreast of matters relating to security;
5. (e) the security set-ups of other comparable democratic countries; and
6. (f) the security of the State in general, whatever its nature …

Here I want to say that in no single case did the United Party keep the Government informed as it should have done.

Can you quote one example?

I have already said that the United Party opposed the Government in respect of many of these matters.

Give us an example.

I have already said that 148 Acts dealing with, inter alia, the security of the State have been passed by this Parliament, and the hon. member for Durban North could only mention six occasions on which the United Party gave its support to the House in this respect.

Give us those we opposed.

Now, Sir, what happened in that time?

What have you just read out?

The terms of reference, and I give ten different spheres in which national security moves. There are, inter alia, the military and the political spheres, the economy, the social sphere, the educational and psychological spheres, the spheres of terrorism, sabotage and espionage. Now, if you are able to say that you on your part have assisted the Government in any of these spheres as the Potgieter Commission expected you to have done, I shall agree with you that you have given your full support to legislation in this field. What are the dangers mentioned by Mr. Justice Potgieter?

But we have.

What are the dangers? The dangers he found, exist in the following forms in South Africa: Subversion, under which communism, subversion and espionage fall. Then there are terrorism, the internal disturbance of peace and order in the country, undermining, the threatening of the lives of people, the creation of fear and confusion amongst the public, the spreading of tales of horror, the incitement of violence, strikes, etc.

As regards the first, I want to quote at once an example of what was said by the hon. member for Durban North, who was so verbose this afternoon and who replied to the hon. the Minister of Police. And what he mentioned will be an indication to you of what was said on his part which was in conflict with the spirit of the Potgieter Commission. Here is a case, a very interesting one, which appeared in the Sunday Times last year. On 31st October, the hon. member for Durban North used the following words—

[Interjections.]

That is why we wanted a commission.

This is the sort of climate you people created throughout all these years and this is typical of what was supposed to have happened. [Interjections.] Let me read further what Mr. Mitchell said—

This is the sort of thing hon. members told the public too. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to appeal to both sides of this House to give the hon. the Minister an opportunity to speak.

He said too—

Now this is typical of the sort of thing you have told the public—

Now, Sir, I want to go on with the second point. I want to give you a second example of the type of thing that has happened here. It is the interesting case for which the hon. member for Green Point was responsible for saying that the confrontation between Church and State is going on all the time, and in the particular statement there are two blatant untruths as far as I can see. What he said was this: He accused the Government of its twopronged campaign to smear the churches …

What church?

Furthermore he said that there have been ten deportations in seven days. That was quite untrue and I told the hon. member this. I told him that before he made the statement. This is the sort of thing that, inter alia, appeared in the Sunday Times and which was read by possibly 400 000 people, and which is typical also of the motives behind your type of thinking when it gets to race relations in our legislation.

There is a third type of unrest created by you which I could mention and that is in connection with the happenings in Owambo. It is not for me to deal with the merits of the case. This has been dealt with by enough people on this side, but what I do want to say is that several of your leaders, amongst them the Leader of the Opposition, made statements which gave the impression that in fact the National Party Government is responsible for what was happening there. If I remind the Leader of the Opposition of what he himself said, he will realize that he was in fact stirring up public protest against what was done there, and was in fact indirectly telling the Bantu people that the National Party was responsible for the trouble. [Interjections.] On the one side he said that he was in favour of what the Government was in favour of, namely keeping peace and order in Owambo and seeing that everything would go quietly, but a few days later he makes this statement, which is contrary to the facts.

What statement? You are attributing a statement to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. What statement is that?

I will read it to you—

Hear, hear!

The full statement which Sir De Villiers Graaff made was that the most disturbing thing was the fact that it revealed disturbances of disorder in Owambo which were more widespread and serious …

No, you are reading two different statements and tying them together. [Interjections.]

He said that the mere fact that the South African Defence Force were being called upon to assist the South African Police in protecting the international borders and covering repair work was particularly significant.

I said that in this House too.

Then he said—

This is a case where the two parties should act in union because it is in fact one of national importance, and you people should have acted in unison and should have supported us in whatever we did.

Even if you did something wrong? [Interjections.]

Then there is the hon. member for Durban Point. What does he do? We have all this trouble in Zambia and Tanzania, and we have terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would be kind enough to give me the date of the first statement he attributed to me?

The hon. member for Durban Point again dealt with the question of …

What is the date? [Interjections.]

I shall give it to you just now.

For what purpose do you want it now? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I was giving an indication of what the hon. member for Durban Point did. As far as the whole position roundabout South Africa is concerned—that is, as far as our neighbours are concerned— the Tanzam position, the building of the railway there, the Dar-es-Salaam problem, the problem in South-West Africa, the Caprivi problem and so on: What does he in fact do? He tells us and he tells the people in a public statement—

That is the United Party—

That is absolutely correct.

You do not believe, in other words, what the Prime Minister says.

I believe we can handle any attack, any threat. We have confidence in the army …

He said further—

That is right.

I continue with the quotation—

That is the hon. member for Durban point talking—

[Interjections.] Then further, in the same context—

This is the very thing I should like to prove, that the hon. members opposite throughout this time have not tried to support the Government in these matters. [Interjections.]

I wish to mention a similar case where the hon. the Prime Minister a year ago made an offer to the African states.

*He wanted to conclude a non-aggression pact with any state in Africa. What was the result of this? No reply whatsoever from the United Party. No-one had anything to say about this matter. There was no reply on the part of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and only destructive commentary in the papers of the United Party. That was all that happened. If the hon. member wants to look at this, he will see that in no endeavour made in Africa, we have had their support. Even in the case of Malawi we heard from them a few days ago that we were negotiating with a fifth-rate state. It is very clear what the attitude on the part of the Opposition is.

Tell us about the gap before your time runs out. [Interjections.]

Give us that date my leader wants.

As far as the advantages of Banda’s visit were concerned, what did the hon. member for Hillbrow do? He went overseas to Washington and was asked by people there: “What is the position in South Africa at the moment?” What did he reply? This was what he said—

[Interjections.] Then he said in the first place—

This is the type of loyalty we get from hon. members opposite.

What is wrong with that? Must we not get our house in order?

At the same time three of our Bantu leaders went to England. What happened? All three of them indicated that they were loyal South Africans and that they were in fact in favour of the policy of apartheid. Although it is not for us to make a comparison between what they said and what was said by hon. members opposite, I say that sort of thing shows how far hon. members opposite are divorced from the type of legislation we have had to pass.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

Sit down, there is no time.

I want to say the following in conclusion. The Potgieter Report proved to me that hon. members opposite should crystalize their views on three issues, the three important issues that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. The first is the question of the safety of the country. Then there is the question of foreign attacks or acts of aggression against South Africa. Thirdly there is the question of extending one’s friendship with other countries in Africa. Unless those things are crystalized and unless hon. members opposite can divorce themselves from the way in which they normally approach these matters they will not be landed from the outside in any event for the way in which they are trying to assist South Africa in passing the necessary legislation to cope with its problems.

Mr. Speaker, I find myself in a very difficult position in having to reply to the hon. the Minister’s speech, for the simple reason that it was extremely difficult to follow and hear what the hon. gentleman was saying. As far as I could make out, the hon. the Minister again tried the old tactics the Government has adopted up to now, which are firstly to question the patriotism of the United Party, and secondly to imply that we are on the side of the enemies of South Africa and thirdly to imply that we do not want to maintain law and order in South Africa. The hon. gentleman would like to have the support of the United Party in that respect. I find it strange that that hon. Minister should make quotations in order to create the impression that the United Party wants to wash even its dirty washing in public, as he quoted in the case of the hon. member for Hillbrow. When that hon. Minister was still Administrator of Natal he was the man who said that it would not be a mistake to include the Leader of the Opposition in a team sent to United Nations Organization. It is that hon. Minister who made that remark, and that suggestion. In other words, it means that that hon. Minister, during all this time we have supposedly been obstructing the Government in their struggle against the terrorists and against the communists, was prepared to allow this unpatriotic Leader of the Opposition, who is on the side of the enemies of South Africa, to be a member of a team which would represent South Africa at the United Nations Organization. I cannot follow the hon. the Minister’s logic here.

What is more, the hon. the Minister concluded his congress in Natal with a speech, and on that occasion he said the following. I am quoting from Die Burger of 1st November of last year, and hon. members should listen to what the hon. the Minister had to say (translation)—

It is that hon. gentleman who is now telling us that there should be co-operation. They want the support of this side of the House. But he tells his own people that nothing much can be done in regard to these matters. The report goes on to state—

I want to give the hon. the Minister the assurance that when South Africa is really in danger and when there are threatening elements from outside that want to undermine our security in this country, he need not be afraid that this side of the House will not be by South Africa’s side. How many times has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not said in public that our own internal problems are our problems and that we do not need anyone from outside to try to solve them for us. The hon. the Minister must know that this is true. We on this side of the House are just as opposed to terrorism and communism as that side of the House, but we believe that if we really want to safeguard South Africa, the best image must be presented to the outside world. How is the best image presented to the outside world? It is done by not giving any journalist hostile to South Africa or any other enemy of the country the least opportunity to create the impression that law and order is not being maintained in South Africa. That is the only reason why we requested this Government, and why we support the request, that a judicial commission of inquiry be appointed to investigate the way in which certain detainees are being held in detention. This side of the House is concerned about the fact that nine people have already committed suicide while being held in detention. We are not casting any reflections on the Security Police of South Africa; on the contrary, if the Police have done nothing wrong, such a commission’s report will only indicate this. Then the whole world will be able to see it. In that way the hon. gentleman and his side of the House will not only be fighting communism, they will also, at the same time, be protecting South Africa’s name in the outside world. It is simple. There is no other reason for our doing this. I hope I have furnished the hon. the Minister with an adequate reply in this respect.

If I may furnish him with a further reply, I want to tell him that there are just as many parents of children serving in the South African Police and the Defence Force sitting on this side of the House as there are on that side. Sitting on this side of the House there are just as many people who have friends and family members in the Police and Defence Force as there are on that side of the House. Not one of them will be able to produce any proof that there are any of us on this side of the House who are not prepared to support South Africa in difficult circumstances. Last year at the congress of his party held in Goudini the hon. the Minister of Defence himself had to mention the support he was receiving from Opposition supporters and particularly from the English-speaking sector in South Africa when it comes to safeguarding this country. And then the hon. gentlemen came to light with the old story that we will never be on the side of South Africa and its security, but that we are on the side of the enemy!

I should like to return to economic matters. After all, it is of great importance that we discuss these at this stage. This afternoon we again heard from the hon. member for False Bay the same kind of statement we heard from the hon. the Minister. What he said was that the United Party rejoices in the struggle the Government is waging in regard to the cost of living and the poor economic situation in the country. He also said that they expected a greater sense of responsibility from us in this respect. It is usually alleged that we level exaggerated criticism and that we create a spirit of uncertainty in the South African economy. Because, according to him, we cannot bring down the Government in any other way, we must run down the Government in the economic sphere, and when we do that, we are at the same time acting in a way prejudicial to the country. I have here numerous quotations from people like Mr. Albert Marais, president of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, who has said more or less the same things the United Party has said. There is also, for example, Mr. Human of Federale Volksbeleggings, who was quoted here and who said last year that the South African economy was sick. So, too, I can quote the Economic Bureau of the University of Stellenbosch. Only recently they issued a warning that the business climate was still unfavourable. If a man like Dr. Hupkes, for example, says that this Government has over 23 years increased company tax by an average annual amount of 1 per cent, I want to ask hon. members whether those people are also acting in a way prejudicial to the country? When people warn this Government about what the Government is doing to the economy, are they also acting in a way prejudicial to the country? The difficulty with this Government is that it cannot stomach that the criticism which the United Party is levelling, is also reflected by the misgivings of South African businessmen in particular in this country. What they expect from South African businessmen is a servile adherence to the National Party. Because these people are now criticizing the Government and because their criticism corresponds to that which the United Party is levelling, the Government cannot stomach it.

The second fault of this Government is that they have become too high-handed and too inclined to regard themselves as above criticism in this country. Is an example of this not Mr. Jan van Blerk, where he said in the Burger this morning that he is not ashamed, but that he is not proud of what he did either, that he did it to bring the Government so far as to listen to the little politicians in South Africa? Is that so because they have become high-handed and regard themselves as being completely above criticism? All they are able to put forward is that all the factors which are having a prejudicial effect on our economy, come from outside. When they say that, it is nothing but diversionary tactics. If what they say is true, surely the progress which South Africa has made has also been dependent solely on factors beyond our borders. If it is attributed to outside factors that we are today being affected prejudicially, surely this Government cannot be proud of and boast of the fact that it was responsible for the growth South Africa experienced? Then this must also have been brought about by overseas factors. The Government, however, must accept responsibility for the economic situation and the economic bottlenecks which exist today. It cannot be alleged, as the hon. the Minister of Planning alleges, that the Government is doing what it can and that the people must now play their part. The Government is not prepared to criticize itself. All it is prepared to do is to criticize the people who provide economy with its real motive force. If there is a pall of pessimism hanging over our economy today, the Government must look back, and direct its gaze inwards to where its policy was responsible for this situation. In other words, it must ask itself what obstacles it has placed in the way of general national prosperity. What example of efficiency do they themselves set? There is a spirit of indifference in this Government and such a spirit can in fact filter through to the broad mass of the population which could then display the same attitude. That is why I believe that South Africa under this Government has no leadership. Even the hon. the Prime Minister is being pushed to one side in his own Press in an imaginery coalition Cabinet, with the supposition that after a while it will be possible to do without him.

That is not true, Claassens said that.

There are certain things which this Government can do. It should not be sensitive to criticism of its economic policy. Productivity in South Africa cannot be encouraged simply by asking people to work harder. I absolutely refuse to believe that the labour force of this country has become lazier than it was 10 years ago. But what encouragement is there for the public, particularly for the industrialists and the entrepreneurs, to produce more, while the public is being asked to buy less? Surely the industrialist is not going to produce more than the market can absorb. He would then be working at a loss, or with a slender profit margin. If there is one thing the industrialist fears, it is accumulated stocks which have been produced at a certain cost per unit. In other words, if the general economic climate is oppressive, we are not encouraging productivity and production in South Africa. Consequently I think it is correct to say that a spirit of optimism should now be created in South Africa. What has this Government done to bring about this spirit of optimism? Eliminating the bottlenecks which are handicapping industrialists and traders would, in the first place, supply that essential boost. Now is the time to hold a dialogue with the practical economists and entrepreneurs of this country. They are asking for this, and some of them were so disappointed last year in the lack of economic policy that they said a comprehensive national economic policy should be announced. The hon. member for False Bay tried to create the impression that the hon. member for Parktown was completely subjective in his criticism, and that we on this side of the House only speak according to what we may happen to hear in the company in which we happen to find ourselves. Nobody believes the hon. gentlemen on that side of the House when they say that the business leaders, the industrialists and the farmers of South Africa are thinking only of their own interests. These leaders, I think, see the overall picture of South Africa. We, as well as those people, believe that there should be an improved standard of living for all, and that that should be the goal. It is desirable to urge those who are already working to greater achievements, but what about the thousands who are not yet productive and who do not have any work to speak of? South Africa cannot base its own prosperity solely on what is happening in the rest of the world. If the economy of the rest of the world proceeds at a snail’s pace during the next few years and we follow suit, our problems in South Africa will become even more urgent. That, I believe, is the background against which we should view the South African economy. This, I think, is also how the farmer of South Africa views the situation. To the farmer a growing economy is of great importance. An increase in standard of living will guarantee a proper market for his produce. In addition to that a higher rate of inflation is just as prejudicial to the farmer as it will be for the next man in this country. The high cost of living hits the farmer of South Africa just as hard as it hits the public. In the first place he wants to know that he will have a market for his produce. Impoverished and poor people with a low standard of living cannot keep on buying his produce, and even less absorb his increased production or surpluses. That is why the farmer of South Africa is concerned about the economic situation in this country.

Devaluation could be advantageous to many farmers. There is no doubt about that. The signs are already there, but because imports will cost more the farmer may also under these circumstances expect an increase in his production costs. There will thus be disadvantages as well.

Are you opposed to devaluation?

No, the point I want to make, is that this Government brought us to the stage where we had to devalue. Now we are asking the hon. gentlemen on that side to do the best under the circumstances so that we can enjoy the advantages which devaluation may bring and so that the disadvantages will not outstrip the advantages. That is the whole point. But the farmer with a sound judgment will, however, belong to the growth school, whether we have devalued or not. The farmers comprise the group which find it difficult to adjust their production to the requirements of the public. They usually produce more than the market can absorb and then sit with surpluses, surpluses which in turn cause price decreases, and consequently reduce profits and even cause losses.

†Therefore you will find that the enlightened farmer prefers a reasonable growth rate. He prefers full employment in the country. He prefers an economy stimulated by a desire to give employment to thousands who are not gainfully employed. The farmer prefers a crash training programme to make more people in South Africa more productive. Against this background the farmer of South Africa sees our economy and our economic future. The farmer also sees in our growth economy a vast future for himself. Appeals have been made by this Government to the public to give a boost to private initiative and to private industry in South Africa. We have asked this Government to relax controls and to allow people to produce. We do not want them to stifle production in any way, and we feel that this Government should iron out the bottlenecks in agriculture. In agriculture we have allowed certain bottlenecks to develop which are now affecting the confidence of the individual farmer. Public statements have been made, especially in the past six months, which do not help the farmer in any way. Mr. Speaker, I refer to the statement made by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and by certain leading agriculturists in South Africa that they are prepared to see 30 000 farmers leave the land.

Where did I say that?

I shall come to the hon. the Minister. Let me first finish with this point.

You must prove what you are saying.

I shall prove it to the hon. the Minister. I have told him what he said and what other experts said.

I did not say that and you know it.

Sir, what is strange to me is that this Government encourages the Bantu to go to his land and to leave the cities but to some White farmers, by contrast, they are saying, “Leave your land and come to the cities.” The hon. the Prime Minister advises the Bantu that he does not need additional land, according to a report in Die Burger. The Bantu does not need additional land; he must just increase the productivity of the area which he has at present, but the White farmer of South Africa is told that he has got trouble in agriculture because his unit is too small and therefore he needs additional land. Consolidation of units therefore must take place and the surplus farmers must find work elsewhere.

Are you reading your Brakpan speech?

Sir, I find it strange that this contrast should exist. The White farmer is being asked to leave the land and come to the cities, but the Bantu are being told that they must leave the cities and return to their land. The Bantu are being told that they do not need additional land; that they must increase the productivity of the land they have. The Whites are being told that they need additional land to increase their productivity. Sir, the hon. the Minister now claims that he never said that 30 000 farmers must leave the land. I have here before me a copy of Rapport of 10th October, 1971, in which this report appears (translation)—

Who said that?

The report was written by Rapport’s political reporter. The hon. the Minister is being too hasty; he should listen to this now—

Nonsense.

The report goes on to state—

What newspaper is that?

It is Rapport. The hon. the Minister says that he never said that. Here it is stated very clearly: “The hon. the Minister agrees.” This report appeared on 10th October.

Read what I said.

I have the speech here.

Why do you not read it out to the House?

I can read it out to the House. The most important statement the hon. the Minister made here, was that he could not at that stage predict how many farmers should remain behind on the land. That is what he said according to Rapport.

Why do you not read what I said?

That is all the Minister said which was of importance. The hon. the Minister must give me a chance now. Three, almost four months have now elapsed since this report appeared, and the hon. the Minister has not on any occasion denied in public that he said this or that he did not agree with these agricultural economists, that 30 000 farmers must leave the land and that other work will have to be found for them. Sir, I say this is one of the things which causes a lack of confidence in the Government and in the agricultural industry. The Minister is responsible for this post. Who are the people who served on the commission? The chairman was Dr. Fanie du Plessis, who is now chairman of the Rural Area Reform Commission appointed by the Minister. Sir, the general impression is being created that the Minister is not opposed—let me put it like that then—to 30 000 farmers leaving the land.

Nonsense.

Now I say to the hon. gentlemen that if that is the approach, how can they expect there to be any confidence whatsoever in the agricultural industry in South Africa?

Why do you not read what I said?

I am not trying to run away from this matter. The hon. the Minister left it for three or four months. If he claims he did not say it, if he is opposed to these 30 000 farmers leaving the land, then we can discuss it with the hon. the Minister. But for three or four months he allowed that impression to be created outside.

Must I react to every statement by every United Party member or economist which is made in the country?

I say that this is one of the main reasons why there has recently been no confidence in our agricultural industry. [Time expired.]

Read what I said.

A week before the no-confidence debate a report with the banner headlines, “Agriculture in a shocking state” appeared on the front page of the Sunday Times. I was told that we were going to have an uphill struggle in regard to agricultural conditions in the no-confidence and the Little Budget debates. This morning there are only two hours left for discussion. The chairman of the United Party agricultural group devoted the last seven minutes of his speech, on such an important matter as agriculture, to a point concerning what the Minister had said, or had allegedly said, while the Minister had in actual fact never said that. I was there. If he analyzes that report correctly, he will see that it is the opinion of Dr. Marais, and the Minister admitted, that under present circumstances the number of farmers will of necessity have to be reduced. The hon. member for Newton Park has been to see me to help find a loan for someone so that he can consolidate his land and have a larger area to farm on. Is it wrong if consolidation takes place? You cannot obtain only an additional morgen of land. The hon. member has previously admitted here that when we discuss agricultural credit and land tenure, millions of rand are being spent precisely in order to make uneconomic units economic, but now he comes along here and makes a political issue over a matter like agriculture which has definite bottlenecks, which we admit, and he made these points in regard to something the Minister had not said. He stated unequivocally, when I was present, that as a result of this policy to get sounder economic units …

But why did you not repudiate the report?

I did repudiate it. There was a whole piece in Die Transvaler about what our true situation was. We cannot go about repudiating everything. But since the hon. member has mentioned repudiation, I want to ask the hon. member whether he recalls that in a previous agricultural debate he and other speakers, inter alia the hon. member for Walmer, thanked us for the introduction of the livestock withdrawal scheme? Is that correct? The hon. member is nodding his head. He agrees with it. One of them said it was an honourable deed to give a farmer who had been brought to his knees as a result of drought, a withdrawal scheme. That was the United Party attitude. Now, in the Brakpan by-election, one finds this report: “Civin uncovers meat scandal”. Sir, these people blow hot and cold. I may not say that those people lie to the people in the rural areas, but when it comes to the cities, they have a completely different story, and this is what they fight elections with—

But the true facts are that we slaughtered 9 million sheep the year before last and 9,1 million last year. This has nothing to do with the withdrawal scheme. It is due to increased consumption and a supply which could not keep pace owing to the drought and to farmers in certain areas changing over from sheep to cattle. The withdrawal scheme only applies to 30 per cent of the sheep-farming areas in our country, and 70 per cent of the sheep-farming areas in our country are not affected by this. However, they are peddling this story around in the streets of Brakpan; they are inciting the housewives.

I now want to ask the hon. member a straightforward question. South Africa can today import mutton from Australia and New Zealand at a price lower than our famers are getting for theirs. Should we import it?

This is as a result of this ridiculous meat scheme.

Should we import it? [Interjections.] The hon. members do not want to discuss agriculture, because they know we are going to tell them: “My friends, you want to be popular in Brakpan, but you also want to collect a few votes in the Karoo”. In Brakpan he will say it is disgraceful that the Government does not import mutton cheaply, landed at 25 cents per pound from Australia and New Zealand, but if I ask him in Parliament whether we should import mutton, he says …

Are you exporting butter?

I am coming to butter.

Leave mutton alone then.

The farmers will still disembowel you at some time or other because you are not being honest with them. Some people are trying to make political gain from these matters, and we are trying to run things on an honest basis.

What is more, hon. members are now telling the people in the cities how extremely expensive meat is—just think, 186 cents per kilogram for fillet!

That is really expensive.

What are farmers getting at country auctions in the Transvaal?

They are getting 57 cents per kilogram, but the price of fillet is 186 cents per kilogram. There is 3 per cent fillet in the hindquarters of a steer. There is 7,5 per cent T-bone steak, but its price is 96 cents. So the price comes down. The percentage of rumpsteak is 7,9, but the price is 96 cents per kilo. The price of topside is 74 cents. So the prices drop. [Interjections.] In this way we come down to the fat and bones. This comprises 22,5 per cent of the carcass, but it is sold at 4 cents. For all the different cuts, from the fillet down to the bones, there is an average price of 57 cents per kilogram. That is more or less the auction price which the farmer is getting for his beef today.

And what does the housewife pay? [Interjections.]

The housewife buys a piece of fillet at a price of 186 cents plus 20 per cent per kilo.

Is the hon. the Deputy Minister trying to create the impression that the butcher does not make any profit?

Mr. Speaker, I was interrupted. I said that there was the 50 cents per kilogram which the farmer received, but 20 per cent still has to be added to that for the butcher. He has an expensive butcher shop. He has a blockman. There are conditions relating to hygiene to which he has to comply.

He has bad debts too.

He has bad debts too, and he has a butcher shop in Maitland.

I now want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that the housewife could also be more observant when making her purchases. She should not only criticize. We obtained these prices without the butchers’ shops knowing who was making inquiries. Here in Cape Town the price of leg of mutton, first grade, is 132 cents per kilo in Sea Point, while in Maitland it is 110 cents per kilo. In Bothasig, however, it is 93 cents per kilo. Such things do happen. I was driving behind a motorcar the other day when I saw a sign at the side of the road stating “tomatoes at 50 cents per box, first grade”. I stopped at the next town where that car also happened to stop and the people from that car bought a box of tomatoes in a cafe for R1,40.

What do you do with a whole boxful?

She bought it in the cafe. I am not saying this in order to criticize, but I just want to point out that the housewife should also realize, when she is being exploited, that she should shop around a little and compare prices. This would help us to prevent people from making exorbitant profits. Let me return to the subject of butter. I come now to the story everyone has read about, the so-called butter scandal. It was said that the Government caused a terrible scandal. The hon. members know that the fat was in the fire when we told them in November that we had no local butter. The Dairy Board came to us and said that we should start importing in time, and at that stage the overseas butter price, which fluctuates, was rather high. This butter is shipped out. In the meantime it was then decided to allow the manufacture of yellow margarine. After that yellow margarine had reached the markets, that ship arrived with the butter. It was not an enormous quantity of butter if one takes into account that our weekly butter consumption was 1 000 tons. But yellow margarine had already been introduced, and the consumption of butter dropped by 37 per cent. We were then left with a quantity of imported butter, and it just so happened, in fact everything happens by chance, that the Dairy Board made a profit on it. The Dairy Board then made a profit of R2,4 million on that imported butter. Subsequently the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District wrote to all the newspapers asking why that profit was not returned to the housewife. In the meantime, however, the price of butter in our country is being subsidized by R6 million. The Dairy Board came to see us and asked us whether they should use that profit for a subsidy. That would mean that the price of butter could be brought down from 10S cents per kilogram to 104 cents, while at the time yellow margarine was still available for less than 80 cents per kilogram. Such a small drop in price would not have found favour with the housewives in any case. In the meantime …

But you have now allowed a drop in price of 11 cents.

Order! Hon. members must give the Deputy Minister a chance.

In the meantime, because butter consumption had dropped by 37 per cent, the supplies of butter increased and an opportunity presented itself of entering a new market in Iran. We had to get our foot in at the door and we had to make ourselves known. If we had incorporated that loss into the consumption and if we had given the housewives the benefit, as some United Party people from Brakpan want, it would have meant that the price of butter would have dropped by 2 cents per kilogram. Is it not ridiculous to say that butter is being exported to Iran, while we could have made it available to the housewife at a lower price of 2 cents per kilogram? The total quantity of butter we imported was 9 500 tons, while the consumption was 52 700 tons, or 104 million pounds. The quantity of butter we exported to Iran was 2 500 tons. That is as much as we consume in this country in slightly more than two weeks. Now this tremendous criticism is directed at us by hon. members, and there is all this talk about a butter scandal. If all our scandals were like this butter scandal, those hon. members would be sunk (in hulle kanon) for the rest of their lives. I want to ask the Opposition a straightforward question. The quotas which we granted for the manufacture of yellow margarine will shortly have been used up. Should we increase those quotas, yes or no?

Surely the hon. the Minister knows what quantity of butter he has.

Should we increase the margarine quota, which will have been depleted by 10th March, yes or no?

It depends on the circumstances.

The circumstances are that we have an adequate supply of local butter.

Must what you want to do now depend on what the Opposition says?

We are increasing …

Ask the Leader of the Opposition. He is a dairy farmer.

All the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does is smile. He is a sensible man, for he knows that if he would tell me that we should increase the quota of yellow margarine, he is going …

What is the Minister going to do?

What does it matter to you? We want to know what you say. After all, you always have answers.

Order!

We have already introduced legislation to allow the manufacture of yellow margarine. What was the reaction from the Opposition? When the legislation was introduced the hon. members agreed with us, but the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District regarded this whole matter as a political trick with which to make propaganda. That hon. member has been sensible enough not to participate in the agricultural debate during the three weeks we have been in the Cape. I think you have been very sensible indeed, and I think it is the only sensible thing you have ever done.

I should like to mention something else in regard to this peddling of a product like a cheap bread spread. I blindfolded nine housewives so that they could not see. I gave each of them some bread with South African butter, New Zealand butter, white margarine and yellow margaine on it. Not one of them could tell me what they were eating.

The bread was probably stale.

When hon. members opposite come forward with the request that the quota for yellow margarine should be increased, they must remember that almost 40 per cent of the white margarine quota has not been consumed. If the Government should decide—it is a Cabinet decision—that additional quotas for yellow margarine will not be granted, my conscience will be clear. Then I will say: But, my friend, you have white margarine and if you do not want to eat that, you can buy yellow butter at 54 cents per pound.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Opposition whether it is satisfied with the price the farmer is receiving today for his bag of wheat, his bag of mealies, his gallon of milk and his pound of butterfat. Are hon. members opposite satisfied that those prices are adequate? Is the Opposition satisfied now that the worker in the butter factory is receiving an increased salary? I think hon. members are satisfied, for they said they were. The Opposition is satisfied with the price the farmer is getting and also with the salary which the man who processes the product is being paid. The Opposition is satisfied that a subsidy of R6 million in respect of butter is being paid. But nevertheless the hon. member for Newton Park repeatedly states in the Press that there is no long-term planning in agriculture. I would appreciate it if the hon. member would spell out his long-term planning, because I am too stupid to understand it when he explains it. It is easy to say in the rural areas that this Government and this Minister of Agriculture means “sweet blow-all” because they have no long-term planning. When Parliament opened this year we spoke about a maize crop of 130 million bags in the lobby. Now, after three weeks, there are people who are saying that it would be very strange if we have a maize crop of 100 million bags. Now the hon. member wants long-term planning. The wheat consumption in this country is approximately 13 million bags. We have a crop of 18 million bags, and if we have to export the surplus we will lose almost R3 per bag.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether it is not true that the Commission of Inquiry into Agriculture recommended that there should be a Agricultural Planning Council?

But we did plan.

The hon. member can plan until he is blue in the face, but he has one difficulty: The Sunday Times is not published on Saturday, and therefore one does not know what is happening in this country. If only one could have known in advance. I shall tell hon. members why the Government is so sympathetic towards the farmer. Ten years ago potatoes were being sold at R1 per bag; yesterday they sat with 200 000 bags of potatoes in Johannesburg; there is no market for those potatoes. Nor is there any country to which they can be exported. In my long-term planning I now decide to control the production of potatoes by means of a quota system, after I have established what the required quantity of potatoes will be for internal consumption. Suppose a certain number of morgen have been planted with potatoes and we have a freak drought, as has already happened in the past. If there are no rains during November and December in the potato regions, and there are no potatoes on the market, the hon. member and all the other United Party people are going to lambaste (opdinges) us because they have no potatoes to eat. We are going to discuss agricultural matters again in this House, and then hon. members opposite must tell me what they mean by long-term planning. “Agriculture is in a shocking state,” that is the story we hear so often. I looked forward longingly to furnishing a reply to the statements which were to be made during the no-confidence debate. If one sits here every day listening to an agricultural debate and you are given no opportunity whatsoever to reply, it later becomes very irritating. All you can do then is ask for help of your own accord where there are errors, because there are errors and problems in agriculture. Hon. members opposite must not state outside that I say everything is fine, that it could not be better. We have rate of interest problems; we have production cost problems.

We have been saying this for years.

We know that, but it is not so easy to find a solution to the problems. We also have surplus problems. In spite of all these things I have now enumerated, there is no one in South Africa who does not have enough to eat and who cannot go to bed tonight with a full stomach. We do not have people standing in queues, as we had when that side of the House was governing. We are saddled with the problem of surpluses which we have to sell on world markets where the price is lower than we can receive for the produce locally.

Now our farmers are protecting your skin.

We have certain subsidies: the consumer subsidy on bread is R30 million, the consumer subsidy on mealies is R36 million, and the subsidy on fertilizer was R16 million, and is being increased this year to R20 million. Our total subsidies in agriculture already amount to more than R150 million because we realize what problems the agriculturalist in South Africa is experiencing; the weather in South Africa can never be predicted. Then the hon. member makes a political issue of it that we have to reduce the number of farmers by 30 000, something which the hon. the Minister of Agriculture never said. I have said before that the Government realizes where its real strength lies, i.e. in the rural areas. These are the last people we want to leave in the lurch. Will that hon. member ever be able to bring himself to introducing legislation by means of which he can say to a farmer that although his son does not want to farm, he will have to farm? We have developed this country economically into the fifteenth most important commercial country in the world, with potential in every sphere. If a young boy who has obtained his Std. VIII certificate states today that he can drive a truck in this country for a starting salary of R180 per month and does not want to have anything to do with farming, but wants to live in the city where he is close to the bright lights, the drive-in theatres and the swimming-baths, must I force him to stay on the land by way of legislation? The hon. member comes along afterwards and says that the rural areas are being depopulated. How will we ever be able to govern this country with an Opposition which comes forward with arguments like this and such negative statements?

In general there are problems, seen individually. I want to ask the Opposition to accept that I regard it as a compliment, as a feather in the cap of our Minister of Agriculture that the Opposition in all these debates never once had the courage to really mention these problems, for then you know you would have been done in (verneuk) if we replied to you.

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

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister asked us whether they are then to import meat. The answer is no, because in normal times South Africa does not have a shortage of meat. Last year no farmer was able to market his product and this year there is a temporary shortage. Now the hon. the Minister asks whether we are to import meat. I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether he is satisfied with this meat scheme.

No.

Well, if he is not satisfied, I want to know from him what he is going to do about it.

We are working on this scheme.

Oh, you are working on it! The National Party has been in power for 22 years …

Twenty-four years.

… and only now are they giving some thought to the meat scheme. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the trouble with the meat scheme is that the farmer never knows what he is going to get for his product. He has to load his sheep a week before the time, on a Wednesday, and then his sheep have to stand over for seven days on the market over there. What does that mean? It means that the farmer and the consumer lose more than 7 million pounds of meat every year on the Johannesburg market alone.

The Minister also told us that the butcher makes a profit of only 20 per cent, while the farmer gets 57 cents a kilogram. There are 5 800 butchers in South Africa, 2 900 of whom are in the urban areas. What do they slaughter on the average? The average butcher in South Africa slaughters only six sheep and three-quarters of an ox a day and he makes a good living on that. Then the hon. the Minister tells us that the butcher does not make a large profit!

Boet, you know you are talking nonsense.

I shall show the hon. member for Colesberg those figures later and I hope he will then have the magnanimity to apologize tomorrow. That hon. member and I have fought many elections and he knows that I have never told an untruth.

I have won them all.

I congratulate the hon. member on that. He cannot say, however, that I have ever told an untruth or fought a dirty election. It is because I did not use a dirty pamphlet such as the one in Brakpan that I lost. The hon. the Deputy Minister himself admitted that there were problems in agriculture. In the first place he mentioned interest rates and I want to agree with him that these are the largest single factor which has ruined farmers. But who was responsible for those interest rates? When the interest rates were increased, did the hon. the Deputy Minister say one word about it to the Minister of Finance? The second factor which prejudiced the farmers was the high railway rates. Did the hon. the Deputy Minister ever plead with the Minister of Transport for lower railway rates for the farmers of South Africa?

The hon. the Deputy Minister said that the marketing situation in South Africa was good. However, I have received the following telegram—

Where does this telegram come from? It comes from the Nationalist voters of Standerton, that hon. Deputy Minister’s constituency. This is the way he is looking after the farmers of South Africa.

Standerton has no potatoes. Read the address on that telegram.

I shall show the telegram to the hon. the Deputy Minister. The address is 6 Argent …

Argent is not in my constituency.

I shall let the hon. the Deputy Minister have the telegram in any case. The hon. the Deputy Minister reproached us, and in particular the hon. member for Newton Park, for not having spoken on agriculture before. He said we had not spoken on agriculture in the no-confidence debate.

But here we have forced you.

But agricultural interests are, after all, completely bound up with the whole economic position of South Africa. We all know how the steps taken by this Government have affected the farmers of South Africa. When speaking of the economy in general, we also speak of the farmers, because it affects them as well. And the farming community in South Africa is suffering just as much as the pensioner, the railway-worker and every person in South Africa. The accusation has been made here that we are being unpatriotic in criticizing the economy of South Africa. If it is unpatriotic to criticize the Government for mishandling the economy of South Africa, there are really a great many saboteurs in this country, almost 50 per cent of the population! Now, what is the true position in South Africa? One of the reports in Die Burger had the following heading: “High demands —a less fortunate economic situation, an atmosphere of increasing hardship.” No less a person than an expert, Mr. Joep Steyn, the Secretary for Commerce, said the following in an article with the heading: “Sparks are going to fly at GATT”—

He said such an emergency had arisen last year. Now I want to ask: Is he, too, being unpatriotic towards South Africa? Then we also had the article in Rapport, in which it put out coalition feelers and said that there was an economic crisis in South Africa which could not easily be solved unilaterally. In other words, they admit that that side cannot solve it, that they need this side of the House to solve those problems for them. Why is there an economic crisis in South Africa at the moment? There is a crisis, in the first place, because our growth rate has dropped to 4 per cent. Every economist in South Africa warns that if our growth rate drops to less than 5 per cent it will be catastrophic for South Africa; but it has already dropped to less than 4 per cent. In the second place we find ourselves with a deficit of more than R1 350 million on the balance of payments, and in the third place we have an inflation rate of more than 6,9 per cent. These are the problems of South Africa.

The last two problems arise from the first, namely that the growth rate is too low. Why is the growth rate too low? As a result of the obsession of that side of the House to slow down the growth rate in South Africa. Only last year this House resounded with pleas from that side for the growth rate in South Africa to be slowed down. No less a person than the Minister of Planning said that the growth rate had to be slowed down. No less a person than the Prime Minister said that the economy in South Africa had to be cooled down. In this way every member on that side pleaded for the economy to be slowed down, and now they have slowed it down. Now that they have become aware of it, they ask us to help them. Now we are in trouble. But it is that side of the House, after all, who have caused it by their obsession to slow down the growth rate. We on this side have pleaded all these years for the economy to grow so that more goods may come onto the market. South Africa is a country with all the possibilities in the world. Surely we can have such a growth rate. The only thing of which there is a shortage is White labour. This side has offered the solution a hundred times. We have said that we should upgrade the Whites and employ more non-Whites lower down. Surely this is the logical solution. It would solve all our problems. Someone asked me at a meeting recently whether the Nationalists where unable to see this, whether they were too stupid. No, they are not too stupid.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.