Mr. Speaker, when this debate was adjourned last night, I was dealing with the necessity of providing adequate training for the new non-White labour force that would have to be taken into the South African economy, I made the point that if there was to be any value in the concessions in regard to job restriction, the concessions must be a part of an over-all comprehensive labour training programme and this programme must embrace better education and better technical and vocational training for the non-Whites. One only has to look at the factual position of South Africa’s future manpower requirements to realize how very important and how very urgent the introduction of such a training programme is. It is anticipated that by the year 1980 there may be only 1¾ million economically active Whites in South Africa. If projections prove to be correct, the racial composition of the total labour force in South Africa by 1980 will be 9¼ million, of whom no less than 81 per cent will be non-Whites. The Government’s own projection shows that by 1980 South Africa will need at least 3½ million skilled workers. Even if we discount immigration, it means that at least 1½ million of the skilled workers will have to come from the ranks of the non-Whites, whether we like it or not, if the South African economy is to expand as planned. If these projections are correct, it becomes quite obvious that many more barriers and many more deep-seated prejudices against the employment of non-Whites in skilled White jobs will have to be overcome, besides those of job reservation. The labour problem in South Africa goes far deeper than the relaxation of a few job restrictions, because we find that we are in a position today that we have to include non-Whites in the economy if we are to have any growth at all. I believe, too, that one of the very first things that the Government will have to do, if it is serious in regard to finding a solution to South Africa’s labour problem, is to change its attitude in regard to the whole question of Bantu education in South Africa. The fact that we have 3 million Bantu children at school might look very impressive on paper, but when you analyse and when you break this figure down, you will find that the position is extremely serious. We know, firstly, that the drop-out rate is still enormously high. We know that 70 per cent of these pupils are in Std. 2 or even lower. We know that only 4 per cent are in secondary schools and, believe it or not, only 1/3 per cent ever reach teacher training, vocational training or technical school. What is more disturbing, however, is the fact that only about 1 800 of these pupils matriculate annually. Quite obviously this situation has caused a very serious teacher shortage in South Africa, so much so that the actual shortage is in excess of 20 000. However, what to me is the most disturbing factor of all, is that the available teachers, the people who are charged with the future education of the Bantu, no less than 87 per cent have not matriculated themselves.

Why?

Because in the past the Government has pegged the Bantu education account at a very meagre R13 million. There is, of course, a very serious shortage of schools for the Bantu.

Go and tell that in Oudtshoorn. [Interjections.]

Order!

What is even more important from the immediate economic point of view, is the chronic shortage of technical and vocational schools in South Africa. The latest figures show quite clearly that there are only 17 departmental trade schools and only nine technical secondary schools for the Bantu throughout South Africa. What is even more serious is the fact that the total enrolment at these institutions is below 2 500. When you relate this enrolment figure of 2 500 with a Bantu population of 12 million people who are living in a country which is crying out and hungering for skills, you realize how badly the Government has fallen down on the job of planning for South Africa’s future. [Interjections.]

Order!

There are two other major problems which have to be faced if we are ever to solve the labour problem in South Africa. Firstly, there is the inherent and deep-seated fear of the White worker that he may—I say “may” advisedly—lose his job to a lower paid worker. Secondly, there is the position that the White worker is not being trained and retrained to take up better and higher paid jobs in South Africa. The Government, in its usual illogical way, tried to solve the first problem by maintaining that we have to do with fewer and fewer non-White workers in White industries to assist in teaching the ideal of apartheid. The Government tells us—I believe that the Government believes it too—that it will remove the White workers from the White industries in South Africa as far as possible and in other cases it will reserve certain jobs for Whites only in those industries. This, of course, is the theory of Government policy. However, the facts are there for everyone to see. We know that economic integration has increased in every sphere of employment and this is the case despite the frustrating and annoying regulations on the employment of Bantu labour. When one considers the facts, not the theory of job reservation, one finds that there are just not enough White bodies to fill the posts and thus non-White is taken on anyway despite the provisions of job reservation. Of course, it is no secret that in the White border areas there is no such thing as job reservation. There one finds that employers are encouraged to employ more non-Whites than Whites, even in skilled positions.

In the short time left to me, I want to deal with another matter, namely the enormous wage gap which exists between White and non-White wages in South Africa. I want to say here in all sincerity that I believe that the hon. the Minister for the Interior did South Africa a distinct service when he had the courage of his convictions to address a very timely and stern warning to his own Government that the failure to close the wage gap between White and non-White races, could lead to dissatisfaction amongst the Bantu, which might have explosive proportions. We now know that this warning given in good faith was not well received by the Government. The only thanks the hon. the Minister got for his pains was to draw a very sharp rebuke from the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, followed by a somewhat milder one from the hon. the Prime Minister. Why in heaven’s name the Government had to react in this way is beyond me, because every thinking intelligent person knows that what the hon. the Minister said was only too true. Sociologists and political thinkers know it is true, as do those local authorities that are in daily contact with the urban Bantu. The only body that remains to be convinced is of course the National Government. In the light of this one wonders what the Government’s reaction is going to be to the latest warnings that have come from a very senior and well respected trade union leader, Mr. J. H. Liebenberg, He tells us in very blunt language that there will be industrial unrest unless lines of communication are opened with the non-White workers and the wage gap narrowed. This warning coming from a man of the calibre of Mr. Liebenberg, who obviously has no political axe to grind, is also a very timely one and one can only hope that this warning does not also fall on deaf ears. Mr. Liebenberg speaks with the authority of a trade union leader with many years experience and as such his opinion should be respected by this Government. It is very interesting to note that Mr. Liebenberg also said, quite correctly, that the wage gap at the turn of the century was enormously large. He mentioned that the ratio was seven to one. He qualified this by saying that at least at that particular time the Bantu had a choice between a rural or an urban life, whereas today he needs fixed employment desperately and will travel long distances to obtain it. Then he added these very significant words : “Despite the importance of the Bantu’s wage and despite his importance to the economy, it has made very little difference because the wage gap still stands at five to one.” There can certainly be no economic justification for a wage gap of five to one. There are some very sound reasons why this gap must be closed in the shortest possible time. One does not have to be an economist to realize that this wage gap indicates low productivity, while at the same time it is the greatest barrier to increased productivity.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No. When you ask yourself the question why the South African economy must have this huge wage gap between top and bottom, the answer is not very difficult to find. In the final analysis it boils down to the absence of opportunity and the lack of economic power for the Bantu. In the light of this how strange is it to find that of all people the hon. the Prime Minister complaining that while the non-White labour force has grown to 70 per cent of the total labour force there has been no corresponding increase in productivity! How naïve can one be? Surely, the hon. the Prime Minister must know that the reason for this lack of productivity among the non-Whites can be placed squarely at the door of his own Government’s unrealistic and restrictive labour policy.

The facts which I have given here are the real reason why Bantu wages stay low. Productivity is not inherent in the problem, because it becomes relevant only to the extent to which the factors I mentioned, keep the Bantu artificially unproductive. Any expert in the field of economics and labour will tell you without any hesitation that there is only one solution to the problem of the wage gap in South Africa, and that is increased growth and a genera] movement of unskilled and semiskilled labour up the skilled labour ladder. This, of course, is inherent in the realistic policy of the United Party. But unfortunately for South Africa, under the policy of the National Party Government this type of development and increased productivity for which the country is crying out, is not allowed in the urban areas. It has, for purely ideological reasons, to be diverted to the homelands and the border areas.

We know that because there is very little prospect of the rapid growth which is required to take place in these areas in the foreseeable future, the prospects for the closing of the gap between White and non-White wages remains very bleak indeed. You see, Sir, for any progress to be made under the policy of the National Party Government, a massive stimulus to economic development in these areas will be needed. We well know that development in the homelands today is only token. One would think that, until such time as there was meaningful development in the homelands, the Government for economic and humane reasons, would be less restrictive on development in the White industrial areas of South Africa where it is needed. But we know the answer here, too. The Government, by some strange logic, has come to the conclusion that conditions in the urban areas are already too attractive for the urban Bantu, whom is regarded purely as a temporary labour unit to be dispensed with when he has fulfilled his purpose. When you take note of all these facts, you can only ask yourself, is it any wonder that South Africa finds itself in the economic mess in which it is after 24 years of the National Party Government.

Mr. Speaker, this debate is taking place at a very important juncture in our political history. Apart from the fact that this debate is taking place prior to the parliamentary by-election in Oudtshoorn, it is taking place at a time when the United Party has become convinced that it will win the next general election. The nature and the spirit of the Opposition’s criticism in this debate, as well as in the preceding two debates on the Railway Budget and the Post Office Budget, have indicated that the United Party really wants to use this Session as a first, major parliamentary rush towards assuming the reins of government. Because this is the attitude of the United Party, I think we ought to take them seriously in this regard. Yesterday the hon. member for Parktown, the chief critic on the opposite side, referred, inter alia, to certain advantages in this Budget.

At the time he claimed credit for the United Party for them as the United Party had allegedly asked for them in the past. This proceeded from the previous Budget debates, to which I have referred, when we had to hear from United Party members here and in the Other Place, especially in pursuance of the hon. the Minister of Transport’s and my own announcements regarding steps taken by us in our respective departments for making more use of non-White labour, that we were in fact taking over the United Party’s policy. In the course of this Session we also had to hear from the Opposition what enthusiastic fighters of communism they were. In its zeal to come as close as possible to the National Party’s policy, the United Party is leaning over backwards to such an extent that even its English-language Press describes some of the United Party Members of Parliament as being “verkramp”. [Interjections.] Yes, “verkramp”; this description is employed with some satisfaction as it suits the occasion and serves their purpose.

For that reason the very first question I want to pose today is this. What is behind this story that we on this side have taken over certain aspects of policy from the United Party? After the crashing election defeat suffered by the United Party in 1966, they decided that they either had to accept such a trend as being unstoppable or would have to devise ways and means of re-establishing the United Party as a factor in politics in South Africa. What has been occuring to an increasing extent since that time up to this day, shows conclusively to what a large degree the United Party is allowing itself to be led by the American way of conducting politics. [Interjections.] The two maxims determining the United Party’s whole line of action are the following : Firstly, there is the need, according to the American pattern, for the party that does not have the presidential power, to come as close as possible to the govering party’s popularly accepted policies and to pursue those policies, irrespective of whether these are its anti-communistic actions or aspects of its labour policy.

The second maxim of which we have lately had abundant proof, I can describe in no better way to this House than to refer to what happened in recent years in that country from whose book the United Party now wants to take a leaf, and that is the appearance of a placard in America after the car accident of the young Ted Kennedy in 1969 in which his travelling companion, Miss Kopechne, was drowned. His political opponents immediately published a life-sized photo of Ted Kennedy with the shock caption “Wanted for Murder”. This placard was displayed throughout America by his political opponents. This illustrates the type of disparagement of persons and character assassination, especially of people and organizations, which, unfortunately, is the order of the day in American public life. It is something of which even Mr. Nixon himself has experience. When, as candidate for the vice-presidency, he stood with President Eisenhower, his honour was impugned to such an extent because of political contributions which had been made to his election fund that there was a strong likelihood that Mr. Nixon would withdraw from that campaign. It is with these two techniques in particular, which are foreign to South Africa, that the United Party and the English Press in their joint onslaught are striking at Nationalist Afrikanerhood in these times. [Interjections.]

Disgraceful!

Today you will still have far more reason for calling “disgraceful” before I am through with you. However much the disparagement of persons in positions of authority, whether Ministers or persons in executive positions, must pollute and debase our public life is of little concern to these chargers towards assuming the reins of government in their attitude of “now, now”. To me this phenomenon probably is one of the most shocking in our South African public life, as we in South Africa have always been proud of our high moral and ethical standards in our politics and in our public life. [Interjections.] But now such a valued cultural possession has to be crushed under the feet of the United Party in its impatient urge towards assuming the reins of government. What is definitely assisting the Opposition for the present, is the economic problems of the world, which have hit South Africa too. But what is of vital importance to South Africa—much more important than the question of how long it is going to take the world economy to become stable once again—is the question of what will be in store for South Africa if a grievances vote and an abstention vote, manipulated by foreign techniques, were to place the United Party in a position of governing South Africa once again.

This question has become the most topical in South Africa’s politics at the present time, and it penetrates right through the smokescreen the United Party wants to put up. This question, i.e. the question of what South Africa would be like under a United Party régime, penetrates through any smokescreen in which the United Party wants to envelop its so-called anti-communistic policy or its labour policy, which has been taken over, and at the present time it has become the most topical question in South Africa’s politics, because apart from the integration which will run riot in the fields of economy and labour under a United Party régime, South Africa will, on the basis of the United Party’s stated colour policy, come under “one authority”, as the United Party likes to call it. That “one authority” will consist of one central body of authority, Parliament, which will initially have 25 non-White representatives, 16 in the House of Assembly and nine in the Senate. That the nature of this representation would change, we were given to understand by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout at the beginning of this Session. When our hon. the Prime Minister questioned him on this cardinal issue he said (Hansard, 1972, col. 407)—

This was followed up by the hon. member for Yeoville, and during the discourse in which he and the Pime Minister and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout participated he said, “Of course”; and in order to remove any obscurity, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout then said, “That is not according to me; it is official policy”. In other words, we must not think that this is a “Japie idea” only; he told us it was official United Party policy now.

Mr. Speaker, …

Sir, I do not have any time to reply to questions. I still want to cover various matters and time does not permit me to reply to any questions. [Interjections.] Sir, hon. members on that side will have to devote all the energy they want to spend now to replying to the questions I am now going to proceed to put to them. Now this interim policy has actually replaced the earlier sixpence policy, but it has gained a new meaning to its name. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who was present when this discourse took place between the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, did not deny this at the time nor has he done so since. He has confirmed that this interim policy now is the official policy of the United Party. How the United Party is going to fit its renowned referendum into this interim policy is still as obscure today as it was before; as a matter of fact, it is more obscure than ever before. What we do know is what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said in the recess, i.e. that it would be folly to think that the non-Whites would remain satisfied to be represented by Whites in this House. What he said at the time, is, of course, nothing but common sense, and the fact that the United Party did not kick the hon. member for Bezuidenhout out of the party but actually gave him a senior position in the new shadow Cabinet simply confirms that the United Party is subscribing publicly to this standpoint now. It is on the basis of this series of policy statements, Sir, that South Africa will henceforth have to occupy itself in all seriousness with the question of what the United Party envisages for South Africa, and as regards this question of what the United Party envisages for South Africa, I want to state it as my conviction today that South Africa, in the light of the United Party’s stated policy and in the light of its history and in the light of the line of action it followed when it was in power, will not be able to say that we have not been prepared for the unfolding of the United Party’s colour policy. Sir, it is a very serious matter to say this, but I say that we shall not be able to say in future that we have not been prepared, because South Africa ought to know by this time in what way the United Party leadership will act with regard to the granting of political rights to non-Whites in this House if it were to come into power; we ought to know this, or have we already forgotten the experience of 1946? No, Mr. Speaker, this House has not forgotten that. In 1946, then the United Party was in power and gave representation in this House to the half a million Indians—three members of the House of Assembly and two Senators—did they do so on the instruction of the electorate? Did the United Party have a mandate from the electorate to do that? Did they consult the electorate, the people, beforehand in that regard? No, Mr. Speaker, without a mandate, without the electorate having been consulted and without all the members of the United Party in their caucus at that time knowing about it, Gen. Smuts came to this House and rushed that Bill through this House. If there is any hon. member on the opposite side of this House who doubts this, I want to advise him to read those debates, as I again did in the past few days. Sir, it is on the basis of such action when the United Party is in power that I want to say today that South Africa will not be able to say that we do not know what is in store for us if we are to get another United Party régime. But unlike 1946, we at least know today that the United Party will put 25 representatives in this Parliament initially—16 here and 9 in the Other Place; initially we know what the colour of the representatives will be, but what we do not know is, firstly, how long that interim period will last before the Black electorate is allowed to replace White members by Black members in this House; this we do not know. And the second thing we do not know is for how long the number will remain at 25. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinelands who is so rowdy at the moment, is welcome to read the 1946 debates; that would help him, if he were to conduct another correspondence with Die Burger with regard to giving an enunciation of the United Party’s colour policy, to give an enunciation which would be more in agreement with their own line of conduct when they are in power. Bearing in mind that line of action of 1946, when, without a mandate, they gave the Indians representation in this House, I want to say that South Africa will have to be prepared for far more than is contained in this “Do you want it, we have it” of the United Party. But what is of immediate interest to all, is the matter to which Dr. Malan and Advocate Strydom referred in 1946, when this Indian Legislation was piloted through this House. At that time when that statutory number of representatives in this House of Assembly would have amounted to six only, and not to 16, Dr. Malan asked this House on that occasion what the position would be if Indian representation became reality, and according to the Hansard of 1946, column 4195, Dr. Malan used the following words—

And on that occasion Advocate Strydom saw the size of this bloc as exceeding the then proposed statutory bloc of six. Advocate Strydom put it as follows in column 449—

Order!

Today South Africa is faced with the number Advocate Strydom foresaw in 1946, and that is why the time has now arrived for the electorate of South Africa to face up squarely to this matter. The time for random talk and double talk is past now.

You see only Black.

Henceforth South Africa will have to occupy itself with precisely what will be awaiting us if there were to be another United Party régime. In South Africa Nationalist Afrikanerhood, to be specific, will have to occupy itself with these matters. [Interjections.] I say this because from the United Party’s own official documents it appeared how the United Party Government wanted to use this non-White bloc against Nationalism as far back as 1946 and 1947. With the coming of those three Indian representatives to this House of Assembly, the United Party’s official newsletter of June, 1947, summarized their chances of remaining in power in 1948. I have it here if any of the members of the United Party are still interested in having a look at it. It reads as follows— i.e. the United Party’s official newsletter of June, 1947, (translation)—

It is on the basis of such an attitude and such a line of action that I want to say here today in all seriousness that if this Parliament is to be loaded with such a non-White bloc I do not know whether Nationalist Afrikanerhood will ever again come into its own. [Interjections.] Therefore what will be at stake is everything which is dear to the Whites and everything for which the Nationalist Afrikaner has fought all his life long. It is for these things that South Africa will have to wage the struggle in future.

In this debate, Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to discuss with the hon. the Minister important matters affecting the labour position in South Africa. But it is perfectly clear that what we have come up against here today is an attempt at evasion by the Minister. He realizes, in the first place, that the economic policy of the Government cannot withstand the onslaughts of the Opposition and of the businessmen of South Africa. So he has searched for something to distract the attention from the hopeless failure the Government has made of the economic situation in South Africa. In the second place, it is clear that after the statement made by this hon. Minister in the Other Place earlier on in this Session, he is not prepared to address the Opposition in the House of Assembly point-blank on his labour policy, especially after he was so clearly repudiated and rejected by my hon. friend, the hon. the Minister of Transport, in his reply to the Second Reading of the Railway Appropriation Bill. He is afraid Rapport may propose next week that someone who has knowledge of labour matters should be recruited. After I have listened to the hon. the Minister, especially with an eye to the nature, quality, venom and the archaic, useless slogans, one must understand, Mr. Speaker, not only that Mr. Haak is on his way back to the Cabinet, but also that Albert Hertzog has won his battle … [Interjections.]

On the one hand, however, I am glad that the hon. the Minister entered the debate on this level, on this unfortunate level. A by-election such as that in Oudtshoorn has a good effect in so far as the public debate in South Africa can have an effect on public opinion. It forces the Government to adopt a standpoint and makes it impossible for the chief information officer, my counterpart in the National Party, to make a speech without revealing the true colours and the actual incompetence of the National Party Government.

The hon. the Minister started off by saying that the United Party was launching an attack on the Afrikaner in South Africa. I call any impartial person—unfortunately this excludes the opposite side —as a witness, to the fact that he was unable to prove or motivate that allegation in a single word of his 25 minutes’ speech. It was a vague allegation devoid of any substance or truth; he cannot confirm it. Subsequently the hon. the Minister immediately went back to the days of 1948. Mr. Speaker, a few of us here remember the 1948 election. We remember the question: Do you want your daughter to marry a Kaffir? Do you want your children to sit with Kaffirs on the same school benches? They were not called Bantu at that time. [Interjections.] Hon. members believe that that recipe which worked in 1948, must work once again in Oudtshoorn tomorrow week.

On a point of order, Sir, it was in 1938 and not in 1948.

Mr. Speaker, I hope in all seriousness that the hon. the Chief Whip is not trying to play the fool with the Speaker. I sincerely hope so. It is no point of order at all. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed with his speech.

I do not begrudge the hon. member the debating point he has just made. It was so in 1938, but also in 1948. It is something which extended over years. It started in 1929 when Gen. Smuts … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker …

Sit down!

Order!

I am addressing the Chair and have the right to do so.

Order! On what does the hon. member want to address the Chair?

Because they lost the election …

Order! Order!

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask you whether the Chief Whip of the National Party is entitled to trifle with the Chair in this manner?

Certainly not.

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville may proceed.

I say it started in 1929 when Gen. Smuts made a speech in the Phoenix Hotel in Ermelo and announced an outward policy for South Africa. Then the leaders of the National Party at the time, met and issued a “Black manifesto”. Because Gen. Smuts had said we were to seek points of contact with the African states, they accused him of wanting us to be engulfed by a Black tidal wave from North Africa. Now, 40 years later, the hon. the Prime Minister has come forward with the same policy. We praise him for that, but if it takes them 40 years to find out that the United Party policy and the Smuts policy is the right one for South Africa, then how is one to understand the hon. the Minister of Labour wanting to take us back this afternoon to the days before the National Party realized that the United Party’s standpoint in regard to international matters, was the right one for South Africa? Like the propaganda organs of the National Party, the hon. the Minister tried to build up an enormous case on the fact that the second interim stage of the United Party’s policy … [Interjections.] … makes provision for 16 representatives of the Bantu, the Coloureds and the Indians to be in Parliament.

Is that the third interim stage?

Order!

I cannot understand that people who pretend to be experts in the political sphere, people who have the audacity to appear on platforms and to write in newspapers in order to criticize the official policy of the United Party and the Opposition in this country, are so ignorant that they admit their ignorance by this laughter. They do not know what the written policy of the United Party is. Since 16 years ago, when we published our handbook on race relations, it has been our policy. At that time members of the Cabinet came to me and offered me 10/-in order to obtain one copy of that pamphlet. They paid it and I accepted the money. They could have obtained as many as they wanted free of charge. [Interjections.]

Order! If hon. members do not calm down now, I shall ask them not to make a single interjection again ! Why all the excitement? The hon. member may proceed. [Interjections.] Order !

In that policy which we published, we stated that there would be a period in the implementation of our policy in which all the races would have fixed representation on separate voters’ rolls in this Parliament so that we in this Parliament would be able, as is the case outside, to consult with the non-Whites on all levels for the creation of a federal political organization for South Africa. This has been known since the early sixties when our National Congress accepted this standpoint for the implementation of the ideas of Gen. Smuts. In May, 1948, Gen. Smuts told the then Native Representative Council that he was planning something like that for the future and that they should work it out. Now the National Party is scared to death. The words of the hon. the Minister were that the presence of these representatives in Parliament would mean the end of the National Party. Of what worth is it then to us if we have to hear from speakers on the opposite side in debate after debate that the non-Whites in South Africa reject the United Party and accept the governing party’s policy of multi-nationalism? In this very session the hon. member for Potchefstroom devoted an entire speech to it. He claimed that the non-Whites in South Africa supported them and rejected the United Party. He defied and challenged us to prove the contrary. The difference is, however, that the United Party has the courage to say that if we want to determine the destinies of peoples we have to consult those peoples on all levels and if, in those consultations, it appears that they oppose us, we must accept it, but …

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No. The National Party wants the people to believe that their policy is supported; but they are afraid to stand the test of granting representation to these people from the city council level up to Parliament.

What a shocking admission by the National Party that they have no confidence in the Whites of South Africa! [Interjections.]

Order!

We of the United Party have the greatest confidence that if those 16 representatives wanted to act against the interests of South Africa in any circumstance—I do not believe they would want to do so—the White majority of 200 members would ensure that they did not succeed in doing so. Anybody who disputes that, is alleging that one cannot trust the White man with the Government of South Africa. We say openly there is only one policy in South Africa which can succeed, and that is a federal policy. We differ from our friends opposite. Years have passed in which our friends opposite—the Chief Whip of the National Party was a big man to do so—have maintained that there is only one of two alternatives open to South Africa : Either complete separation or territorial separation or multi-national development or apartheid, or whatever they call their policy, on the one hand, or total integration—equally. My hon. friend, the member for Brits, even spoke of biological integration. Is this still their standpoint?

I shall reply to you. I am going to participate in this debate and shall reply to that then.

Is it still their standpoint that there is only one of two alternatives open to the people?

Of course.

My friend says “of course”. I knew somebody would say so. Then why is that not the standpoint of the Cape National Party? Why does that alternative exist only in the case of the White man and the Bantu in the Eastern Cape, the Transvaal and Natal, but not in the case of the White man and the Coloured in the Western Cape? Where is the logic for a policy which suggests that there is only one of two alternatives : Either separate nations with their own areas and independence, with self-government in the homelands—because, after all, according to my hon. friends opposite, one does not begrude them anything one does not begrudge oneself—or integration. But when it comes to the Cape Coloureds, the question arises whether, in terms of Government policy, they are a separate people under the multi-national concept or not.

What do you suggest?

Of course they are not, because there is no separate area for them. The policy does not exist for them. For them there is only vagueness, uncertainty and doubt in the heart of the National Party. The policy which Die Burger advocates, which the Cape National Party advocates and which the majority of the Cabinet advocates, but which the hon. the Minister of Information does not advocate, if he speaks the truth—I beg your pardon, I mean when he does speak frankly for a change—is that there is only one of two alternatives, i.e. either their policy of separation, of multi-nationalism, or the policy of equality, of biological integration. But what about the Coloureds of the Cape Province?

How could Die Burger write this leading article last Friday of which I have a copy in my hand and in which Mr. Jooste of Sabra is attacked about a speech he denies he made, and in which he is reported to have said that there should be a separate area for the Coloureds? I do not want to waste time by reading the article; it is not worthwhile reading it, but it is very interesting. Die Burger says that it is impossible politically, because if such a policy were to be implemented, the United Party would win all the seats in the Cape Province. Therefore, politically, this is impossible. [Interjections.]

Order!

The question is not whether it is correct or not, not whether it is logical or not, not whether it is consistent or not, but whether the United Party is going to win seats. It is purely a political, selfish, Party consideration, and the interests of South Africa do not count. Secondly, they complain that it would cause the disruption of labour in the Western Cape and that for that reason, it would be impossible. How can the National Party say that the policy which is indispensable for the rest of South Africa, for the Bantu, does not apply to the Western Cape and to the Coloureds? How does the statement of the two alternatives fit in here? There must be other alternatives; but the National Party does not know what they are. The Prime Minister himself said that our children would have to decide about it and that he could merely indicate the direction, namely separation. But separation towards what? How can one separate people when one cannot give them places where they may be separate?

If you do not want to separate them, surely you must integrate them.

There we have it; he does not want to separate; he must integrate. When the National Party says it cannot separate the Coloureds in the Cape Province, then the Chief Whip of the National Party says they must be integrated. Here we have the relentless logic of the lack of policy and the lack of direction of the National Party. The trouble with the National Party is that their policy has collapsed. It was a wonderful policy and politically we suffered under it. It consisted only of vague concepts. Our former Prime Minister, Dr. Malan, said: “Do not ask me what apartheid is; see how the policy develops in our legislative and administrative measures”. Subsequently Mr. Strydom said the policy of apartheid was supremacy (baasskap). Any member on this side of the House who denies that it is supremacy will know in future that he is lying. Those were Mr. Strydom’s words. Then the late Dr. Verwoerd came, and because he was an honest man, he realized that he could not proceed with these vague concepts and he then tried to give body, scope, a meaning and a reality to the word “apartheid”. Then he came forward with the idea of separate states. He is the man who repeatedly said with great emphasis that nowhere in the world could a multi-racial state exist peacefully. Every member who was in this House at the time, applauded him. Does the National Party still believe that a multi-racial state cannot exist peacefully? What, then, is their policy for the Indians and the Coloureds? How are they going to prevent us from becoming a multi-racial state of which the Indians and the Coloureds will form part? And then, what is their policy for the urban Bantu, the majority of our Bantu? Is the National Party going to continue with the fabrication, the fiction, that people can live in Johannesburg and Port Elizabeth and must enjoy their political and social self-realization in the Transkei, in Vendaland, or in Tswanaland? What would the hon. the Prime Minister say if we said that the Vorster family did not have political rights in South Africa, but that if they went back to Holland, they would be able to enjoy the rights there which the Steyns and the Graaffs enjoyed in South Africa? Where is the logic, the meaning and the content of such a policy? [Interjections.] I wish somebody would ask something to which I …

Where do the Botswanas working here have political rights?

The Botswanas working here, come from a sovereign State. They do not form part of South Africa and never have. [Interjections.] They have never formed part of South Africa. We do not have the obligations towards the Botswanas we have towards our own Bantu. However, that is not the point. The Botswanas of Botswanaland are not the majority of the workers in South Africa. The Bantu from our own areas, however, form the majority of the labour force of South Africa. Then they come forward with the story that this is similar to what happens in the case of the Mexicans working in Texas or in the case of the Italians working in Switzerland. Not in any of these examples is there a case where the majority of the labour force are subjects of foreign states. However, I do not want to talk about this. This Bantustan concept is so ridiculous that nobody is taking it seriously any longer. Not even their own people. How many times have I personally not experienced followers of the National Party telling me that I should not become so serious about Bantustans; that they would never come about; and that they said so merely for foreign consumption. Only recently there was the case in Aliwal North where an attorney of the National Party said this in public. This is how the people feel about it. They cannot believe that a Government can be so foolish as actually to advocate a policy which it cannot implement.

Talk about labour for a change.

I am talking as much about labour as the hon. the Minister of Labour did. There are some of us— I am one of them—who have already said and written in public that if it was possible for us to bring about a fair, complete separation between the races in South Africa, we would all have to think again; because in that case it would be a solution to our race problems which had a moral content, apart from other things which also had a moral content. Then we asked whether this policy of the National Party did in fact have a moral content. Can there be complete separation? What did we find then? The reply was—“Not immediately, but it is an ideal towards which we are working. By 1978 you will see that the stream of Bantu coming into the White areas would have been reversed and would be flowing back to the Bantu areas.” Who says so today? Die Burger said in 1978 was, a “dead date”. But what is happening now? We have found that the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education has announced that where persons have certain established rights in the urban areas, they will be allowed to bring their wives and families to the cities. This is a direct contradiction of the basis of that policy; because the former chairman of the Bantu Affairs Commission has said that the danger we experience with a policy which does not establish the Bantu in their own areas, is the presence of Black women in South Africa. Now we find that nearly 14 days ago the Minister announced in his Budget speech that they were going to make further exceptions under their policy. They were going to make exceptions for people working shifts and for people who established branches of their factories at the borders of the reserves or inside the reserves. This is an admission that they cannot create the means to implement their own policy even in part, unless they allow Bantu labour into the White areas of South Africa to an ever increasing extent. With the attempt at implementing their policy, they are contradicting their own policy in its very essence. These are the matters I should like to discuss with the hon. the Minister, not this wild talk, this scare-mongering, these childish bogeys in which he indulged here, today.

You are going to get four hours to discuss it on the Labour Vote.

Sir, on the Labour Vote I am allowed ten minutes to speak to the Minister, while he has unlimited time. Now is the opportunity when we can discuss the important matters. We shall indeed have other opportunities to discuss labour, but I think the attention of the people must be drawn, firstly, to the fact that the Government does not have an answer to the criticism of its financial and economic policy. That is why it has come forward with this scare-mongering, this attempt at diversion. Secondly, in this Budget debate the Minister of Labour is trying to evade his duty, which is to explain what the hon. the Minister of Finance meant last year and the year before when he said that new relaxations in the labour policy might be forthcoming from the Government towards the non-Whites in the White areas of South Africa. But he should remember that it is on record in more than one place in the Hansard of more than one House that he said that training of non-Whites in more skilled work may take place, but only in their own areas. Is it still his policy, or was his policy contradicted by the Minister of Transport or the hon. the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech? This is what he is running away from. He cannot account for his own irresponsible statements—irresponsible, but at least honest, because they are inseparably bound to the philosophy of separate development. He is right in that; he has confidence in his own policy, but officially, through the mouths of his Minister of Finance and his Minister of Transport, his Government is running away; they are derogating from the fundamental principles and pure thought, in as far as it can exist, of the apartheid policy. Just think of it, Sir: In the year 1972, under a Prime Minister who is trying to follow an outward policy and who is trying to find new points of contact for South Africa in the world and among the races of which South Africa is composed, we have a Minister of Labour who, obviously with the approval of the National Party and with the support of his Press, is trying to carry us back once more to the nastinesses and the shortsighted actions of 1948. [Interjections.]

But are you afraid …

No, I am not afraid of that; I welcome it. I welcome the speech of the Minister, because now the mask has been removed. Now we see a National Party which cannot govern South Africa, but which tries to bluff the people into voting for it, because apparently it alone can save the White man in his civilization. Sir, it astounds one that the Government, after what it has done to the people of South Africa and still is doing, really believes that it can say to the Afrikaans-speaking people—to me and my people : “Because you are Afrikaners, you have no option; you must vote for the National Party”. What an under-estimation of the Afrikaners’ intelligence to say that because one is an Afrikaner, one must vote for a bad Government ! Is it the obligation of Afrikanerhood that one must allow one’s country to go downhill and to be destroyed by a Government which has no policy, which is undecided and which has no direction? Its own apartheid policy is collapsing before its eyes. On Friday, Die Burger had to write a leading article in order to contradict and to express loathing for apartheid for the Coloureds of the Cape Province. In spite of this, they have the audacity, the shameless audacity, to say: “You are an Afrikaner. You must be satisfied with incompetence and a bad Government. You must close your eyes and vote; you have no right to choose, because you are an Afrikaner”. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the Minister. There was a time when we thought that our friends opposite had come to gain a new insight. We thought they were beginning to develop responsibility. We thought they were seeing the problems of South Africa in their magnitude, in their complexity and that they shared the concern of everyone who loves South Africa. We thought a new dispensation was forthcoming. Then the Minister of Labour came forward and showed us that what looked like progress, was nothing but a spectre, and that the Government still is where it was, and that it will continue making the same mistakes because ideologically it is so addicted that it cannot do anything.

“Verkramp”.

No, it is not “verkramp”; but “gekramp”. It is completely convulsed by its own misery of shortsightedness and prejudice. We can but stand together—all of us except our hon. friends sitting over there—and pray that South Africa will be relieved of this cross with which we are burdened.

Mr. Speaker, I shall try to achieve the impossible; I shall try to remain calm. The hon. member for Yeoville accuses the hon. the Minister of Labour of having concerned himself with nastinesses of 1948. He did not concern himself with nastinesses of 1948; he concerned himself with the nastinesses of the U.P.’s policy. That was the only element of nastiness in his speech, i.e. when he pointed to the consequences of the U.P.’s régime. The hon. member for Yeoville makes me laugh. He is usually good in this House, but today he was anything but good. He says the National Party call themselves political experts, but go and hold meetings and then do not know what the United Party’s policy is. Mr. Speaker, he himself does not know what the United Party’s policy is. I want to prove this to him. Here is a letter of his, and he may tell me if I am quoting correctly; it is a letter he wrote in the Argus of 7th December, 1971, in which he stated this—

Hear, hear!

The hon. member says “Hear, hear!.” (Laughter.) In this piece I have quoted the following words appear in brackets: “The White and the Coloured being associated with each other for the purpose.” Continuing, the hon. member for Yeoville wrote—

All I want to prove by this is that the hon. member quotes from a booklet which he knows does not reflect the policy of his party, and then states in an article that it is in fact his party’s policy. Sir, what did hon. members on that side try to do in this debate? It was nothing but a reckless attempt on the part of the United Party to get away from its own policy. If there is one thing the United Party is afraid to speak about today it is its own policy. I accuse it of trying to conceal its policy and the consequences of its policy from the South African electorate. Sir, in South Africa we want an answer to one question, and that is what this country will look like after five years of United Party government.

See what it looks like now.

It looks very good; it looks first-rate. Like every capitalist country we have experienced a short slump period in our economy; one finds this in all capitalist countries of the world, but this slump in South Africa has been of shorter duration than in any other democratic country in the world, and we are in process of emerging from it. May I ask hon. members on that side who are making such a noise: Where is the unemployment in South Africa? No, Sir, there is no unemployment, and this Budget has contributed its share towards getting us out of this slump. Hon. members on that side are continually shouting about labour and saying that South Africa’s economy is in a terribly bad state. What is the true position? Take the housing position. Sir, I say there is no country in the world where the housing position of the Whites is as good as it is here in the Republic of South Africa, but hon. member on that side are continually proclaiming that there is a housing crisis in South Africa. Sir, we took over from the United Party 24 years ago, and then we had the biggest housing mess that South Africa has ever seen, with tens of thousands of White people having to live in tents and lean-to dwellings, not to mention Bantu and Coloureds. And what is the position today? Every year we are building more houses for Whites than are required to meet the housing needs. This is not what I am saying, Sir.

And the Coloureds?

I agree with the hon. member for Houghton; I am not as satisfied with the housing conditions of the Coloureds, but I am speaking about the Whites now. It is hon. members on that side who say that the Whites are having such a difficult time of it; that there is unemployment amongst the Whites and that the cost of living is so high that the Whites cannot lead a decent existence. Sir, let me quote to you from the Property Mail—

That is the position.

And the prices?

The prices are very low; the houses cost from R5 000 upwards. Some of the cheapest houses ever built are being built in South Africa. Sir, hon. members on that side will not get away from their policy with these economic arguments, and I now intend to deal with two sections of their policy as recklessly as I can possibly deal with a policy. The first is their Black labour policy. The hon. member for Johannesburg North criticized the National Party’s policy of controlled use of Black labour in South Africa. I make the accusation against the United Party that their policy in connection with Black labour amounts to the reckless, unrestricted use of Black labour, in skilled spheres of employment as well. They do not give the White workers, both skilled and unskilled, an iota of protection, and I shall prove this to the hon. member for Pinelands. They want to throw the White worker on to the open market in competition with the Bantu.

Who said that?

The hon. member for Yeoville said it, and I shall prove that this is the truth. Is the hon. member in favour of work reservation? Let the hon. member reply to that question; it is a simple question. Is he in favour of work reservation? The mere fact that he is afraid to say he is in favour of work reservation proves that he wants to throw the White worker on to the open market in competition with the Bantu. The fact that this would result in large-scale White unemployment simply does not concern them. I go further; I say the United Party is in favour of the uncontrolled influx of Bantu labour into the urban areas—totally uncontrolled. Not only are they in favour of the uncontrolled influx of the Bantu into the urban areas, but the Bantu must come here on a family basis, because the U.P. is opposed to migratory labour. The Bantu must come here on a family basis; their wives and children must accompany them. [Interjection.] I cannot hear what the hon. member for Green Point is saying there. Sir, I say that in the first place they are in favour of the uncontrolled influx of Bantu labour on a family basis, but secondly the Bantu must be able to acquire property here in the White area. That is why I am levelling this accusation at the United Party—and I shall do so wherever I happen to be— that it is in favour of the total abolition of influx control in South Africa.

That is untrue.

Does the hon. member for Pinelands want to deny that they want to bring Bantu into the urban areas on a family basis? Does he want to deny that they want to give proprietary rights to the Bantu here in the White areas of South Africa? Does the hon. member for Newton Park want to deny that their policy is that the Bantu worker must be able to sell his labour on the best market? You see, Sir, when you put these direct, simple questions involving policy to them, they refuse to reply to them. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Yeoville said it. He said he was in favour of the Bantu being able to sell his labour on the best market.

Subject to certain conditions.

The Bantu is allowed to sell his labour on the best market, or he is not allowed to do so. If one tells the Bantu they can sell their labour on the best market, it means the Bantu can choose what market is best for them and sell their labour there. There is no other alternative whatsoever. It is because they are in favour of the Bantu being able to sell their labour on the best market that I say they are opposed to any influx control in South Africa. They are in favour of the Bantu being allowed to stream into the urban areas on a family basis, and I ask you, Sir, what South Africa is going to look like after 5 or 10 years if that policy of theirs should be applied. I say it will lead to an unholy ploughing-under of the White man in South Africa and I level the accusation at the United Party that its labour policy will amount to the ploughing-under of the White labourer, the White worker in South Africa. I now ask this. When one has such unrestricted influx, when one’s cities are 10 times Blacker than they are today and the whole of White South Africa is Blacker than it is today, what will the political consequences be? Nothing in the world could stop them then having to get more and more political rights. This has never yet happened anywhere in the world. It has not happened in the rest of Africa, and it will certainly not happen in the Republic of South Africa. That is why I say that after five years of their rule under which they allow this influx, under which they allow the Bantu to sell his labour on the best market, under which they allow the Bantu to enter the White area on a family basis and give him proprietary rights, a situation will have been created in this country that must result in a bloody revolution in South Africa.

But let us pass on to their political policy. What is their political policy? The hon. the Minister of Labour dealt with it fully. I want to go no further than the little they themselves admit to, i.e. that they want to give the non-Whites 16 representatives in this House of Assembly, 8 White members for the Bantu, whom the hon. member for Yeoville acknowledges can be changed for Black members, for Bantu members, for the Bantu. The 16 members will give the non-Whites a balance of power in this Parliament.

But, they support your policy, do they not?

No, the hon. member for Yeoville knows as well as I do what the position is, as we have seen it here. Does he not remember the Ballingers, does he not remember the Sam Kahns? Does he not remember those people in this House? [Interjections.] They are the greatest leftists in the whole world, so leftist that they would not even support the United Party. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Umlazi must behave himself.

Sir, look at the position one is creating if one gives the non-Whites 16 non-White members. War was declared in South Africa with a majority of 13 members. In other words, one can leave such an important decision, i.e. whether one should engage in a war or not, to the representatives of the non-Whites. I now want to tell the hon. members of the United Party that this would unleash a furious hatred between English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people in this country, because one can argue as much as one likes but one cannot get away from the fact that the National Party consists chiefly of the Afrikaners and the United Party chiefly of the English-speaking people, and you are going to use those 16 to keep the Afrikaner out of power. I say that if you do that you will create a simply unprecedented situation of hatred in South Africa. I want to ask the United Party where one can get a more dangerous situation than this: If they should come into power and have the 16 representatives in this Parliament, and there is another election and the National Party wins by 10 seats, one will have the National Party’s rule thwarted by the 16 non-White representatives in this House.

Do you have no support amongst the non-Whites?

Those 16 would not even vote for the United Party. Those 16 would be extreme leftists. We know this from South Africa’s history. It was proved by the representatives of the non-Whites in this House. That is why I say that this policy would bring about a state of bitterness between the White races in South Africa as we have never before witnessed.

But it would not end there. I make the accusation against the United Party that these 16 members are only the minimum number they want in this House, and I say in addition that they have no objection to the number increasing. In the initial interim there will be 16. In the second interim there will be 8 Whites that can be changed for 8 Blacks. The third interim is this referendum of theirs. I now want to ask the hon. members for Yeoville and Bezuidenhout a question. They say these people can only be increased by means of a referendum of the Whites in South Africa. I now want to ask those hon. members a very fair and reasonable question : If they should hold such a referendum, on what side would the United Party range itself?

May I reply?

You may reply by way of a question.

It stands in Hansard.

If the United Party should hold a referendum they could not but vote in that referendum for an increase of non-Whites in this House. If they do not want that, they simply do not hold a referendum. That is how simple the matter is. That is why I say that their policy is in favour of the augmentation of non-White representatives in this Parliament.

Then you might come back.

Where to? Do you think I am mad? That is the position we have with respect to the United Party’s policy Now set this against the simple policy of the National Party. That is the position one is going to land up in with their political rights and their labour policy. There will be an unrestricted influx.

That is untrue.

It is not untrue. The hon. member for Yeoville may shout “untrue” as many times as he likes. Ordinary logic tells us that if the Black man can sell his labour on the best market it means only one thing, i.e. unrestricted influx. It is that simple and means nothing else.

And what is the National Party’s policy? We are not indifferent to the political rights of the non-Whites. I acknowledge that as far as the Coloureds and Indians are concerned we have not yet finished thinking. The Prime Minister has in fact said so. [Interjections.] Do hon. members think they have finished thinking? They have not yet started thinking As far as the overwhelming problem in regard to the Bantu is concerned, the National Party’s attitude is very clear. We are not indifferent to the political rights of the Bantu in South Africa. But we state without a shadow of doubt that the Bantu will receive his political rights in his own homeland and nowhere else. There he will receive his political rights. Then we have to listen to the nonsense about a divided South Africa in which Communism would allegedly triumph and all that rubbish. Why does Communism not triumph in Lesotho, Botswana or Swaziland? I shall tell hon. members when Communism will triumph in this country. It will triumph when we have progressed to the point Where there are independent Bantu homelands and the United Party comes into power with its spineless attitude towards Communism in South Africa. That is why I say that the people will not allow them to come into power. What I blame the United Party for more than anything else …

You are panicking.

No, there is no question of any panic on this side of the House. Any signs of panic are on that side of the House, panic for the consequences of their own policy. What I blame them for very much is that in this process of refusing to state their policy with all its consequences, they are doing two things to divert the attention of the people. I am now speaking of the United Party and its Press. One is by trying to exploit minor economic grievances, and the other is by besmirching the Republic of South Africa abroad as much as they can. The first member I accuse of besmirching this Republic abroad is the hon. member for Hillbrow. In the hon. member’s speech during the non-confidence debate he said that South Africa has never been hated as much as it is hated today. I am inclined to agree with him. If I had to believe all his stories, those of the English Press and what the hon. member for Zululand said, I would not find it surprising that South Africa is the most hated country in the world. What did he say in the no-confidence debate? In the no-confidence debate the hon. member for Hillbrow said that here in South Africa we have no single freedom left. I have taken this from Hansard and I am going to quote to hon. members his precise words—

Give the reference.

I shall give it to the hon. member at a later stage. I did not write down the number of the Hansard column. The fact remains that he said that we no longer have a single freedom left in South Africa. That is the impression they have created abroad, i.e. that we are a dictatorship and a Nazi state. Here he stands up, abuses the Government and makes as much of a fuss as he possibly can, but abroad he says that there is no freedom left in South Africa. Let us go further. It is exactly the same type of thing they said prior to Sharpeville, and I do not even want to mention the English newspapers. Here I want to quote an article that appeared in one of the English newspapers. I quote—

That is what they go and tell countries abroad. They say—

Who said that?

It was stated by the Sunday Express. I quote—

That is what their newspapers state; that is what their newspapers sell to the outside world. If they are not satisfied with what their newspapers tell the outside world, let us see what the hon. member for Zululand said abroad.

What about me?

I shall read it to him in a moment and I shall give him the Hansard reference as well at a later stage. While a certain Bill was under discussion in this Parliament, he said—

Those were the hon. member’s own words. He added—

It is true. —

The hon. member says it is the truth; in other words, that side of the House believes that the image of South Africa that must be presented abroad is one in which we regard death by ill-treatment or torture as a normal phenomenon in South Africa.

Disgraceful!

They want to pretend it is a normal phenomenon under the Government. I say it is a shocking and scandalous statement to make, and on top of that the hon. member knows it is not true.

It is quite true.

He says it is true.

He says that “death by torture” is something that is generally accepted by this Government, while he knows that this is not true.

He confirms it too.

Yes, he confirms it. It is absolutely scandalous. He says—

He ought to be ashamed of the fact that he makes such statements. I now want to quote to hon. members what the Cape Argus says—

That is what they ….

Who said that?

The Cape Argus. That was their comment on Sharpeville. They said that we in this country say: “Don’t give them bread, give them bullets”. That is what was said. They continued and proclaimed the following to the world—

What did Carel de Wet say?

They said—

At what time did the Cape Argus say that? [Interjections.] Watch out!

What must I watch out for? I just want to show how you besmirch this country. This shows how the United Party and its Press besmirch this country. They are the ones who create the impression in the world that there is a cruel government in power in South Africa. They say that the Bantu and the Coloureds have no rights, that they are recklessly suppressed. In addition they say that the Whites who disagree with the Government are just as recklessly suppressed in the Republic of South Africa. I say that this is a scandalous attitude the United Party is adopting! I say that in our politics we have already dropped to some low levels, but this low level the United Party has reached in our politics in the past six months is worse than anything even I have done in my political career, and I am not the softest man in politics. I am not the softest man in politics, and I say that their attitude over the past six months has made even me shudder. In conclusion I want to tell them that the people will reject them with all the contempt they deserve. The people will reject them next Wednesday in Oudtshoorn with all the contempt they deserve. I wish the Nationalists of Oudtshoorn every success in the work of total and complete destruction they are now engaged in. I wish them success with the obliteration of those people as best they can.

Mr. Speaker, having listened to the last spasm of a dying Government, I do not know why the hon. the Minister of Community Development bothered to make a speech. All he needed to do was to take his Hansard of the last three occasions he has taken part in a general debate and read it, because it would have been word for word identical. The trouble with the hon. the Minister and with this Government is that they think that because people stream for generation after generation to listen to a good opera, if they make the same speech over and over enough, people will also stream to hear it. However, this was not a good opera today. This was more a tragedy in two acts—the act of the hon. the Minister of Labour and the act of the hon. the Minister of Community Development.

With a vacuum in between.

While South Africa is debating a budget of R3 500 million, a budget designed to provide for the Administration which is going to run this country for the next year and which is to determine the direction which we take in the field of the economy, in the field of race relations and in the field of administration, we get the demonstration here of irresponsibility which we have just heard. This is not accidental and I want to put it on record that the hon. the Minister of Labour and the hon. the Minister of Community Development quite clearly have spoken here with the specific authority and approval of the hon. the Prime Minister and the Nationalist Party. They have clearly been put up to this, to take this line and, with the firmest, hardest nails I can find, I want to nail the speeches to which we have listened to the Nationalist Party, to the Government and to its policy.

There are those who have talked about a change in the Nationalist Party, a move towards becoming more “verlig”, but I want to put it on record that here we have not heard an isolated individual, not a personal opinion, but the official policy, with the official approval and stamp of the hon. the Prime Minister, and South Africa is told the Nationalist Party is back to 1948, exactly where we started. [Interjections.] These two speeches place on record more clearly than anything else could have done that any hope whatsoever of getting a change from within the Nationalist Party is simply wishful thinking. The hon. the Minister of Community Development spoke of bloody revolution. Does he forget that one of his own colleagues warned on the 31st December of last year, only a few months ago, of race disaster? He said that the nation faced disaster unless the challenge of improving race relations was met. He talked of bloodshed. He talked of dangers facing South Africa, not under a United Party Government, but under the Nationalist Government. But when a Nationalist Cabinet Minister, the hon. the Minister of the Interior, warns of bloodshed and disaster, his colleagues get up in this House and instead of dealing with the problems for which they are responsible, they try to sweep up feelings and they try to misrepresent United Party policy. They try to mislead the people of South Africa with half-truths, stories which give a false impression of what this side of the House stands for.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

The hon member must withdraw the word “false”.

I withdraw the word “false” and will use the parliamentary word “misrepresentation” of United Party policy. The hon. the Minister of Community Development said during his speech that we are afraid to state our policy. We have not only stated it in this House and on the public platforms, but we have also printed it. We reprinted this whole section of our fundamental policy only last December. We published it in half-page advertisements in newspapers. Does that hon. Minister not read? Can he only look at comiccuts? Is that where he gets his behaviour from? Is that where he gets the political pattern which he followed in his speech? Does he not read facts, or if he reads, can he not understand them?

You are afraid of the consequences of your own policy, and you know it.

If that hon. Minister cannot read, let me in simple terms put to him what has been said over and over again. I ask him, when he gets up again, to refer to the whole of the United Party policy and not just to bits he wants to pick out of context. We stand for communal councils for the different races, handling matters at their own level which affect their own race group. We stand for statutory standing committees linking them to this Parliament. We say that we will consult, through a determined number of representatives in this House, with the communal councils. We will consult on a federal basis on the final pattern of administration. It is simple. It has an immediate phase, it has the creation of communal councils, it has standing committees linking them with this Parliament, and it has a fixed determined representation. It also has a guarantee, namely the guarantee of a referendum That is our policy and that is what is being distorted and that is what is being misrepresented. The country and Oudtshoorn are being told that the United Party stands for 25 members of Parliament. [Interjections.] I want to say in very clear terms that these two speeches have indicated that everything the Prime Minister has said, and everything that every member of the Cabinet has said about the support of the non-Whites of South Africa for National Party policy is false. They are making liars of every Nationalist speaker who says that the Bantu and the Coloureds …

Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I cannot allow myself to be shouted down by hon. members there…

Order! The hon. member may make his point.

I want to ask on a point of order, whether the hon. member is entitled to say, with reference to the speech made by the hon. the Minister of Community Development, that he made a liar of the Prime Minister and other Ministers.

He never said that.

Mr. Speaker, I said and I say again that it would make a liar of anybody who says that the National Party enjoys the support of the non-White race groups if we are to accept what these two hon. Ministers have said, because they have indicated that White representatives of non-Whites in this House would be opposed to that Government and to that party and would support this side in undermining the Afrikaner. But they have gone further. They are the puppets whose strings are being pulled by the hon. the Minister of Defence and by his newspaper, to whose strings he in turn is dancing. They are the Burger’s puppets doing two things which are a disservice to South Africa. One is to sweep up feelings between English- and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans and the other is to sweep up feelings between White man and Black man in South Africa. [Interjections.]

*Mr. Speaker, I return to the hon. the Minister. I said that there are people in South Africa who hope that improvements can be brought about from within the National Party. There are people who hope for an improvement in the image of the Government today, through change of policy and of staff within the Government. I do not want to read out long quotations. I just want to say that this group does exist. Everyone knows about it. There is also a growing group which realizes that such a renewal, such a change from within is impossible. We have the odd situation that we have a party and a Government here with supporters whose hope to remain in power lies in having to take over our policy, the Opposition’s policy. Where can another situation like this be found, where the supporters of the Government hope that their own Government will accept the Opposition’s policy? There is, for example, an article in Volkshandel, under the title “Herdenke ten opsigte van Ekonomie nou nodig”. I have an article from Rapport under the title “Vlug sal nie help nie”. One can go on in this way. “N.P. antwoord op kiesers se griewe”. The position is that there are complaints within the National Party. In Rapport of 5th March the complaints are set out. The answer to virtually every complaint is the answer advocated by this side of the House.

Why do they not vote for you then?

It happens.

†So we have this strange idea that you can brighten up the Cabinet from inside. Some think it is not necessary. The hon. the Minister of Transport, of course, says “Ondersoek onnodig”. He does not think it is necessary. But others seem positive that it is necessary. Now we have the hon. the Minister of Transport who is chairman of a company owning newspapers, saying: “Ondersoek is onnodig”. But his newspaper, the day before yesterday, said : “Bring Jan Haak terug”. We have Volkshandel calling for “herdenke ten opsigte van die ekonomie” and we have Rapport with “Bring Jan Haak terug”. It is interesting to find, for instance, that according to the hon. the Minister of Transport’s newspaper all the hon. members who spoke yesterday do not amount to a row of beans —not one of them! The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is too busy making statements; there is nobody here to take his place. It is interesting to note that, according to their newspapers, there was a party. I quote—

I wonder if that party was at the house of the hon. member for Paarl. But this is not just newspaper speculation. It is an organ of the National Party which says that its own Minister of Economic Affairs, the whole of the economic affairs group and the whole of the finance group, are useless; they should be chucked out and somebody from outside should be brought in. It is an interesting situation that, to try to save themselves from their economic shambles, they turn to ex-Minister Haak, a person who resigned as a Minister after having received a R118 000 loan from the Land Bank and having been asked by the Prime Minister to repay it, did so and then resigned before the election to attend to his own business affairs, a resignation which was kept secret until after the election and then accepted so that he could attend to his own affairs, be put on the board of Iscor and guide his own vast economic empire. Now we are told we must bring him back to rejuvenate the Cabinet. There are some interesting possibilities in this idea of putting life and vitality and virility into the Cabinet. We could easily inject some more virility. Let us have an Old Boys’ Club. Let us bring back Willie Maree. I am sure the hon. the Minister of Community Development will know. He has appointed him to one of his boards. He has had a lot of business experience, and I am sure that he could make a contribution in the economic field, from his experience of handling land, development, and so on. He is another person whose economic knowledge could help the Government.

He is a hard worker.

I heard he was the bestdressed man in the Cabinet. If we want an Old Boys’ Club, what about bringing back the ex-Minister of the Interior, Mr. P. K. le Roux? It would save the National Party from the complete panic they are having at the moment over the by-election.

I want to quote from the Daily News of the 15th September, 1971, what the Prime Minister said last year—

I thought about this rugby team on Sunday, but all I could hear was “Haak, kêrels, Haak”.

The hon. Minister of Community Development, to whom I am still replying, introduced a Renewals Bill. I suggest he should try to apply that Renewals Bill to the Cabinet. I disagree with my colleague from Hillbrow, who thought the Prime Minister might be able to patch up the Cabinet. I think that what we need here is not a Renewals Bill. You cannot renovate or patch up; you would have to have a complete urban redevelopment. You would have to get right down to the foundation.

Slum clearance.

A very apt description. I called it urban renewal, although one could perhaps also call it slum clearance. I did a little study to see where we could have some renewal and where we would have to have complete demolition and replacement. I started off with the hon. the Minister of Labour who, as Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, seemed to show a little light here and there. He opened the door just a fraction, peeped through and poked his finger at some of the labour problems which he faced as Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. I thought: Well, here is a chance; we may polish this one up a bit; we may get a little shine and vitality out of this if we could open the door wider. What happened, Mr. Speaker? The Jekyll and Hyde personality keeps cropping up. The Minister of Labour came along and slammed the door right in his face. So there we can get no renewal or polishing up because we have two personalities in one Minister, the one realizing the problems and knowing what has to be done about it and the other making sure that it cannot be done.

Then we have the Minister of Defence, the person responsible for the security of South Africa, the person whom we support when it comes to the security of our country, and when it comes to the military forces which he controls, the Defence Force as a whole. There one would say that you perhaps have some material to work on, but again you have a Jekyll and Hyde, because the Minister is also the leader of the National Party in the Cape Province. As soon as you get this clash of personalities, you find that the Minister of Defence disappears and an explosive political leader appears, unstable and unreliable, dragging South Africa back into the lowest level of politics we have seen since about 20 years ago. We find the Minister of Defence, instead of trying to build up patriotism and love for South Africa, trying to break it down by instilling racialism into a political debate. We find a Minister of Defence who accepts that in his Forces the 40-odd per cent who are United Party supporters are loyal South Africans.

How do you know that?

He said so in this House. Then you find the leader of the National Party in the Cape going out and saying the opposite. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development seems concerned at this. Does he deny that the 40 per cent who are United Party supporters in our Defence Force and Police Force are loyal South Africans?

That is not what I asked you.

Do you accept that?

How do you know that it is 40 per cent?

Because at least that percentage of the electorate supports the United Party. In fact, these are the young South Africans, and in their case the figure is over 50 per cent, because amongst the young South Africans we are drawing more and more support.

We have a Minister of Police who acts impeccably on the border. But on the home front he cannot handle a simple fraud case; it takes two years to solve. In a simple investigation like that into the Agliotti case, he cannot give us an answer; it is too complicated an investigation for him to reach finality while Parliament is still sitting. We find the same Minister supporting his men on the border and then issuing statements in South Africa which I believe are not worthy of the hon. the Minister of Police.

We have a Minister of Agriculture with no policy. We have a Minister of Sport. He was appointed as a rugby hero. Do you know, Sir, the supermarkets do this sort of thing. They have what they call a “loss leader”. They want a line which they can put on the market at a known loss. This one. Mr. Speaker, was a “loss leader” par excellence.

Then we have a Minister of Bantu Administration who is “the greatest”. We find that his own department, his own officials whom he controls, say this about him—

“Nog nooit in die wêreld nie”! You see, Sir, the theory of the Bantu homelands was there—

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, you cannot renew a Minister with all those qualifications. His own department says that the late Dr. Verwoerd was useless; that there has never been a Minister of Bantu Administration like the present Minister; that Oom Daan, who used to float around in orbit in this House, was no good as a Minister of Bantu Administration; the only good Minister they have had is this Minister—the only one in the world. Then we have the Minister of Planning, who tells the voters of Oudtshoorn: “Don’t worry; we know you have problems; we know you are having a difficult time of it, but we shall do something.”

*Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying that over all these Ministers we have a Prime Minister who is like a person who is learning to drive in a car with two steering wheels. When the instructor sees that the position is dangerous, he switches off the one sterring wheel; if he thinks the road is straight enough, he switches on the spare steering wheel.

†We see the Prime Minister at some stages turning the steering wheel all the time, but most of the time the instructor, the Broederbond instructor, has switched off the dual control and the Prime Minister is simply spinning the wheel around while the car goes plodding along the Broederbond road. Sir, the evidence of this was the two speeches that we heard here this afternoon; here we had the evidence that the Prime Minister is no longer driving the motor-car of State; the Prime Minister is not controlling it. The Broederbond, the hatred, the bitterness of 1948, the bitterness of the past, is today driving the care of State. The Prime Minister should stick to making statements on pop festivals.

This is the sort of thing that we find in every department: We find that a public servant is allocated a farm by his own department and that he makes a profit of R35 000 on it. We have this happening all the time, and then these Ministers try to take us back 25 years into history. They try to take us back 72 years into the bitterness of the Anglo-Boer War. Sir, I want to say to this National Party that the best service that they can do the United Party is to carry on doing what they are doing now, because the young people of South Africa are sick of the divisions of our grandfathers. The young people of South Africa want a party in control of South Africa which lives in the twentieth century, which looks ahead beyond 1972 and not back to 1902. The young people of South Africa want a party in power which will root out corruption and inefficiency, which will root out all the things that harm the good name of South Africa and, Sir, hon. members opposite cannot frighten the young people of South Africa any more. People are no longer bluffed by this sort of talking. They will vote for this side of the House for decent government.

As usual the hon. member for Durban Point was true to himself. I think he said nothing to which I need reply, except when he referred towards the end of his speech to the young people, to the youth of South Africa. Sir, the United Party are waxing lyrical about the youth, but I want to tell them something about the history of the youth. This National Party granted the young people the franchise in 1958, when the United Party opposed it. I want to remind them that those very same young people helped to secure a Republic for South Africa, also against the wishes of the United Party. Furthermore I want to tell them that those young people will never entrust this Republic, which they themselves helped to gain, to people like those in the United Party, to people like the hon. member for Durban Point, the arch-jingo.

Gen. Moolman was my general when I was a young man.

Yes, but he was wearing the pot-lid. I am going to discuss economic matters on the relevant Votes, but now I wish to talk to the United Party. I wish to talk about the United Party’s past, and I wish to talk about its present and about its future, precisely with a view to these claims they are laying to having the support of the youth. I level the accusation at the United Party today that they were responsible in the past for the terrorists who are fighting on our borders at the moment. In 1952 they established a fund and founded the United Front—a fund of R2 million for the purpose of defeating the National Party Government at the elections of 1953. Sir, a jackal, a two-face and a skunk all flocked to that source, the R2 million.

The United Front subsequently originated from that source, the R2 million fund was the contributory factor. U.P. supporters, communists, jingoes and the Antichrist were assembled in that front. The whole caboodle were assembled in that United Front, and then for the first time, in 1952, South Africa made acquaintance with demonstrators and terrorists. Never before in its history had South Africa been subject to a more extensive onslaught of jingoism than was in fact the case in 1952 and 1953. And what was the point at issue? The only point at issue was the retention of the non-White franchise. That is all.

The first time in my life that I made acquaintance with a demonstration was here in front of these Houses of Parliament, where bearers of tin torches had congregated under the leadership of “Oom” Dolf of beard fame. I have the photographs here; but that was a peaceful rally, for it consisted of Whites. But the very next evening they addressed the non-Whites here on the Parade. It was on that occasion that I made acquaintance with such a demonstration for the second time. The members of the United Front addressed them, and there were communists, such as Fred Carneson, who were members of that United Front. On the Parade they incited the non-Whites to such an extent that they stormed these Houses of Parliament, and here, outside these Houses of Parliament, I saw how the first demonstrators clashed with the Police. The third thing I experienced—I did not see it personally, but I read about it—was a real attack by demonstrators.

On 26th May, 1952—this is a rather important date, for on 26th May, 1952, the National Party won the election—a listed communist, Solly Sacks, held a meeting on the steps of the City Hall of Johannesburg. That was not a meeting of Solly Sacks or of trade unions, but a meeting of the United Front, and he held it with the approval of the United Party, although his presence there was illegal, and when the Police wanted to arrest him, 15 policemen were injured in that clash. I say the first terrorist onslaught on South Africa’s Police took place under the leadership of the United Party. [Interjections.] I have here Die Burger of 27th May (translation): “Dr. Malan discloses contents of Police report. U.P. a many-coloured front with red, yellow and black.” In 1952 Dr. Malan put this question to the United Party in this House. At the time Adv. Strauss was still the Leader of the United Party, and Dr. Malan put this question to the United Party. His question was : “Where is your leader leading you?” On 27th May, 1953, he asked this question: “Where has the Leader of the Opposition landed you already?” At that time they had already been lead into this mess.

Yes, tin torch commando and all.

Now I want to say that at present the United Party are terribly touchy whenever communism is mentioned; they run to court whenever a pamphlet is issued. Here in my hand I have a pamphlet issued by the National Party at the time of the 1949 provincial elections. At that stage communism had not yet been prohibited under the Act. Today they are hiding behind the Act, the Act by means of which the National Government safeguarded them. These words were printed here: “United Party and communists join forces against National Party.” It was during that election campaign that their slogan was “Wipe out Nationalism”. In 1948 we had the Springbok Legion, which at that stage was an out and out communist organization under the leadership of a man by the name of Hodgson.

They kicked out Frank Waring.

No, that Springbok Legion kicked out Waring because he was too much of a gentleman. I just want to outline the history in order to come to the present and to the future. That Hodgson led the Springbok Legion, and at night, on behalf of the United Party, they posted up pamphlets, even on the churches of the Afrikaner; they did not even respect them. Sir, it was my privilege to give that Hodgson a hiding with a sjambok in the street, a hiding which I believe he will still remember in the hereafter. [Interjections.] I say that I accuse them of being responsible for the terrorists, and now I want to prove it.

Hodgson and Duncan—I only want to mention a few names; there are numerous names we could mention—were members of the United Front which helped the United Party to fight in 1948 and again in 1953. Of course, after the great victory of the National Party at the election of 1953, when that R2 million had been exhausted, that front disintegrated and crumbled like an old broom. Those two people whose names I mentioned, Hodgson and Duncan, fled from South Africa together with many others and established these depots in countries abroad, and they collected the money for training these terrorists, those people who are fighting on our borders today. These people for whom the United Party is responsible, are active on our borders today, and today our children and their children have to sacrifice their lives to the border; and that is not all—it also costs South Africa millions of rands to combat these terrorists, but the United Party is responsible for the leaders of those people.

I want to take them to the present. They have formed a shadow Cabinet. That shadow Cabinet are sitting in the front benches. We can take them from the top down. Not so very long ago everybody in the front benches, with the exception of two, were members of the United Front. The one exception is the horn, member for Umbilo. That was before his political birth. The other exception is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who was labouring under a political delusion during those years, i.e. 1952-’53. At that stake he was wandering about as a member of the National Party.

Now I ask how we can believe these people. A leopard cannot change its spots. They are simply the same old U.P. jingoes we have known all these years. In regard to matters of policy and principle they are still exactly where they stood in 1948. They have not moved forward one single inch. In the forties they turned over the workers to the communists. Those trade union leaders, such as Sacks and others, were the masters of the workers in South Africa under United Party policy. Some of their Ministers were patrons of The Friends of the Soviet Union. Today this United Party is still where it stood in the forties. This question of the rate for the job is nothing new. They learnt it from the communist trade union leaders. It was the slogan of Solly Sacks and others which they took over. And then they want to pretend today that this is something new.

What was achieved under communist trade union leaders through the rate for the job? The White workers were turned over to the communists and kicked out of their jobs, because under the policy of the rate for the job, the majority of the trade union members were non-Whites. That was why the National Government, when it came into power in 1948, inherited such a tremendously large number of unemployed from the United Party. In looking at those hon. members today when they are boasting so much of how they are going to take over the reins of government one of these days and how they want to make an appeal to the youth, I am reminded of the 1950 election in South-West Africa. At the time I was holding meetings there and paying house-to-house visits in the daytime. On a certain occasion I called on a gentleman at Bethanien and told him that I was on my way to Maltahöhe. I told him that I would address a meeting there that evening, and asked him on whom I could make house-to-house calls that day. He gave me certain names, as well as that of a man who lived in a house with a green roof. Then he said: “No, you had better leave him out. Don’t call on him, for he will only tell you that he is a Christian. He would be lying all the time, because he is a U.P. supporter.”

But, what about the future? Through the United Party’s policy for the future, they want to take us back a hundred years. It took a hundred years, and it was a terrible struggle, to make this Parliament a purely White Parliament. We experienced the greatest constitutional crisis in this century. There was bitterness, there was bitterness between English and Afrikaansspeaking people; there was bitterness between Whites and non-Whites, and I can tell hon. members that this has not yet been forgotten. Now those hon. members want to take us back to where we started under an English régime a century ago. After the National Government had come into power in 1948, its first Act was the repeal of the Indian Representation Act. Those hon. members want to reinstate it now. They are not coming forward with a new proposal; they are still the same old jingoes we once knew.

The hon. the Minister of Community Development mentioned here that we had been plunged into the War by a majority of 13, and that majority included three Bantu representatives. Now they want 16 representatives here in order to plunge us into another war. The people will never accept them, for if they came into power with this non-White policy of theirs, I want to tell hon. members today what would happen in South Africa. We would have another Anglo-Boer War. These Whites will never allow that, not after we struggled for a hundred years to find our own feet and to stand on our own political feet. I repeat: The same youth who voted for the Republic, against the wishes of those hon. members, will at all future elections return to power the National Party, which they trust.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to assure you at the very first opportunity I have that I am deeply impressed by everything I have experienced up to now in the short time it has been my privilege to be in this traditional atmosphere. I am grateful for the pleasant and comforting way in which I have been received by you, your officials in the highest as well as in the junior posts, by members of my party and others in this House. I have come to make my contribution, and I trust that a spirit will always prevail in this House, one which will ensure that our beloved Republic will not falter through the instrumentality of enemies from outside or from inside.

At this stage it is desirable and fitting for me to pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr. Gert Bezuidenhout, who represented Brakpan in such a brilliant way in this House from 1961 to 1971. He came here, proud of his constituency and his people, and he soon became, and remained the pride of his constituency and his people.

As he did, I, too, should like to kick off by delivering a plea for Brakpan and its people. I want to give hon. members the assurance that our people earn their bread by the sweat of their brows, in all respects and in the fullest sense of the term. As hon. members know, three very strong mines which constituted the basis of the economy of Brakpan for a very long time, closed down during the past seven years. Characteristic of the flexibility of the Brakpan economy, we succeeded in overcoming these disasters, as it were. Moreover, it is expected that S.A. Lands and Vlakfontein will also close down in the course of 1973. The number of White employees in these three mines I have mentioned, was 330 at the date of closing down. At the moment there are approximately 900 White mine-workers in Sallies mine and in Vlakfontein. All of these workers do not live in Brakpan, but most of them do live in Brakpan and in the immediate vicinity. Consequently you will agree with me, Sir, that the devaluation of the rand has given an enormous impetus to the old mines on the East Rand and that it has made it worthwhile in all respects to render all possible assistance to mines such as S.A. Lands with regard to the pumping out of water during the recent floods. That is why we are grateful to the Government for granting such liberal assistance to the dying mines, particularly on the East Rand, in terms of the provisions of the Gold Mines Assistance Act, No. 82 of 1968.

It is estimated that an amount of R2,6 million will be spent next year in the form of subsidies for the pumping out of water.

The major part of this amount will be used for the East Rand. For this year the amount came to R1,8 million. This money is also used for the addition of lime to the water. I should like to recommend that consideration be given to having this addition of lime taking place automatically. This may result in a considerable saving.

As far as gold and gold mines are concerned, it will be remembered that even before the arrival of Jan van Riebeeck at the Cape in 1652, people in Europe firmly believed that gold could be found in most parts of Africa. This belief probably was the chief factor inspiring the voyages of exploration to these regions. We have come a long way since Jan van Riebeeck started looking for the empire of Monomotapa in 1660, and Sir John Barrow noted on his map in 1801 and 1802 the existence of “High mountains supposed to contain gold mines” in the vicinity of the Magaliesberg or the Witwatersrand.

In the course of the 100 years since the discovery of the first profitable South African goldfields, new discoveries and improved mining methods have increased the yield to such an extent that approximately 77 per cent of the free world’s annual gold production comes from our mines. In this process 80 million tons of ore are crushed annually so as to yield R780 million’s worth of gold per annum. Therefore the gold mining industry is and remains one of the cornerstones of our economic structure, as was said by the hon. the Minister of Finance when he was still Minister of Mines. I refer to Hansard, colum 6601 of 1962.

For this reason we note with appreciation that since 1910 amendments and adjustments have been effected to legislation approximately 20 times in respect of the compensation payable to people who contract lung and related diseases. This legislation is described as of the most modern in the world, and is based on the best which science can offer. Furthermore, I have read with appreciation in the 14th Annual Report (1969) of the Pneumoconiosis Research Unit, with reference to the international conference mainly sponsored by the Department of Mines and assisted by the asbestos mining industry, the South African Chamber of Mines and the Federated Miners’ Union, that the co-ordinator, Ian Webster, said that the pneumoconiosis research programme of South Africa was of the same standard as those of overseas organizations and that some projects were ahead of those of similar organizations. With regard to our mine hospitals, Dr. Marcus J. Stewart, Associate Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery at the University of Tennessee and orthopaedic consultant to the Surgeon-General of the U.S. Army, states—

We are grateful that the laws relating to pneumoconiosis compensation and industrial diseases are being revised in general at the present time.

As far as mining is concerned, I am proud to say that in the period from 1st March, 1967, to 29th February, 1972, no White person has lost his life as a result of a mining accident in the mines in the vicinity of Brakpan. Truly an excellent record.

While so much has been accomplished and so much is still being done to render assistance to our mines and to improve the state of health and the working conditions of our mine-workers, I want to address a further appeal to the Government at this stage, an appeal in connection with the uprooting and unsettlement of our people which arise both in the case of their leaving the mine on account of ill-health and of mines closing down. However, I shall deal with the case of ill-health first. It must be remembered that only the fittest person physically will get the necessary certificate to work underground. They have rightly been called Springbok material. Physically they are the cream of the crop. After that, they struggle for most of their lives in circumstances involving tremendous physical effort, enormous strain and long exhausting hours full of hardship and anxiety. Perhaps this contributes to the impression which our miners often give a person, actually erroneously, of possibly being suspicious of the good intentions of the State and the entrepreneurs. It is also true that our mineworkers who are forced by circumstances to leave the mines, have difficulty in adjusting to new spheres of employment, but they are merely looking for a place in the sun. Nevertheless, they have difficulty in being absorbed into the industrial sector. I plead for special attention to be given not only to the teaching of trades in which it will subsequently be possible for the ex-miner to remain productive above ground, but also to the psychological preparation for the changeover. I want to appeal to entrepreneurs in industry to employ our ex-miners. They are not work-shy; they just find the adjustment particularly difficult for understandable reasons.

As regards the mines which are closing down, I have indicated earlier on how many Whites are and have been employed on the mines in the vicinity of Brakpan. In coming years these people will have to be fitted in elsewhere. They are integrated members of our community and when the time comes they will have to leave their places of residence where they have put down their roots. In addition their lives are going to be affected by the following radical changes: Their children will have to adjust themselves to new schools and new environments; they themselves will have to become integrated in new environments, new societies and new communities. Where they have lived, every undertaking, every school, yes, every ramification of the community and of the community life will suffer as a result. Time does not permit me to spell out all the disadvantages—psychologically, socially and economically—for those who remain. However, I want to content myself with emphasizing how important it is that the Government should enjoy every support to assist and to subsidize the declining mines. If there is no other way, let us create new and more employment opportunities, and let us create them in the immediate vicinity of these mines where our people live and have put down their roots. Let us consider a systematic system of decentralization in this regard. Here on the East Rand in general, and in Brakpan in particular, the organizations of several mines with their office space, their residential areas and their recreational facilities, are available. It is a particularly suitable area for Railway extension or for Defence. There is so much space available.

In conclusion I wonder whether it is not possible to give encouragement to concerns which endeavour to manufacture building bricks from the tailings they use as raw material for this purpose.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasant duty to extend to the hon. member for Brakpan my sincere congratulations on his maiden speech. He addressed the House in a calm and dispassionate manner and made an excellent plea for his constituency. I am sure that we can expect a great deal from the hon. member in the future. I am sorry to have to say to him that according to the indications in Brakpan, and elsewhere, it seems to me as though his sojourn here may be of short duration, which will perhaps be a loss to this House.

As far as the hon. member for Malmesbury is concerned, I can only tell him with a shrug of the shoulders that it seems to me as though he has become too old to be influenced for the good. I want to remind him that this side of the House has never had a communist in its ranks. The National Party took Senator Petersen into its ranks. Senator Petersen stated before the commission of inquiry that he had said on a certain occasion that he was only living for the day when the Red Flag would fly above the City Hall of Durban. He was Senator of that side of the House. As far as communists and saboteurs are concerned, this side of the House furnished ample proof during the war years of how they dealt with people of that kind. I just want to remind hon. members that trains that were blown up at that time, conveyed Whites and not non-Whites. That was done by fellow South Africans. In conclusion I should like to refer the hon. member for Malmesbury to the article in today’s Argus under the heading “Swartz calls on Nats to prove their bona fides”. In that article the following is said—

They are fond of saying that they have the support of these people, but to me this does not seem to be the case. They see through the National Party’s hypocrisy.

Order! The hypocrisy of whom?

I withdraw the word “hypocrisy”. The hon. member for Pietersburg said, amongst other things, the following in his speech yesterday: “Every Budget arises from the consequences of the previous one, with the result that this Budget must be seen in conjunction with the previous one … Throughout last year’s Budget and this Budget there runs a golden thread …” The hon. member is quite correct. Last year’s Budget had a very distinct effect on the economy of South Africa. It forced this Government to resort to a massive devaluation in December, 1971. That was the consequence of the maladministration of our economy. What is shocking, was that the rand had to be devalued by an even greater margin than was the case with the dollar. The countries with sound economies, such as Japan and West Germany, were not obliged to devalue. In fact, they revalued vis-à-vis all the other monetary units. It was countries whose economies had been weakened by Government actions that were obliged to devalue their monetary units as against the other monetary units. What is tragic, is that South Africa is the very country which is equipped for maintaining rapid growth along with relative price stability.

†South Africa is richly endowed with most minerals and raw materials. We have abundant labour resources and we are not plagued with trade union problems as the United States and the United Kingdom are. Business leaders in South Africa are men of enterprise and initiative. We have the world’s greatest gold-mining industry which has traditionally played a decisive role in stabilizing our balance of payments. Relative to our national income, our export trade is less vital to our economy than that of many other developed countries. Yet in spite of all these favourable factors the Government was forced to devalue the rand. Surely this conclusively proves that the economic policies thus far pursued by this Government have harmed South Africa’s economy. The next eighteen months or few years are going to be crucial for our economy. What is of paramount importance is that devaluation has not changed our main problem in any respect. It avails us nothing to have a theoretical opportunity to increase production if the required labour is not made available, if inflation continues to raise our cost structure, if Government spending stifles the private sector and high taxation weakens incentive. Failure by the Government to appreciate these facts, as was again reflected in this year’s Budget, and to act on this knowledge, will only land us into deeper economic troubles, and in the end we would not have benefited from this devaluation. Before long, our economy could again be forced on the down grade and the Government once again to devalue the rand.

*Never before in the history of South Africa have the Whites as well as the non-Whites of this country laboured under such a heavy burden of both direct and indirect taxes. Members opposite should not compare South Africa’s taxes with those of other countries without also mentioning the benefits which the taxpayers receive from the State. A fair comparison will bring to light that the Whites of South Africa are bearing a tremendously high tax burden, and what did they get out of this Budget? Never before have the wage and salary earners found their money depreciating so rapidly as a result of inflation. Never before have the lower income groups, as well as the pensioners, had to suffer such tremendous financial hardships. To put it briefly and in plain terms : the average South African finds it impossible and tremendously expensive to fend for himself financially speaking. The twin Frankensteins to which this Government’s economic policy has given birth, i.e. rapidly increasing inflation and rapidly increasing taxation, are wreaking economic havoc in our country. All these things are happening in our rich, developed South Africa under this “vigorous” National Party Government. The hon. the Minister of Finance, even the hon. the Prime Minister, may try time and again to explain to the people outside why the Government cannot check the almost galloping inflation, but the voters are no longer interested in ideological folly. They are no longer interested in the incitement of white man against white man; they are no longer interested in “Black peril”. What they demand from the Government, is that a correct economic policy be implemented in this country to curb inflation, to alleviate the tax burden, to stimulate the growth rate adequately, to make opportunities for work available to everybody and to ensure peace and calm in South Africa, so that we may be in a strong position economically and in a military sense.

†The economy of a modern industrial state such as South Africa is a finely balanced mechanism in which the law of supply and demand plays a fundamental role. Inflation is accepted as a by-product of prosperity, but—and this is vital—unless inflation is contained within tolerable limits, it will destroy the very prosperity from whence it springs. Inflation is best contained when the demand for goods and services is in equilibrium with the supply of goods and services. Due to various factors such as wage and salary increases, increasing numbers of economically active persons, the demand for goods and services is rapidly increasing. To satisfy this growing demand, it is imperative that the supply of goods and services be proportionately increased. If this does not happen, then too much money chases too few goods, resulting in price increases; in other words, we have inflation. Of course, if the supply is not proportionately increased to satisfy the growing demand, demand could be curtailed by increasing taxation and imports could be stepped up. The danger is that these measures introduced to combat inflation may in the long run very well have serious side-effects. Increased taxes are simply amounts of money which the public sector spends instead of the private sector. We know that the State’s spending is often unproductive …

Why do you not table your speech?

… which means that money comes into circulation without a quid pro quo in production. That is the sort of situation which we have in South Africa today. On the other hand, if imports are stepped up without a proportionate increase in exports, we immediately experience a balance of payments difficulty, and consequently suffer internal liquidity problems. This is exactly the position that we have in South Africa. Due to the Government’s ideological approach to our economy, the growth of supply in South Africa has been inhibited by a spate of restraining legislation, especially in the sphere of labour, and hence supply in South Africa has, under this Government, been unable to keep pace with the escalating demand. In a desperate attempt to restore the equilibrium in the economy, the Government elected not to expand supply as was indicated, but to curtail demand by introducing progressively increased taxation. During the mid-’sixties the Government introduced various fiscal and monetary measures. They were termed temporary measures, but are still being applied to combat inflation. At the same time greater imports were encouraged, while exports lagged behind. Each Budget contains new fiscal and monetary restraints, and this Budget once again has been no exception. Why does the Government not have the courage to say, “We have been wrong all this time; we have created an artificial labour bottle-neck in South Africa; henceforth we shall activate supply to keep pace with escalating demand by repealing the totally unnecessary and inhibiting legislation restricting the full use of labour”? Why, in heaven’s name, Mr. Speaker, did this Government think it wise to hitch South Africa’s prosperity to a mythical ratio of one White to two or two and a half non-Whites industrial employees in the so-called metropolitan areas? My hon. leader has given the Government the key to an improved economic climate, but the Government—this “kragdadige” Government—has refused to turn the key because it is fearful of introducing an increasing number of non-White skilled and semi-skilled labourers into our economy. My hon. leader laid down the guide-lines: Crash training programmes for non-Whites; safeguards for White workers; consultation with White trade unions and their co-operation in introducing non-Whites into our economy on the same basis as the hon. the Minister of Transport has done in the Railways. Why can the Government apply United Party labour policy with rousing success in one department and not do so in the rest of our economy? If this labour bottle-neck were removed, the South African entrepreneur would regain confidence; the wheels of industry would start humming again; commerce and all ancillary economic enterprises would benefit; overseas investors would channel increasing funds to the Republic; revenue would flow more freely to the State coffers; as more and more persons became economically active, the tax burden would be spread and the individual’s contribution would be lowered. In Opinion Survey No. 73 of the Bureau of Economic Research of the University of Stellenbosch it is stated—

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to read his speech.

Sir, I am quoting from the Survey. It goes on to say—

Mr. Speaker, over-touchy National Party spokesmen are quick to say that we are unpatriotic if we criticize the Nat. Party’s maladministration of our economy, but let me spell out in the clearest possible terms what I consider an unpatriotic act of the gravest and greatest magnitude, and that is the prolongation of the maladministration of our economy which may lead to economic and political disaster in this country, if it continues. Sir, is history going to repeat itself? Is a Nat. Government in the early 1970s going to lead South Africa to the brink of financial disaster as a Nat. Government led South Africa to disaster in the early 1930s? Just as an S.A.P. Party had to come and guide South Africa back to sanity and financial security in the 1930s, it is becoming apparent that the United Party of the 1970s will have to lead South Africa back from the brink of disaster to which this Government has led the country.

*I am convinced that the National Party’s inflexible ideological approach makes it impossible for that party to implement the only sound economic policy in South Africa. It is only a United Party Government that can provide everybody in South Africa with prosperity, ensuring peace and calm and the reinforcement of our Western civilization and making it possible for justice to be done to everybody. It is fortunate that these truths are beginning to find acceptance with a progressively wider circle of the voting public. The voters are beginning to show the classic signs auguring the fall of a Government that has had its day, and it is clear that the next genera] election must come soon, so that they may get done with that party government which so unnecessarily tortured them financially for so many years.

Before this debate we heard a lot about the smashing attack by the United Party on the Government in this debate and the Sunday Times especially boosted them up considerably.

I read here that the Minister of Finance, Dr. Diederichs, is amply marked by his opposition counterpart, Mr. Sonny Emdin, M.P, for Parktown. Furthermore I want to quote from the Sunday Times where it says : “After him the United Party has a string of at least eight top-line financial and economic spokesmen, while Mrs. Helen Suzman, Progressive Party M.P. for Houghton, is also ranked as a formidable speaker on economic matters.”

*I really think it is an injustice the Sunday Times is doing the hon. member for Parktown by comparing him to our Minister of Finance, for surely it is unfair to try to compare two things which are not in the same class. If we contrast these two people, we see that South Africa is in the fortunate position that she has a Minister of Finance who is internationally recognized and who compels international regard and respect. I want to tell you that the name “Diederichs” is a well-known name in international financial circles. I want to say further than when we think of the part he played in the gold agreement, we cannot but have respect for such a Minister of Finance. What is more, we saw in this House that the Minister of Finance is equally proficient in both Afrikaans and English. I can also tell you that our Minister of Finance, when he finds himself in Germany, is capable of negotiating with the Germans in their own language.

And now he can learn Afrikaans as well.

And now the United Party gives itself out to be the party here which is not fomenting racial hatred in this country. What our policy of national unity amounts to is that we must have mutual respect for one another. We must display mutual respect for those things which matter to us. In the first place, if I may quote the hon. the Prime Minister, he said “We extended the hand of friendship to the English-speaking people in South Africa”. Now I find it very strange that the chief spokesman on finance on the opposite side of the House has never, as far as I know, done us the kindness in this House of addressing us in Afrikaans for a change.

He cannot.

I want to go further. The United Party concentrated its main attack today on the economic front. It tells the people how badly things are going with them.

And the people tell it.

It tells them how we are “mismanaging the economy”. But I want to tell you, Sir, that what I find strangest of all is that although their main attack in the public Press today is the economy, they do not send their shadow Minister of Finance to Oudtshoorn to tell the people of Oudtshoorn how badly things are going with the economy of South Africa. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition, and I challenge the hon. member for Parktown, that he and I should to Oudtshoorn, and I shall speak English and he Afrikaans. Sir, it is a question of horses for courses. The United Party cannot afford to have the Nationalist Afrikaner in Oudtshoorn see what it really looks like, for they will not vote for it. They cannot afford to send the hon. member for Musgrave to Oudtshoorn. They cannot send the hon. member for South Coast to Oudtshoorn and there are many others of their ilk sitting on that side of the House. Why do they not send the chief spokesman on Finance to Oudtshoorn so that Oudtshoorn can hear what the alternative policy of the United Party is in regard to the economy? Why does the shadow Minister of Finance not state it there?

What about Baxter?

Perhaps they could send the hon. member for South Coast there. But the point I want to make is this : I should like to hear, if the United Party should come into power, whether the hon. member for Parktown is going to become Minister of Finance, for he is the shadow Minister. I should like to know what we can expect if the United Party should come into power. Are they going to display sufficient respect to the Afrikaner to ensure that all the members of the Cabinet are bilingual?

Be ashamed!

The hon. member is saying “Be ashamed”. But if a person who has been living in this country all his life, and who is a shadow Minister of Finance, does not have sufficient respect for the Afrikaans-speaking people to learn their language, I say it is a public, political disgrace in South Africa.

Hear, hear!

He is displaying contempt for the Afrikaner by not being able to speak my language here in this House, and you find one after another of them sitting there. They cannot speak Afrikaans because they hold the Afrikaner in contempt. Any person who ventures into the realm of public life ought at least to display the good manners and the respect for the other language group of being able to speak its language as well. I want to repeat my question: Why does the hon. member for Parktown not go to Oudtshoorn? Why does he not hold an Afrikaans speech for the Afrikaner Nationalists of Oudtshoorn? Or else they can send the hon. member for Musgrave there. I think he ought to put up a reasonably good show in Oudtshoorn. Or they could send their Chief Whip.

They will not be able to hear him.

I maintain that national unity rests on the mutual respect of what is one’s own. The hon. member for Parktown says now that no one is listening, but this is a very great embarrassment to him. A United Party Government will, as in the past, appoint only unilingual people to the Cabinet again, as they did in the past.

What about the Minister of Sport?

The hon. the Minister of Sport can express himself very well in the other language. He made a speech in my constituency where he spoke both languages off the cuff. Therefore you can mention the name of the Minister of Sport if you like. We are not ashamed of him; he has respect for us Afrikaners. That is why he is also with us today. But there someone else is sitting, the hon. member for South Coast. He occupied an important public position in this country. He was Administrator of Natal, and he cannot speak Afrikaans. When the United Party comes into power again it will be an embarrassment for their unilingual Cabinet members to speak Afrikaans, and that is why they will avoid speaking Afrikaans, and in that way they will once again plough Afrikaans under, as they ploughed it under in the past when they were in power.

Sir, I should have liked to have commented on the speech made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, but I am not certain whether it is his speech he delivered here, or whether it was something he was reading off here.

It was his father-in-law’s.

I have heard the hon. member being called a “testamentary U.P. man”. I wondered what this meant, and I asked the hon. members on this side what it meant, and they told me : “He was a Nationalist until he married a U.P. wife and acquired a U.P. father-in-law, and now he is a testamentary U.P. man”. I want to raise another point. Here in the election manifesto it is stated that when those hon. members come into power, they will admit six Coloured representatives to this Parliament. I should just like to know whether those Coloureds who will be elected to this Parliament will be full-fledged members of the House of Assembly.

Full marks!

I beg your pardon?

[Inaudible.]

Let them answer.

I should like to know whether the hon. members will admit them as full members of the House of Assembly, or will they only have incomplete rights?

You proposed this for South-West Africa and we put a stop to it. Do not attribute your sins to us.

I now want to know from the hon. member for Yeoville whether the Coloureds who will come to this Parliament will have the same privileges as the other members of the House of Assembly?

I gave you a reply.

I should like to get a reply from the hon. member. What do those hon. members say? [Interjections.] Can any hon. member on that side tell me whether the Coloureds who will be in this Parliament, will have the same rights as the other members?

Yes.

The hon. member for Turffontein says “yes”. What does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout say about that?

Most certainly “yes”.

The hon. member says “most certainly, yes”. Now I want to prove to hon. members here that that party is a blatantly integrationistic party which wants to sell out the White man in this country. [Interjections.] I shall still come to that point. The hon. members may laugh if they wish.

When last were you in Tara?

If a Coloured person becomes a member of the House of Assembly …

Mr. Speaker …

Order!

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member for Florida entitled to ask the hon. member now speaking, across the floor of the House, when last he was in Tara, which is a mental hospital?

Order! Did the hon. member for Florida say that?

I did say it, Mr. Speaker.

Then the hon. member must withdraw it immediately.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

I can just tell the hon. member that I was in Tara just before the election when I was there, looking for the hon. member, who was a patient. We have now had the admission from the United Party that those Coloured representatives are going to receive the full rights in this Parliament which other members of the House of Assembly also have. That means, in other words, that the United Party cannot refuse those people the right to go and live in Acacia Park, because they will be full-fledged members of the House of Assembly. They cannot refuse them this privilege, if they did they would be dishonest.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Yes, certainly; only it must be an intelligent question.

I should like to know from the hon. member where in Pretoria the diplomats from Malawi are living?

I am not talking about diplomats now. After all, there is unanimity in regard to the question of diplomats. We are talking now about members of the House of Assembly. Does the hon. member follow what I am saying, or must I explain this as well? Look, a Coloured M.P. is not a diplomat; he is a member of this House of Assembly. Does the hon. member follow me? He does not have diplomatic immunity. I know it is difficult for the hon. member to understand, but we can try again in a moment to explain it to him. This means, in other words, that the United Party cannot refuse the Coloured member of Parliament residence in Acacia Park. Am I correct or not? After all, you cannot be a second class M.P.

Ask Japie.

What does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout say? We know him to be a politically honest man.

I have replied.

I just want to know whether they will admit them there?

I just want to say to the hon. member that if he puts a question to me I shall certainly reply to him, but I shall not shout the reply across the floor of the House.

The hon. member can tell me at a subsequent stage in this debate.

Not by shouting across the floor.

The United Party says that they will be full-fledged members of the House of Assembly. I now come to the next point. I cannot see how one could discriminate against any of the members of this House of Assembly, who are supposed to be on an equal footing. After all, those hon. members do not believe in discrimination. How will houses be allocated then? Hon. members know that the houses there are allocated on the basis of the number of children a member has. Now I just want to know whether the hon. members of the United Party are going to refuse those children admission to the Acacia Park Primary School? After all, they are children of a member of the House of Assembly. Can the hon. member for Yeoville tell me that? The hon. member for Yeoville uses eloquent language; let him tell us. The difficulty with the United Party is that they advocate a policy and discuss the theory of it here. They are up in the air. However, when we come to the hard reality of the implementation of that policy in practice, they cannot reply to us. Then they are afraid to reply, for, after all, there is an election taking place in Oudtshoorn.

And that is why you are making this speech.

The other day we had the experience of the United Party saying that it would admit a Coloured to the House of Assembly, and that same day we experienced them omitting to tell us whether they would allow that Coloured member of the House of Assembly to live in Acacia Park and whether they would allow his children to attend the school there.

We shall reply to that.

Are Coloured persons and White persons fighting together now on the borders of South Africa?

But of course. Who here does not know that? We have been fighting together since before the Boer War, with the Swazis for example. Fighting together still does not mean integration however; it does not mean integration at home or at school. That is another matter.

Do they eat together?

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked me whether they were fighting together, and to that I replied “Yes”, but now I am asking him whether his Party will allow them to go to school together. He must reply to that now. [Interjections.] The hon. member must tell me whether he will allow them to attend school together. I ask again: Will the hon. member allow the Coloured persons to attend school together with the Whites in Acacia Park?

Every group is free to have its own schools.

Mixed schools as well?

We shall reply to that.

No, the hon. member for Yeoville must not help the hon. member now. I have replied to the question the hon. member for Bezuidenhout put to me, and I am now asking the hon. member to give me an honest reply now: Would you allow the children of Coloured members of Parliament to attend a school in Acacia Park? Reply to me on that ! I make the allegation that the United Party are political cowards and they are politically dishonest because they do not want to reply to this question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I shall withdraw “politically dishonest”. I want to say that they are a lot of political cowards because they are not telling the people where we stand with them. They are a lot of political cowards !

Order! I asked the hon. member to withdraw the word “cowards”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. The lot of them are lacking in political courage.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I shall allow that detribalized Afrikaner to put a question to me.

Where are the children of Malawian diplomats attending school?

The hon. member is wasting the time of the House now; surely he knows where they are attending school. Surely it was mentioned in the newspapers?

Who is lacking in courage now?

They were not attending a State school. The hon. member knows very well where they are attending school, and I reply by saying that they are not attending a State school. [Interjections.]

Order!

I know the hon. member for King William’s Town to be an honest man. Will he tell me where the children of the Coloured members of Parliament who are elected under his régime are going to attend school?

They will not attend school in Acacia Park. [Interjections.]

But where are they going to live?

They will live in their own areas. [Interjections.]

Now we are beginning to get to the heart of the matter. Where are they going to eat? The hon. member for King William’s Town is after all a courageous man; can he reply to me?

They will eat in the dining room.

Together with us?

Yes.

And may they also invite guests on Wednesday evenings as we do?

Yes.

Thank you very much. That is all I wanted to know. But you are not going to live together, are you?

Each one in his own home.

In their own area? I know that the hon. member for Florida would probably like living with them in one house, but I do not take it amiss of him. I ask whether they are going to live in Acacia Park. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon.

member for Florida !

Did the hon. member for Florida say where he would prefer to live, please? Did he not say that he would prefer living with the Coloureds than with me? [Interjections.]

Yes, any day.

The hon. member for Florida has said here that he would prefer living in a house with Coloureds than with me.

But surely he did not say that.

He did!

Yes, I am very glad about that admission. I want to promise him that I will use this admission of his on every platform on which I appear. I shall reveal what the true sentiments of the United Party are.

I have never in my life heard a speech such as the one we have had from that hon. member this afternoon. [Interjections.] I have never heard such hatred expressed in this House since 1938.

Why are you speaking Afrikaans this afternoon?

This hon. member has the nerve to come before this House this afternoon in this manner in this year, 1972, after the appeals for national unity made by his leader, the hon. the Prime Minister, and after the lip service—I hope the hon. the Minister of Defence will not leave us; I see he has already left—after the lip service which has been paid by him and other members on that side of the House, particularly Cabinet members. I do not know whether this back-bencher …

You are also a back-bencher.

… has deliberately been put up to this absurd performance by the Cabinet … [Interjections.] I have never heard such vitriol, such vicious nastiness in my life as that which I have heard this afternoon! He does not know what he is doing … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, that this hon. member can make the allegations he has made about this side of the House, just shows that he did not mean a word of what he said, unless he did not understand …

All of it is true.

That hon. member says, “All of it is true”. I want to know since when the test of national unity has been the ability to speak the other of the two official languages.

To have respect for the other language.

I want to know how much that hon. member and others of his colleagues understand of what I say in this House. [Interjections.] How often is it that I am misquoted by hon. members on that side of the House? I have been kind enough in my thoughts to say : “Shame, they have not understood”. It sounds as if this has been deliberate.

Do you want to know what our difficulty is? [Interjections.]

Order! I should like to hear what the hon. member is saying.

I want to say to those members of the Cabinet who are present here that I hope they will go back to the Prime Minister, who is unfortunately not here—actually I am glad he was not here to hear the speech made by the hon. member for Lydenburg—and that they will say to the hon. the Prime Minister:“Stop talking about national unity, and get on and do something about it”. If one wants an example of national unity, one need only look at this side of the House.

On a point of order, Sir, may I ask the hon. member a question?

Then, of all the vicious, nasty and despicable things I have heard a member of this House say … [Interjections.] … he referred to my friend for Durban Central as a “detribalized Afrikaner”! Of all the despicable things to say!

Order!

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, the hon. member can make his own speech, if he is given a chance to do so by his whips. It is no good trying to distract me from what I was saying. As I have already stated, it is the most despicable thing I have heard in this House by one Afrikaner to another.

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

I am sorry, I cannot hear …

May I address you on this point, Sir? I am not aware ever previously having heard the word “despicable” described as unparliamentary.

I am ruling that it is unparliamentary and the hon. member must withdraw it.

It merely means “reprehensible”.

It means much more than reprehensible. The hon. member must withdraw the word “despicable”.

I withdraw the word “despicable” and substitute the word “reprehensible”. I have never heard anything so reprehensible in my life before. It is because of this sort of statement that you have the situation today where English-speaking children … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member allowed to threaten me in this House? [Interjections.]

It appears that he is not only a racialist, but a “papbroek” as well. He does not like it when somebody comes back at him. What did the hon. member say? He referred to my hon. friend from Durban Central as a “detribalized Afrikaner”. It is because of this very attitude that that side of the House cannot talk about national unity. One only has to look at this side of the House to see the admixture we have of the two main language groups in this country, to see that this is not only national unity but furthermore a living example of national unity. What was the position in the 1970 general election? How many English-speaking candidates did the National Party have then apart from that scion of the English language, the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation? You do not even need the fingers of two hands to count them on. How many English-speaking members have they got on that side today? They have one, and he cannot speak Afrikaans. That is the sum total on their side. One only has to look on our side where 60 per cent of our members are Afrikaans-speaking. Is this not the living symbol of national unity in this country? I want to go further and say to the hon. member for Lydenburg that after the speech he made here this afternoon, I would rather live next to certain Coloured people that I know than next to him. I want my children to grow up in a spirit of amity and of loving one’s neighbour. One cannot love a neighbour like that. I am certain that my children will never love his children. You cannot love a bloke like him.

He asked whether we will accept Coloureds to represent Coloureds in this House and whether we will eat with them in the dining room. That is the individual choice of every member of this House. I choose today with whom I will have dinner in this House but I know of one member with whom I will not have dinner. This is the most vicious and nasty speech I have heard here. This hatred which he is trying to sow, and this campaign of hate which was started by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Labour earlier, is nothing but a campaign between White and White. It is bad enough when it is between White and non-White, but here you have them spreading it between White and White. I think my hon. friend for Yeoville was right when he said that we are not back to 1948, but back to 1938.

What does Boet van den Heever say?

Boet van den Heever can make his own choice, the same as anybody else can make his own choice with whom he will live and with whom he will eat. That hon. member there is certainly one whom I will not choose to live next to or to have dinner with.

But we are dealing here with a Budget and it was my intention to talk about the effects of it on the man in the street, and of what is happening to the man in the street today.

The hon. member for Pietersburg—I am glad to see he is here—spoke yesterday and took one of my colleagues to task for saying that we are living in a state of uncontrolled cost of living at the moment. I want to say that this is quite right. You only have to ask the housewives of South Africa. Are they happy with the cost of living? Are the wives of members on the other side happy with the cost of living? Are they satisfied that they are not paying more than they should be paying if the country had been run correctly and if the economy of the country had been so handled that they could live cheaper? Why has the cost of living increased? We have the word of the hon. the Minister of Finance himself, who last year on the 23rd November said—

The hon. member for Pietersburg tried to say yesterday it was only 3 per cent, but the hon. Minister for Finance says it is rising by 6 per cent, which is high by our standards, and certainly not satisfactory. This is the most important part, that the Minister of Finance makes the following admission—

Government policy and Government action —this is what is causing the rise in the cost of living. Every housewife who walked into a supermarket in the last few months has found she has had to pay more for every commodity.

Such as?

The hon. member asks me, “Such as?” I want to give a specific example. We have heard quite a lot about the projected reintroduction of an ex-Minister Mr. Haak, to the Cabinet, to come and take over the portfolio of Economic Affairs. We have at the moment the Minister of Economic Affairs who is being hailed as one who is doing a good job of work. He is particularly being praised for what he has done in the way of price control. The last commodity on which he placed price control, was yellow margarine. He controlled the retail price at 18 cents and 20 cents per 250 gr. pack, depending on the type of pack. Unfortunately he is not here, but I would like to put a question to anybody on that side with some economic brain, somebody who might be able to answer it.

You shall have to wait till Haak comes back.

Did the Minister of Economic Affairs investigate the price structure of that yellow margarine first before he placed that price control on it? I believe that that price has been fixed too high. I believe that that industry is being protected by this very price control, that the Minister of Economic Affairs is achieving the exact opposite of what he hoped to achieve. He is maintaining the price at a high level, while it should come down. The price of yellow margarine should never be as high as this. There is another aspect to the whole margarine story which this Minister of Economic Affairs seems to have missed. What about the cheap products which were available to the housewife before the introduction of yellow margarine? What happened to the white margarine the housewife was buying at between eight cents and ten cents per 250 gr. pack? That is gone. What is this Government doing to see that the housewife should still be able to get that pack at between eight and ten cents? Sir, do you know what has happened since the introduction of this price control? The one brand of white margarine which was being sold at ten cents, is today being sold at 12 to 13 cents. The one that was being sold at 8 cents has disappeared altogether. The white margarine which was being sold at 13 cents and 14 cents is today being sold at 16 cents and 17 cents. This is the effect of the price control which the Government has introduced. I do not believe that there should be any price control on yellow margarine at all; I believe that it should be left to find its own price level. I do not believe that it needs any protection. The Minister of Agriculture is not here unfortunately, but I wonder how much the nut farmers and the oilseed farmers are being exploited by the margarine manufacturers. Sir, that is one answer to hon. members opposite who asked me what commodities have gone up in price.

The hon. the Minister of Finance has introduced a Budget which I would like to describe as a “skelm” Budget because of the way in which he had to duck and dive to balance it, and the way in which he has made concessions with the one hand and taken them back with the other hand.

Order! I must say that the word “skelm” does not appeal to me.

Mr. Speaker, I am in your hands. I could not think of an equivalent English word.

What does the hon. member mean by a “skelm” Budget? A dishonest Budget?

Sir, it is a little bit more than “slim”. The hon. the Minister of Finance, when he announced the removal of the loan levy on income tax, said that the worker is now going to find that he will have a slightly larger take-home pay packet. I do not know to whom the hon. the Minister of Finance was referring. Was he referring to the higher income group, or to the man in the street? Because I have had a look at some tax tables which were issued with the authority of his department and I find that a married man with no children earning R3 000 —this is not a wealthy person at all; it is the average married man—is now going to take home R232-50, whereas last month he would have taken home R232-25 after the deduction of tax. He is going to take home a whole 25 cents more. I suppose the hon. the Minister of Finance was quite right in saying that the worker was going to have a bigger take-home pay packet, but really, Sir, does this signify anything, especially when that same man realizes that taking home this extra 25 cents a month is going to cost him, over the next seven years, R21 per year which he is not going to get back? He is taking home an extra 25 cents a month, but he is losing R21 per year which he would have got back before, plus 5 per cent interest until the loan levy is repaid. A married man with three children earning R4 500 a year, or R375 a month, will take home 22 cents a month more than he took home before the Budget, and for that extra 22 cents a month he is going to lose R22, which is not going to be paid back to him in the form of a loan levy refund. This is why I referred to this Budget in the way I did, because he is making concessions with one hand and taking them back with the other hand. I really do not know whether the man in the street is better off or is not better off as a result of this Budget.

The hon. the Minister has announced certain concessions in the sales tax. At last we can be a clean society in South Africa, because we are not going to pay any tax on soaps and soap powers, but I wonder why the hon. the Minister has not gone further. As you know, there are many societies in this country which deal with less fortunate people than ourselves, with people who are handicapped in one way or another. I refer particularly to societies for the blind which assist these unfortunate people to produce something; to be useful in some way. I refer particularly to blind societies which are producing basket work and things of that kind. This sales tax is being applied to the products of those organizations. I wonder whether the Minister of Finance cannot take a look at this and at least give them the benefit of the concessions which he has granted. He has indicated that where they are paying the sales tax on commodities which they are using they will be exempt from the sales tax. What about the sales tax on the goods which they are producing and which are being sold to the public for the benefit of these people.

Sir, the Budget debate is going on, and I am sorry that the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Labour are not here because they are the people who have started this campaign of hate between the different language groups in South Africa. I was sorry to have to speak as I did when I started my speech this afternoon, to the hon. member for Lydenburg. I am afraid it has upset me, and I sincerely hope this will be the end of that sort of talk in this House, because it is not doing this House or South Africa justice at all. I believe that we have to work together; that only with national unity are we going to get anywhere in this country, and by “national unity” I do not mean only unity between the English-speaking and the Afrikaansspeaking people of this country; I am not only referring to unity between the White people in this country. I am referring to the sort of unity that is being encouraged today by the hon. the Minister of Defence and the hon. the Minister of Police, both of whom unfortunately are not here at the moment, in the fight that is going on on our borders today. I believe that this is a true display of unity in this country, because there are English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans up there; there are non-White South Africans up there, all fighting together. They are fighting because of their love for one country, their love for South Africa. I sincerely hope that the speech of the hon. member for Lydenburg is the last that we are going to hear of this sort of talk.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether you could follow what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District wanted to communicate to the House. What was the theme of his speech? What was the message he wanted to convey to the electorate in Pietermaritzburg or in Natal, or to the electorate of the country? Sir, we know that hon. member; in his case it is a question of more sound than sense. It is a case of the mountain that conceived and brought forth a mouse. In fact, on the part of the Opposition, that has so far been the characteristic of the entire debate. They made a great fuss and kicked up a lot of dust here, but what have they actually achieved? The hon. member attacked us for allegedly having failed in connection with the promotion of national unity. Why does he not tell us of the United Party’s ideal of greater national unity in this multinational country of ours that must have one Parliament for all the various national groups that inherently differ from each other but will owe loyalty only to one South Africa? Why does the hon. member not tell us how he wants to bring about that type of unity in South Africa? Sir, that is what we get from the Opposition when we are dealing with the most delicate relationship questions. When it comes to the important questions about which we must exchange ideas in a debate such as this, then they fail; then we get the kind of dust the hon. member was kicking up here.

The hon. member eventually came back to the Budget and therefore I also want to express a few ideas about the Budget here.

As far as the Budget is concerned, the remarks he made, the so-called plea he delivered for certain consumer groups and for the man in the street will make no impression on them. I can assure him of that. Why not? Because the electorate of South Africa has, in the space of almost a quarter of a century, become sufficiently familiar with the manner in which a responsible Government has looked after their welfare and their prosperity and salvation, the prosperity of the poor as well as the rich. Therefore they will not want to entrust their interests to a Government such as that. The tension that always precedes a Budget has passed, and there is no trace of a destructive storm as predicted by the United Party and as expected and hoped for by them. All the enemies of the Government, themselves included, were bereft of words; they were at a loss for words with which to predict how this Budget speech would actually prove itself to be the swan song of the National Party. It was to have been the end of the National Party and of the country’s economy, and it must therefore have been a tremendous disappointment to them. It must have been a tremendous disappointment to all the prophets of doom that there was no ominous storm after the calm, but a calm silence after the storm kicked up by them, and that it bore the stamp of a mild Budget, of a soft rain, refreshing and full of promise for the economy of South Africa. In a masterly fashion that inflated balloon was pricked by the hon. the Minister of Finance, and instead of mordant criticizm on his Budget speech there was an overwhelmingly favourable reaction, and the poor attack, particularly that of yesterday, left the impression of the Opposition’s helplessness when it comes to attacking that Budget. It was the attack of a toothless old lion on a wild buck. The sting was missing. There was a faint kind of buzzing, the buzz of a bee that wants to attack without a sting. You know, a bee that really attacks with the object of stinging makes a hissing sound and one ducks out of its way, but that noise made here yesterday by the Opposition was really that of a small bee without a sting. This Budget fills one with wonder for the way in which the hon. the Minister carried out this difficult task. A long list of the names of prominent economists, financiers, businessmen, political columnists and the editors of magazines have already been mentioned by hon. members on this side of the House, a list of people who unequivocally aired their views over the radio, in the daily Press and in financial journals, and all were agreed that the hon. the Minister acquitted himself well of a difficult task as few Ministers of Finance have ever before been able to do in such circumstances. The only element on which this made no impression was the Opposition, and this is understandable because a mild and favourable Budget would not have suited their purpose. The increase of inflation and of interest rates, the extension of sales duty, increased personal and indirect taxation, new price increases and the decrease of exports as against additional restrictions on imports, with no consideration for the needs of the low-paid groups and the pensioners, would have created a climate in which the Opposition could have fought Oudtshoorn and in which they could have thrived in the few years up to 1975. It is tragic to have such an Opposition in the benches opposite. They are negative in their very essence. It is characteristic of them that their eyes do not open to the fatal results their party’s negativism has on themselves and South Africa, because a Government ought to have a strong and dynamic Opposition to stimulate it. We do not get that from the other side. They are negative in their conduct. They shy away from questions; they shrink from actualities and they conduct themselves irresponsibly in every speech outside and inside the House. Negativism embodies the germ of fragmentation, degeneration and death. That much we know; we learnt that when we were still at university. Negativism influences the spirit and the thoughts of man and creates an attitude of helplessness, of surrender, and leads to total powerlessness when it comes to tackling a difficult task or a ticklish problem calmly, purposefully and positively. Political negativism is the overriding characteristic of the United Party. That is why they engender no confidence, and that is why in future they will not engender any confidence either. For that reason they have already been sitting in the desert for 25 years. It is also for that reason that they want to try to rub in the bit of encouragement they received after the Brakpan issue. It is, however, small relief in the desert. Someone who lives in the desert or has lost his way there, will tell us that when a small cloud appears and a few droplets fall it is really refreshing as far as he is concerned. It is in reality a temporary, passing phenomenon and we can assure them that in 1975 there will be even fewer members sitting opposite, on the Opposition side. When the United Party is confronted with policy principles, with cultural and spiritual values, with ticklish questions of colour and relationships, with security measures of a delicate nature that sometimes have to be drastically implemented, these negativistic characteristics come perfectly clearly to the fore. Then they become soft, defenceless and powerless. There is only one member amongst them, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who sometimes depicts them accurately and correctly. He notices their weaknesses and displays much greater political understanding than the existing United Party leadership corps as a whole. Possibly this is attributable to the fact that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout spent quite a few years in the National Party school-benches.

In particular I want to quote two statements of his to prove that he has a correct view of the United Party and that he put them in their place. I want to give him credit for a pure and realistic vision. It seldom happens that I agree with their policy-makers, or rather, it has never happened yet. In this connection, in connection with what he said in that notorious speech of his before the United Party’s Transvaal congress, I want to mention two truths that will give an even better characterization of the United Party. In connection with the colour relationship and the representation of non-Whites in Parliament, in comparison with the National Party’s policy, he said the following before the congress—

It is a great truth and a correct view advanced by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout—

I want to repeat what I have just said. I have never joined the political company of the United Party’s policy-makers, but I can find no fault with these statements of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Upon a closer analysis of this statement by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, an interesting question arises. He says: “Anybody who believed … is living in a fool’s paradise.” Who is that “anybody” he is speaking about? If we now subject this sentence to exegetic analysis, the “anybody” embraces those people sitting there on the opposite side. And they, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says, are living in a “fool’s paradise”. In other words, that is what a front bencher of the United Party says in respect of this representation of non-Whites by Whites in this House. “Anyone who believes … is living in a fool’s paradise,” he says, and who is that “anybody”? It is the Opposition in its totality. It is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Sir de Villiers Graaff, if we may mention him by name. It is the Leader of Natal, the man who said: “March against the Republic.” They are all living in a “fool’s paradise” as far as that is concerned. We read the considered opinion of someone who is an authority in the inner circles of the United Party, a person who is a member of their caucus, and according to him they are people living in a fool’s paradise.

I am sorry the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is not present, because I wanted to ask him whether he is not unhappy in such company. Can he be happy and identify himself with those people in that fool’s paradise? Does he not feel inclined to break away again, as in the past, and to establish a new party with the help of the Sunday Times and other periodicals? He already has quite a few friends. I see that the Economist, an influential London newspaper, writes in the same vein about the U.P. They also state that those people are living in a fool’s paradise and that they do not have the ability to advocate an alternative policy to that of the National Party in such a way that in practice it is acceptable to the public. The Economist states that they must not be jubilant about this small setback to the National Party on the Rand. They say that from time to time over the years, since 1948, the English-speaking and the Afrikkaans-speaking people have expressed their opposition to that policy, and the United Party cannot understand this. They remain unable to state their policy in such a way that it becomes acceptable. That is why it hides that weakness which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout mentioned, i.e. the people Who can believe that the non-Whites will be satisfied to be represented by Whites are living in a fool’s paradise. Sir, the question is : Why does the hon. member paint such a picture of his party? If one analyses his statement further one comes upon these words of his : “One of the first things that they will learn is that the time is past when a White man can say to a non-White man I am prepared to work with you, but you must talk to me through a White man’.” He says that time is past, because that would mean that the non-Whites must only receive the political crumbs from the political table, this Parliament, and they will not be satisfied with that. He states : “Anybody who continues to believe that the Black and Brown people will be satisfied with a few crumbs from the White man’s table …” What are those “crumbs”? They are made up of that initial representation by six Whites. Those are the crumbs, and that is what his colleagues cannot understand. They do not realize that they will not be able to satisfy the Zulu, the Xhosa, the Sotho and all the various population groups with that policy and that they will not be able to take those people back to where they were when they had this representation. That is why Mr. Basson, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, says that the crumbs that fall from the “White mans’ table,” Parliament, are unacceptable to the non-Whites in South Africa. This is also impracticable as far as we are concerned. And even if it were to be for an interim period, as he puts it, when the Whites have to be represented by a Black man in the future, this will still only be crumbs they are receiving, because the Bantu will always be numerically superior to the Whites. There will be millions of them. We shall be in the minority and shall never be able to give the non-Whites proportionate non-White representation in this House. They will consequently always still be getting the crumbs.

Mr. Speaker, if we look further at the statement of the hon. member, and if we analyse the United Party’s policy, it is very clear to us that in contrast the National Party’s policy is a strong and positive one. After years of reflection and study this policy was formulated, and the National Party is in the process of implementing it. The National Party wants to regard every population group as a national unit with a national consciousness of its own and as an entity. This party wants to lead them to full and equal status in accordance with their abilities. By the application of White leadership—which is actually supremacy (baasskap)—the United Party wants to feed those people with crumbs during an interim period. I want to ask them what they are going to do at a later stage. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has already said that it will depend on the pressure applied. Provisionally the Bantu will just be represented by Whites. Subsequently the non-Whites will be represented by non-Whites. What follows upon that, according to him, will depend on the amount of pressure applied to them.

I am reminded that in a debate here one of the hon. members said that they would exercize White leadership ad infinitum, even though they have to do so with force. They will always feed the Bantu crumbs. In other words, the Bantu will always be kept in a subordinate position. He also said they would apply White leadership, which is a form of supremacy. What does Mr. Japie Basson, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, say about that? He sticks to the standpoint he expressed at the United Party Congress in the Transvaal. I quote from the Sunday Times of 9th April, 1972, in which a beautifully gilded article appeared. According to that article Mr. Basson stated:

And that White supremacy is White leadership. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout stated that the supporters of that leadership and supremacy, whoever they may be, are living in a fool’s paradise.

But there are also other aspects of the United Party’s actions whereby they fail to make an impression and with which they still discredit South Africa’s image. It is the way in which they sometimes present as suspect the custodians of the security of our country. If the case were not pending, I could have been able to refer to one outstanding example with reference to a report in the Sunday Times of 31st October, 1971. Without going into the essentials of the Timol incident, because then I would be out of order, I just want to refer to the front-page report of the Sunday Times, in which the frontbenchers of the Opposition were guilty of sowing suspicion. The heading of the report reads: “Public Suspect Torture, says Mike Mitchell”. A large photograph of him accompanied it. The sub-title of the report stated: “Vorster ‘losing control of security operations’.” In the report the following is stated, inter alia—

So they continue. The Leader of the Opposition is quoted as follows—

Their twin brother, the Leader of the Progressive Party, Mr. Eglin, states the following: “The Security Police now rule South Africa. Mr. Vorster has lost control of the country and effective rule is passing into the hands of the Security Police.” After Judge James’ decision was given in connection with the trial in Pietermaritzburg, a report again appeared in the Sunday Times in which he expressed his appreciation and acknowledged that it is encouraging that there was such a decision with respect to the accusations made by the accused against the Police concerning their treatment when they were still awaiting trial. My reason for mentioning this now is that while they made this statement, declaring—

they were already guilty of having “widely canvassed” it. They state further—

But let us look at what they state in this same article immediately prior to the portion I have just quoted. They state—

I cannot read everything, because there is not sufficient time for that, but what it means is that the people have the right to fight and struggle; they will get what they want, but they must just do it in a different way. In other words, on the one hand they want to pacify them a little, but on the other hand they do want to tell the people that their cause is a valid one, that they must continue as long as they do not act on terrorist or subversive lines. But look at how this is neutralized by the Sunday Times. Those people always play the same game. Here you have the proof. There are so many other proofs, inter alia, those which I have just quoted, with the beautiful photographs of all the leaders of the U.P. who contributed towards discrediting the Police in connection with this incident. The heading of the same leader in the Cape Times of 9th April, 1972, reads: “Unpleasant spectacle.” They refer to the Minister of Police’s reaction to these events in connection with the derailment between Potgietersrust and Nylstroom, and so on. They refer scornfully to the remarks of the Minister of Police as “Unpleasant …

[Inaudible.]

What is he saying?

The esteemed Whip says my time is up. With reference to this I now really just want to make an appeal to the Sunday Times and hon. members in this connection, to remember in future the decision of Judge James in the Pietermaritzburg case and do less to discredit the image of South Africa as far as these matters are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a very engaging afternoon in this Budget debate. I would like to say that, had I not known for certain that we were engaged on a Budget debate, I really would not have known because we were busy fighting the Oudtshoorn by-election here all afternoon. We have had hardly any discussion at all on any of the vitally important economic matters disturbing South Africa after the first speaker sat down. We had the interesting spectacle of the Minister of Labour devoting his entire half-hour to attacking the United Party on its colour policy. Of course, the official Opposition has responded in like manner. The hon. the Minister of Community Development, I think, enjoyed himself more this afternoon than he has done for many a session; because he was able to revert to type. He was able to become once again a political in-fighter.

A very good fighter.

Well, he is a good political in-fighter. I have always given him credit for that and I think that is really his métier rather more than the heavy responsibilities of Cabinet rank.

We have not really this afternoon discussed any of the pressing matters which are troubling the economy of South Africa. I must apologize for spoiling the fun of the House, but I propose to get back to economic affairs, and more particularly to the whole question of labour and its proper utilization in South Africa. What pleased me most of all this session was the fact that three Ministers in this House, namely the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and the Minister of Finance, have in fact now officially, one might say, given de jure recognition to a situation which has increasingly become de facto in South Africa. We had three Ministers inside the House and also one Minister, the Minister of Planning, outside the House, giving de jure recognition to a de facto situation. That is that in South Africa, what has always been known as the traditional labour pattern, in fact no longer exists. That is a pattern whereby all skilled and most of the semi-skilled work in South Africa was reserved for White workers, mostly by custom, but also by statute, and that only the unskilled work, and some semi-skilled work, was done by Black, Coloured and Indian workers. It has become increasingly obvious in South Africa that this is no longer the case, that more and more semi-skilled jobs and, indeed, some of the skilled jobs, are having to be done by non-White workers. I, for one, heartily welcome the fact that official recognition has now been given to this. The fact is that the Government has announced that there is to be a certain amount of flexibility. It is true that it was couched in cautious terms, no doubt again with an eye on the Oudtshoorn by-election, but the hon. Minister of Finance did announce that there is to be a certain amount of flexibility in the future labour utilization in South Africa.

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