Mr. Speaker …

Order! Before I call upon the hon. member to speak, I should like to appeal to hon. members to return to calm, quiet, reasoned debating. I make this friendly appeal, and I hope hon. members will assist me.

I must say that if anything should occur which is untoward and I have to take action, hon. members will understand. The hon. member may proceed.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know you were not referring to me; I am one of the best-natured members in this House, and that is generally accepted.

†Last night I dealt with the question of unity between the two language groups. I want to say something quite openly now. After the present Prime Minister had been elected, he made, in his first speech as Prime Minister, a call to the people for national unity. There were very few things that I appreciated more than that call which the hon. the Prime Minister made. For what it is worth, I today want to make this appeal : Let us have racial peace between the two language groups in this country. We shall need each and every White citizen in this country, as sure as the sun will shine again tomorrow, Sir, and any person who bedevils the relationship between the two European groups in this country is certainly not doing a service to South Africa. Let us all make this priority No. 1—all of us.

*That understanding has been clouded by both sides—I know this and I shall acknowledge it. But the day I discover that there is an organized attempt by the English-speaking people to do this, I shall hit back with all the force at my command. [Interjections.] But likewise I expect my friends opposite, who are now saying “hear, hear” to me and supporting me, to hit back when an organized attempt is made on the Afrikaner side to mar relationships with regard to the English-speaking people. I plead only for tolerance—that is all.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, he may not, Sir. I ask only this: Let us not live in a fool’s paradise. I have very recently noticed that there has been talk of people who are verlig. It will not help them to become verlig in respect of the Coloured question, if they become verkramp in respect of the language question. That will not help us. On occasion I have also been wrongly accused of being verkramp. Let me now say this, Sir: The day I am branded as being verkramp because I speak out against agitators, terrorists, bomb throwers and un-South African elements, whatever race group they belong to, I shall not mind being called verkramp.

†I say again that we in this House, we in Parliament, must be careful. You will remember. Sir, that this Budget debate was introduced by the hon. the Minister quoting various passages from Shakespeare. I want to give him another quotation, not from Shakespeare, but from Omar Khayyam. It is the following—

Let us be careful; let us realize that this debate will go down in history and that it will be read. Let us not put future generations in the position where they will one day be compelled to say that they will have to call a plague on both Houses of Parliament.

*Having said this, Sir, I do not want to go into this matter any further. I should like to give the Minister and the Government a few practical hints, and I hope they will accept them. I want to say that we are living in a difficult era. We will be expected to make laws that will, at times, cause pain. I do not mind our passing legislation that hurts someone, on condition that we are solving some problem by this measure. However, let us not cause any hurt without solving any problems. I am referring to some unnecessary steps that we take, which only do harm. Let us mention one instance, a practical instance, of such an unnecessary step. We were at logger-heads here about a Bill, or one of its clauses, which gives the Minister the power, as it were, to bring about Church apartheid. As far as I know that Bill has never been promulgated.

It has.

That may be so. I remember how overseas journalists came along here, with the approval of the Government. I met them here and they asked me: “Here in front of the Cathedral we perceived a large notice—‘This Church is open to all races at all times, to all services’. Has this been put up just for our benefit, or is this true?” I then said; “No, it is true; you can see them going in there.” They then said to me: “Good gracious! Whatever possessed you then to pass that law? We can think of no law that has done you more harm than this particular Act, and you do not even enforce it.”

Let me mention a few more examples. Let us take the question of work reservation. If it is necessary to have work reservation to protect people, I can understand it. But I want to put this question to the hon. the Minister of Labour: What was the motive in saying that in the Cape municipal area a Coloured may not be employed as a traffic officer? In Parow. Goodwood and Bellville a Coloured can be appointed as a traffic officer: between Ysterplaat and Maitland, up to the main road, a Coloured may be used, but on the other side he may not. What are we solving by this means? A Coloured can be a traffic officer in Epping, but not adjacent to Epping, in Pinelands. It is in fact true that only a small handful of people are affected by this, but what was the intention in this case other than to make political capital out of this? If that was the motive, it is surely a glaring error. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I do not have all that much time, but I do just still want to refer to the question of labour in the Western Province. With a view to the limited time available to me, I particularly want to confine myself to the question of farm labourers.

Sir, I lodged a plea here for labourers to be allowed to come and work on the farms under a five-year contract; that they be allowed to bring along their wives to the farms. I can understand that there must be influx control in the urban areas, but what is the position on the farms today? We are working with inexperienced people who are of no profit to us during the year they are allowed to work there under contract. Their wives are not with them; they are allowed to keep wives, or let me rather say they are allowed to become the fathers of children, on one condition, i.e. that the mothers are not their own wives.

Nonsense.

The hon. the Minister knows that I am not talking nonsense. The Bantu are today producing a third tribe amongst our Coloureds. The Minister does not know it, but he may accept my word for it. I shall go and show him what is going on—for nothing—and I will give him a good week-end into the bargain.

What are you doing there?

The Bantu may keep wives, just as long as they are not their own wives; as long as they are Coloured women. What nonsensical foolishness is that?

Nonsense.

I am not talking nonsense.

On a point of order, what did the hon. member for Vryheid imply by that interjection?

What interjection?

He said: “What are you doing there?”

Mr. Speaker, hon. members are just wasting my time.

Order! I am not going to allow any more interjections.

Sir, the farmers’ position in the Western: Province is becoming desperate. Just ask the Minister of Agriculture; he knows it. He knows that today we virtually cannot continue with our business. Within that year in which a Bantu comes to work for one under contract, one cannot teach him to prune a vineyard. Their clipping is killing our vines; they simply cannot do it. It takes one nine months to teach one’s Bantu labourer to know one’s farm; it takes nine months before he knows where one’s camps are, and after a year he must go back again. The position today is a difficult one. Today one can no longer speak about labour under the Labour Vote, because each kind of labour falls under a different Minister. No one knows what is going on. I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, who said I am talking nonsense, knowing that this was not so, that he himself does not know his own laws, and I shall prove this to you. He cannot tell me whether a Bantu wife may come and visit her husband. May she?

With permission she may do so.

For how long? For three months? I want to tell the Minister that half the officials of his department do not know that, because yesterday I tried to ascertain what the period is.

You could have found out on another occasion.

Let the hon. member then tell me what the period is. No member on that side can tell me what the period is. Is it a month, two months, or three months?

It depends on the circumstances.

Sir, this is confusion worse confounded. They are so snowed under with a lot of laws and regulations that not even they know what the position is; how must the poor Bantu know it? We are making laws here that no one can remember or understand, and if the people contravene those laws then we throw them in gaol. Sir, I shall be glad if we return to realities and to those things that ought to have priority. Let us pass laws that solve problems, but do not let us carry on as we are now doing. With these laws the Government is destroying the farmer in the Boland, and not only the farmers in the Boland. Just ask the farming members seated here. Consult the Chambers of Industries and hear what difficulties those people are experiencing. Here I am not advocating unbridled influx into the urban areas. I am only asking for realism. It does not help to pass laws that solve no problems, but only hurt people unnecessarily. It is very easy to talk of narrowing the gap between the wages of Whites and non-Whites, which the hon. the Minister of the Interior spoke about. That sounds very fine, and the newspapers gave him a great deal of publicity in this connection. But I can only pay wages out of profits. It is very easy for the Progressive Party to dispatch a pamphlet, as they did yesterday, in which they state that I should advocate a minimum wage of R120 per month. I should like to make it R500 per month, but what must I pay that out of?

†When the hon. the Minister of the Interior spoke about reducing the wage gap, what did he mean? Must you reduce the wages of the White man, or must you increase the wages of the other races? That is the only way that I know of that you can reduce the gap. But you cannot reduce the gap unless you are going to get greater productivity. You cannot pay higher wages unless there is increased productivity. How can there be greater productivity when these people are not trained; when they do not know how to do their job? I do not know who is to train them. I have pleaded with the Department of Agriculture to institute short courses for Coloured and Bantu farm workers. Let us train them to be of use to somebody. What was the reply? The reply was that Bantu Affairs must do it, and the Coloured Affairs must do it. The Department of Labour is equipped to do this, but they are not allowed to do it.

In their own areas.

We are told by the Minister that they can be trained, but only in their own areas. I think it was the Minister of the Interior who said that. Well, that is the policy of the Minister of Labour; that is what he said in the Other Place. Once again there is confusion in the Cabinet as to who must do what and where it is to be done.

Sir, I think if we can leave party politics out of these matters, we will be able to proceed to build a happier South Africa for all of us.

In this debate we have the position that the United Party now accept that they may take over the reins of government soon, and since they have accepted this, their whole approach is challenging and provocative; as far as possible, they are trying to hide their policy in all its aspects and with all its qualifications, because if they stated that policy fully, the electorate of South Africa would reject them, and they know this.

In the short time at my disposal I intend dealing with three aspects in which I want to contrast the policy of the National Party with that of the United Party. I want to analyse the policies of both parties down to every consequence, and then judge which is the right one and which is the wrong one. The first aspect of the two policies I want to contrast very clearly, is the question of relations between Afrikaans and English-speaking people, which was discussed here yesterday and also previously in this House. What is the policy of the United Party in regard to co-operation between Afrikaans and English-speaking people in South Africa? The policy of the United Party is that the Afrikaner in the United Party should give up his Afrikanerhood.

That is nonsense.

The English-speaking people in the United Party should give up their English character and together they are to merge into a new, greater South African unity.

Nonsense.

Hon. members must not say it is nonsense. The hon. member for King Williams’ Town said so; the hon. member for Sea Point said so yesterday; or have I quoted him wrongly?

You did not understand him.

Sir, I understand both Afrikaans and English. He said yesterday that the Afrikaner should give up his Afrikanerhood and that the English-speaking person should give up his English character, and that together they should merge into a greater South African unity. Is that correct?

With two languages.

Yes, with two cultures and with two languages. In this regard there are a few interesting comments I want to make. The policy of the United Party is therefore a 50-50 policy. I want to analyse that policy now and make a few comments in that regard. In the first place, who says this is the policy of the United Party, as I have summarized it here; from whom have we heard it so far? We heard it from the hon. member for King William’s Town, an Afrikaans-speaking member of the United Party; we heard it from the hon. member for Sea Point, an Afrikaans-speaking member of the United Party; originally we heard it from Senator Wolfie Swart, who was at the time the leader of the United Party in the Free State, and who said that his children should be neither Afrikaans nor English speaking, so that they could be South Africans. Has one single English-speaking member on the Opposition side ever said: “I, as an English-speaking person, am prepared to give up my English character for the sake of the greater South African unity?” Is that the case? Have we heard this from one single English-speaking person on that side? No, they say it is nonsense: only the Afrikaans-speaking people are saying so, and this very clearly rings a bell. Not one single English-speaking person has spelt it out like that. Only the Afrikaans-speaking people in that party have spelt it out like that.

You are misinterpreting it completely.

I want to go further. I want to concentrate on the United Party’s policy on Afrikaans-English relations. What do those people call themselves? The Afrikaners on that side, or rather the Afrikaans-speaking members, call themselves South Africans. Is that correct? The English-speaking people on that side call themselves English-speaking South Africans. That is the general term, English-speaking South Africans. Why this clear difference? The Afrikaner says, “I am a South African”. The English-speaking person says, “I am an English-speaking South African”. He qualifies his statement very clearly, bringing his language into it as well.

That is untrue.

It is true; we see it every day. Throughout, the English-speaking members of the Opposition are known as English-speaking South Africans. They are not merely South Africans, but English-speaking South Africans. Let us look at what the situation is in practice. It is very clear to the Opposition. To be in South Africa under the policy of the United Party, as far as Afrikaans-English relations are concerned, one must give up something. One must give up one’s Afrikanerhood and one must give up one’s English character, so that one may become a South African.

Where is this stipulated in our party’s policy?

I am putting it officially now. Therefore the Afrikaner may not strive hard for the retention of his language, for the preservation of his language; he must give up something. He may not be too adamant on this point. One may not impress strongly upon one’s children that they should uphold the Afrikaans culture and those things, because then one would not be South African enough; then one would be too Afrikaans for that party. One may not do so; it is wrong immediately But let us test it in practice. Allow me to put this question to our hon. friends, with all their goodwill towards unity in South Africa. Let us test the practical truth. Whenever ten good friends, sitting around a table, are talking, and two of them are English-speaking, all ten around that table speak English.

Nonsense!

What is the reason? The reason is that those English-speaking persons speak their language and out of decency the Afrikaner also speaks the English language.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Turffontein!

But I need not take this as an example. Any of us can walk into the shops of Cape Town, Claremont or Constantia, or into the English-language shops of Pretoria or Johannesburg. One would immediately be addressed in English; one could go on speaking Afrikaans until one were blue in the face, and one would still be replied to in English. This is how national unity is being realized in South Africa. As opposed to that, I want to state the National Party’s policy on Afrikaans-English relations, very clearly as spelt out by its leaders, the one after the other, and also by our present Prime Minister.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Durban Point!

I need not give up anything as an Afrikaans-speaking person in order to be a member of this party and promote national unity. The English-speaking member belonging to this party need not give up anything. He can realize himself fully.

May I ask a question? Is this speech of yours designed to bring back unity between the two races?

Yes, and that is the very reason why I am making this speech. This sort of speech should have been made long ago. Our English-speaking friends should know exactly how we feel about their attitude in regard to South Africa. [Interjections.]

Let me state the facts clearly. I need make no sacrifice as an Afrikaner in order to belong to this party and serve national unity. My English-speaking friend need make no sacrifice either. I can uphold and realize everything which is mine, my language, my religion, my culture, my traditions and the hero worship of our national heroes. My English-speaking friend can fully realize and promote his language, his culture, his traditions and everything which is his, his hero worship too, because he and I together form part of this party and part of South Africa. Our policy is not a fifty-fifty one; it is a one hundred per cent Afrikaans and a one hundred per cent English policy; in other words, two hundred per cent for South Africa. I am putting this very clearly and am not apologizing for it. If my English-language friends on the opposite side, and even English-language friends in South Africa, expect me as an Afrikaans-speaking person to give up one jot or tittle of my Afrikanerhood, my language, my religion, my traditions, my culture and that which is part of me and deeply seated in my being in exchange for his so-called co-operation for the preservation of South Africa, I would say to them that on those conditions I was not interested in their co-operation.

Hear, hear!

This is a clear standpoint, and I expect my English-speaking friend …

I want to ask the Minister whether he regards himself as a South African first?

I shall reply very clearly to that now. At the end of this subdivision of my speech I shall come to the Afrikaans/ South Africanhood. I shall fit it in where it belongs. [Interjections.] I shall reply to it in full. You are only wasting my time. If I expected my English-speaking friend sitting on this side, to give up one single jot or tittle of his English character, namely his English language, his love of his own English literature, with all the wealth of the literature of the English world, or the heroes he worships, such as John X. Merriman, Dick King, and others, or expected him to sacrifice his public holidays such as Settlers’ Day and others. I would not be a true Afrikaner or South African.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

No, the hon. members merely want to waste my time. I should like to make my speech. I do not feel like replying to questions. I shall reply specifically to the question of the hon. friend. I shall reply to it very clearly. I— and this is in fact how our present Prime Minister stated it—and everything which is mine, and everything which is of cultural value to my English friend, jointly form part of South Africa; jointly they serve South Africa; this is the policy.

Let us now state the question of Afrikanerhood and South Africanhood very clearly. I take exception to the fact that our newspapers start all sorts of competitions and put this question : Are you an Afrikaner or a South African? These two are not in opposition to each other. Every Afrikaner in South Africa is a good South African. Everyone. Every Afrikaner is a South African. He cannot help it. On the contrary, the only place on earth where the Afrikaner people can realize itself is in South Africa. Where else could it realize itself? Therefore he must be a South African.

First?

First or second. I am an Afrikaner and a South African simultaneously. Both are my right. We make no apology for that at all.

And what about me?

The hon. member for Durban-North is an English-speaking South African.

Can I go elsewhere?

Yes, perhaps you can. I want to be honest towards the hon. member. All Afrikaners are good South Africans.

And what about me?

The hon. member for Durban-North is probably—and I want to give him credit for this at once—as good a South African as I, but I cannot say this of all English-speaking people in South Africa. I cannot say it of the terrorists trying to undermine South Africa. I cannot say it of the liberalists who are engaged in …

What about Bram Fischer?

Bram Fischer? He is not an Afrikaner. Does the hon. member call him an Afrikaner? I want to put the matter very clearly. The Afrikaner as such is inseparably linked with South Africa, because back in the years when the continent of Africa was not yet popular, but the dark and impossible continent, he completely severed his ties with Western Europe, and in the name he assumed, he said : “I am an Afrikaner,” and in the name “Afrikaner” he linked himself to Africa. He called his language “Afrikaans”, and by doing so he severed all ties with Europe. He said : “I link my language unconditionally to Africa for better or worse, whatever the future may bring. I am part of Africa with all the fortunes of this continent.” This is how the policies of the two parties compare. It is very clear that we as Afrikaans-speaking South Africans—if the hon. members want to call it such—and our English-speaking friends may work together in love and peace for the interests of South Africa, without one of us giving up anything. I am not prepared to give up what is my own, nor do I ask my English-speaking friend to give up anything. We want to serve this country together, but then I want to retain what is my own, one hundred per cent of my own, one hundred per cent for him and two hundred per cent for South Africa. I think the two policies are in crystal-clear opposition to each other, and therefore I do not want to dwell on the matter any longer. I am going to proceed to the next point.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

No, the hon. member is wasting my time.

I want to deal with a second matter on the same basis, namely that of policy as opposed to policy. In its campaign to be popular with the voters at this moment, the United Party tells them to support it. They stand by the view that if the United Party were to come into power in South Africa, the image of South Africa in the outside world would change tremendously. Furthermore, they hold the view that South Africa would immediately be more acceptable to the outside world than it is at present, because this Government is so unpopular with its “odious” policy of separate development. They pretend that under their guidance South Africa would immediately become the favourite of the world because they are acceptable to the world while we are not. Every day they try to explain to the public that they would be more acceptable.

We would present a better image.

Order!

They pretend that they would be more acceptable. Now I want to analyse this specific matter on its merits. I want to start by saying where South Africa’s unpopularity in the world started.

With the National Party.

The hon. member says it started with the National Party. If the hon. member’s memory is rather short, I just want to remind him that the first man who stood accused in the dock at UNO was the late Field Marshall Smuts in 1947. At the time he was there …

He made South Africa the most popular country in the world.

He stood accused at the United Nations as a result of the charge laid by India. That happened after he had granted the franchise to the Indians in this House in 1946. It was decided that the Indians could have three representatives. That did not satisfy the U.N., nor did it satisfy India. At that stage Gen. Smuts, who in the previous year was still the favourite of the world as a result of his participation in the Second World War— and this was as clear as crystal—was in the dock at UNO. He returned a frustrated person, because he did not recognize the world. It was a totally strange situation; it was very different. That was after the legislation had been introduced. It is not apartheid which made us unpopular, but our traditional way of life in South Africa which the world does not want to accept. They do not ask us to change the policy; they ask us to sacrifice our identity and stop being White. This is what they are demanding. I want to mention examples in order to prove this. Rhodesia does not practise any apartheid; on the contrary, under the leadership of a former Rhodesian Prime Minister, Sir Edgar Whitehead, they were even prepared, and said openly that they were prepared, to hand over the control of the country to the Black people within 15 years from that stage. Do hon. members remember that? In spite of that the United Nations rejected it totally as being unacceptable, and all that would have satisfied them was that Rhodesia should hand over everything immediately. Does Portugal support the principle of apartheid? Portugal supports the principle of integration. All the people in Portugal and in its territories are Portuguese. We find total integration there. Are they popular in the world? No, if voting takes place about a matter in which Portugal is implicated, time and again the result against Portugal is 99 votes against one. Why?

Colonialism.

Not colonialism, but because the world wants the Whites out of South Africa. The world says, “Africa for the Africans,” and it only regards Black people as being “Africans”. I am nothing but a White African, and do not want to be anything else either. This is my home, and I want no other. Let us look at the position of being “unpopular abroad”. Hon. members say one of the things which make us unpopular abroad, is our so-called “petty apartheid”, or “small apartheid” as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says, or “unnecessary apartheid” as the hon. member for Hillbrow says. I should like the attention of these two members. I am very glad both of them are here. I want to refer now to “unnecessary apartheid” and “petty apartheid”. I want to start with the hon. member for Hillbrow. If the hon. member says there are certain aspects of apartheid which are unnecessary, then he probably gives me credit for the argument that there are in fact certain aspects of apartheid which are necessary. Am I correct? Am I correct? I want to know this from the hon. member. If certain aspects of apartheid are unnecessary, then there are certain other aspects which are in fact necessary, because why would he then make the distinction? Or does he regard all apartheid as unnecessary? I am asking the hon. member this, but he is sitting there like a mummy, without saying a word.

Make your speech.

Now, what aspects of apartheid are necessary and what aspects are unnecessary? I want to put the question very clearly. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said apartheid, “petty” apartheid, was that which affected a person’s human dignity. Is that correct? I do not want to misinterpret the hon. member. And it is objectionable to everyone if it affects human dignity. Let us take a look at the Acts which, according to this yellow booklet— and I have it here, if the hon. members want to challenge me to quote from it— they want to review in order to eliminate this sort of thing. In this regard the booklet states very carefully “to review …”, not to amend; this is how they put it, because then one would not be able to corner them so easily, because if one cornered them, they would say that that aspect was not being reviewed. Therefore it was put very carefully and vaguely. One of the Acts which, according to this yellow booklet, should be reviewed and which they opposed here under all circumstances, is the Separate Universities Act. They say there should be academic freedom, and that Whites and non-Whites should be able to attend universities freely. Is this the policy of the United Party, that they want open universities? May I have a reply from somebody? Nobody. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition perhaps want to reply? Is the United Party in favour of open universities? [Interjections.] I accept that the United Party is in favour of open universities. I accept this. Therefore, open universities are essential; according to the hon. member for Hillbrow, they form part of the unnecessary apartheid.

How many Bantu students are attending Afrikaans universities in South Africa?

That has nothing to do with this argument. According to the United Party, university education must be mixed; they want to destroy the separation we are bringing about in that regard. Therefore, this forms part of the unnecessary apartheid laws. Now I want to ask the hon. member where his logic is?

The councils will have to decide.

The Opposition would not object to there being mixed universities. Am I correct now? In other words, Mr. Speaker, where is the logic, the morality of the United Party now? The moment a boy or a girl or a young lady has matriculated and becomes a first-year student at a university, separate development, apartheid, is unnecessary. But in the preceding year, in his or her matric year at high school, it forms part of the necessary apartheid. Then they may not be together.

Three months before.

Three months before; a day before; while they are in their matric year, separate schools form part of the whole pattern. I suppose the Opposition does at least agree with us as far as that standpoint is concerned. Where is the morality for this whole argument, Mr. Speaker? It is so ridiculous that one cannot touch it. I want to deal with the next aspect.

May I put a question?

I do not have time. Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the Immorality Act. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said it was the pettiest aspect of petty apartheid. The Immorality Act is the pettiest aspect of petty apartheid, and should be abolished; it should be abolished in its entirety. Now I want to ask hon. members this question : Are they in favour of or opposed to the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act? I shall read out to hon. members what it says; it is very clear. I am testing the policy against the full consequences. You want to abolish the law against unlawful, extra-marital mixing between Blacks and Whites so that it may simply continue. But those individuals who would have wanted to marry legally, you want to prevent from doing so by retaining that Act. Or do you not want to do this?

They do not know.

Do you or do you not want to preserve the identity of the Whites? Should people have the free right? Or what should they do? What would become of the identity of the people? I am asking straightforward, frank questions: What are the consequences of that party’s policy? And it is necessary that we contrast them with one another. The National Party’s standpoint is unshakeable, whether popular or unpopular. If an Act is necessary for the protection of the White identity and for each identity in South Africa, such an Act will remain in the Statute Book, even if the whole world were opposed to it. This is our unshakeable standpoint. But let us go further, Mr. Speaker. Take the separation on trains for example—the hon. members say, for example, there should be no separation at entrances; the hon. member for Bezuidenhout would concede that; the hon. member says it is ridiculous to have two entrances at, for example, offices and in the Post Office; it is ridiculous to have double lifts. Where are we going to draw the line? I want to ask the hon. member whether separate compartments in trains are necessary. Are separate compartments in trains necessary, or should they sit together? Is separate accommodation in hotels essential, or may they just as well be mixed? Are separate taxis essential? I shall give the hon. member for Bezuidenhout a chance to put a question.

I just want to put it to the hon. the Minister that if he were to put a pointed question to me or any other hon. member, I would be prepared to reply, but … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, what is the crux of this matter as far as this so-called “petty apartheid” is concerned? What does this petty apartheid amount to? It amounts to the fact that in its innermost being the United Party is in a predicament in regard to this question. And this is the predicament in which they are, Mr. Speaker, i.e. that they dare not say that as far as these things are concerned, they are going to abolish it, because then they would lose the support of the voters of South Africa, Nor dare they say that they are going to retain it, because this would mean that the outside world would not regard them as a better party than we are. Therefore they say nothing about the matter, and tell the public: Vote for us; we would be more acceptable than the present Government. This is the standpoint they take. It is as clear as crystal, and this is why they remain so vague about these matters by saying that they would reconsider them, but one receives no reply from any of the hon. members of the Opposition.

I want to take a third point now, and this is the only one for which I still have time. I want to analyse the political situation in South Africa under their policy and under our policy in respect of the various population groups. Because my time is limited, I am only going to analyse in this House the political situation according to their policy and according to ours. The National Party policy is crystal-clear. This Parliament is the Parliament of White members of the House of Assembly and of White Senators who represent the White people, and nobody else has any say or right to enter here and to sit here. This is purely a White Parliament for the control of the Whites. That is clear and unambiguous; there are no problems. We give the other population groups their own places and development.

Supremacy (baasskap).

Yes, supremacy to them in their own territories. We give the Zulus supremacy in their own country, supremacy to the Xhosas in their country and supremacy to the White man in his country. That is the supremacy in which we believe. Now I want to discuss the United Party’s standpoint, in terms of which they want to bring eight White representatives for the Bantu into this House. I want to ask a question now and also give the reply at the same time, because I know what it is. When the White representatives are sitting here, the request will be made that they should be replaced by Bantu. Such a request would then come from the Bantu. Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would say that the safe way would be to hold a referendum on it. Only the White electorate would be able to decide on that, not they. However, the Opposition has already decided in anticipation that they should be Black. I want to quote what the hon. member for Durban North said to the Natal Mercury of 14th November, 1969. The hon. member will remember that interview with Mr. Lawrence Morgan very well. I have a copy of it. He was asked:

I ask: “To start in what direction?”

Just read on.

Yes, I am going to read on. Then Mr. Morgan put a question with reference to the eight representatives in this House :

But of course. He believes it is inevitable, but only if the White electorate agrees to it.

That is an old-fashioned thing called democracy.

I deduce from this that when that referendum takes place, the United Party will at least take a standpoint on the matter. I am asking the hon. the Leader of the Opposition clearly what he is then going to tell the electorate of the Republic of South Africa from the platforms. Is he going to say the people should vote that those White people should be replaced by Blacks, or is he going to say that those representatives should remain Whites? Or is he going to say that there should be more than eight, or that the eight representatives should remain eight in number? I already know what the answer is. The answer is that if the referendum were to be held tomorrow, they would say it should remain as it is, but that if the referendum were to be held in two, three, five or 10 years’ time, they would reconsider their position. That is the answer we normally get. I now ask in all honesty whether the United Party thinks for one single moment that the Bantu, the Blacks, who will now have been given political rights by having eight White representatives in this House—after they will have asked for more rights and after it will have been decided at a referendum among the Whites that they cannot have more rights —will accept this silently? Do they think the Bantu would remain passive merely because they had been told that the Whites had given their decision and that nothing more was going to be done about it? And does the United Party think for one single moment that in the 1970s in which we are living, those people would accept it? I am asking this very honestly and clearly of hon. members opposite. Unfortunately the hon. member for Yeoville is not here. The United Party’s standpoint is that the Transkei will get a communal council. According to their policy, the present Transkeian Council would become a communal council with certain control over local matters. And then the Bantu would be given these eight representatives in this House. Under our policy the Transkei can be granted full sovereignty. The Transkei can be granted full recognition as a full-fledged nation in the comity of nations. It can also gain a seat at the U.N. Do hon. members opposite think for one single moment, and this shows bow ridiculous they are in their approach in this sphere, that the Bantu of the Transkei would exchange the right they may have to become an independent sovereign state with a voice in the U.N., an invitation to the Olympic Games and with everything which being a fully-fledged state involves, for possibly one White representative under the United Party policy in this Parliament? If they are so fortunate as to get the majority of votes, they would possibly get one representative. This is all they would get, because the entire overhead authority of the party vests here in this Parliament, and here they would have only one White representative. Do hon. members for one moment want to tell me that this is at all possible? I want to go further. This policy of race federation has already been rejected, not only by this side of the House, by the Black people themselves and by numerous other people, but also by the one person of whom that party takes note and whom they believe was and is the greatest leader. It was in 1926 and it is as clear as crystal that it concerned the question of the Bantu franchise, which Gen. Hertzog wanted to abolish at the time.

Have you got the complete speech there?

Yes, I have it here. Gen. Hertzog needed a two-thirds majority. He needed Gen. Smuts’s support as Leader of the Opposition in order to get a two-thirds majority. Gen. Hertzog’s idea was to introduce seven White representatives for the Bantu into this Parliament. Then Gen. Smuts replied as follows :

Back in 1926 the United Party’s brilliant federation plan of 1963 was rejected by their greatest leader of all times as being unpractical and impracticable.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am neither surprised nor disappointed at the Government’s tactics in the course of this Budget debate. They have revealed, if ever it were necessary, that they are totally incapable of defending the Budget, that they are totally incapable of defending the incompetence of their own Cabinet, that they are totally incapable of dealing with the taxation proposals and also with the ever rising cost of living, which is undoubtedly going to follow on this Budget. They revealed also that they are totally incapable of providing a blue print for the future economic development of South Africa. In other words, they are struggling helplessly in the strait-jacket of their own ideologies and iron policies. But while I was not surprised nor disappointed at their tactics. I do want to say that I was shocked and disappointed at the lengths to which they were prepared to go to try to persuade the electorate of Oudtshoorn to ignore the problems of South Africa, to ignore the frustrations and to try to vote in accordance with the call of the blood or in accordance with race prejudice in South Africa. Let us examine their tactics. Let us examine them in as parliamentary a manner as possible. When you have examined the tactics, you find that they have been dictated to this party for some weeks by their own propaganda newspaper in the Cape Province, Die Burger, which in season and out of season has been telling them how to run the Oudtshoorn by-election, to such an extent that its editor has become the phantom candidate in Oudtshoorn in the view of many people. Like the Duke of Plaza Toro, in the absence of a strong lead from the front, from the hon. the Prime Minister, he is trying to lead the party from behind; perhaps he finds it less exciting. Sir, what have the tactics been? First of all, in order to gain a few votes, they have been prepared to do untold harm to the cause of national unity in South Africa. It was Die Burger which spoke about fighting a cold Boer War. This process went on over weeks until we had what I can only describe as the disgraceful top-point of that policy with the exhibition by the hon. the Minister of Defence yesterday in this House.

You will still get more of that.

Seventy years after the signing of the Peace Treaty of Vereeniging, they want to fight a cold Boer War. The hon. the Minister of Defence thinks he is doing the country and his party a service by suggesting that there are people who hate the Afrikaner in South Africa on this side of the House. What is the proof that he brought? The proof that he brought is that they do not speak Afrikaans well enough for his liking. Apparently that was said with the approval of the hon. the Prime Minister, because by way of an interjection last night, he accepted responsibility for what the hon. the Minister had said.

What was objectionable in what he said? [Interjections.] What is wrong in whait he said?

The hon. the Prime Minister asks me what is wrong in what he said. Sir, it is rather interesting. First of all we had the half-apology from the Chief Whip on the Nationalist side, and then today we had the statement by the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. Quite obviously, to those of us who have been in this House for some time, that was an attempt by the National Party to put the matter right. There is no doubt that that hon. gentleman has been speaking about “Boerehaters”—I refer to the Minister of Defence. What is a “Boerehater”?

I never used the word. I said “Afrikaner hater”.

All right, “Afrikaner hater”. Who is an “Afrikaner hater”?

They are sitting over there behind you.

Somebody on this side of the House who disagrees with the National Party and cannot speak Afrikaans; that is what it boils down to. That does not conform to the statement by the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions today. He today said it was; the policy of the National Party that no one had to sacrifice anything to be a good South African. He could be a 100 per cent Afrikaner or a 100 per cent English-speaking man and still be a good South African. Does the Minister of Defence agree with that? [Interjections.]

South Africans should be bilingual.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. the Prime Minister; he has obviously whipped the Minister of Defence back into line. Sir, I shall tell the hon. the Minister of Defence one or two things very simply. Firstly, he has spoilt whatever chance he ever had of becoming Prime Minister. [Interjections.] Secondly, he has done untold harm to the cause of national unity in South Africa. The hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions has stated the point of view of the National Party. It does not correspond exactly to what the hon. the Prime Minister said some years back. When he spoke about being a good South African, he said—

Hear, heatr!

Then, Sir, I leave out a few lines, and continue—

Mnr die Speaker, wat het die Nasionale Party … [Interjections.]

Order!

You see, Sir, this is the sort of tragic position which we are reaching. This hon. Minister of Defence, as I have said, did untold harm yesterday, and I want to say to the Minister of Social Welfare …

I am still waiting for you to say why.

Because he left no doubt in anybody’s mind that no one who could not speak Afrikaans in this House was a good South African.

Surely that is nonsense. [Interjections.]

I have been listening to that hon. Minister for many years, and I know him very well. I shall take this matter further with the hon. the Prime Minister. I propose to do so on his Vote.

I would be very pleased if you would do so on my Vote.

I will; I certainly will. Before I take that matter any further, I want to say to the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare that as far as his suggestions are concerened, he still leaves me with some doubts. He says : “Elke Afrikaner is ’n goeie Suid-Afrikaner, maar elke Engelssprekende Suid-Afrikaner is nie noodwendig ’n goeie Suid-Afrikaner nie”.

*Sir, why the difference? Why offend the English-speaking people in South Africa in this way? Are they worse South Africans than an Afrikaans-speaking person such as Bram Fischer? [Interjections.] Why make such a ridiculous statement? It is contempt of the English-speaking people, which I do not expect from that hon. Minister.

There are numerous English-speaking people who are not South African citizens. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, that is a splitting of hairs. The hon. the Minister is running away from something he did not think about. What is the attitude of this side of the House? Let us put it quite clearly. We on this side of the House put South Africa first and Afrikanerdom or English-speaking origin second. We have stated on many occasions that as far as we are concerned, there is only one future for South Africa. English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking must be prepared to give the best that both have towards South Africa. There must be one loyalty; a man must be judged not according to the language he speaks or his origin, but according to his loyalty and his dedication to the cause of South Africa. We go further; we do not ask any man to sacrifice anything. We believe that by becoming a good South African, you can get something in addition to what you have. You have to be first a good Afrikaans-speaking man or a good English-speaking man, and then you get something in addition. You get what is developing in South Africa, a South African culture and a South African approach. I believe the difference between the National Party and ourselves can be very clearly set out; I think it is this: While we emphasize patriotism and look for points of agreement between the two sections, this National Party are inclined to emphasize Afrikaner nationalism and look for points of difference. I think there is a second difference and it is this : Where they emphasize the maintenance of the Afrikaner’s identity and put that even above the importance of South Africanism, we are prepared to accept the language, the tradition and the culture of each section as our own. I think there is a further difference, Sir, and that is that where the National Party is looking for national unity, out of fear, because they know they are not strong enough to stand alone, we are looking for national unity out of love and respect for our fellow South Africans.

The Prime Minister jeers at it; look at him.

Sir, we had something even worse in this debate. In order to maintain the fat fruits of office, there were members on that side of the House who in their propaganda organs in the Transvaal and elsewhere were prepared to give communist-inspired terrorists, who are attacking South Africa and doing their best to get through to cause sabotage and disorder here, the solace and comfort of suggesting that 40 per cent to 50 per cent of the public of South Africa supporting this party are soft about terrorism and soft about Communism and will not fight against them. Sir, we had something much worse; we had the hon. member for Malmesbury saying: “Die Verenigde Party het vader gestaan vir die terrorisme in Suid-Afrika.” Sir, the cold cheek of it, coming from members opposite, after the record of this party in the war years and after their record !

What did they do at the time?

Who was then prepared to fight it out to the end for this country? Who, Sir, was able to deal with sabotage and subversive operations in South Africa, despite the fact that a large part of our Police Force was up north? And how quickly it was suppressed, Mr. Speaker. Were we fighting against non-White terrorists partially trained overseas by communists? No, Sir, we were fighting against White saboteurs trained by the best army in the world. That was the difference. And these are the people who have the cheek to say that we on this side of the House will not be able to deal with terrorism or Communism when it shows its head in South Africa. I will tell you, Sir, what the basis of their argument is. They believe it is not possible to deal with communists and Communism without adopting communist and communistic methods. We believe they can be fought; they can be fought bare-fisted, but it is not necessary to adopt all their worst methods to do it. I want to say that if we ever do have to fight for our lives against Communism and terrorism, then the United Party knows its duty; it has shown that once before, and I hope that when we do get into that fight —pray God that we never shall—we shall not find members on the other side of the House looking for a separate peace as they did the last time there was a war on.

Where was Marais Steyn? [Interjections.]

Order!

If I might be allowed to intervene at this stage I want to say that I am tired of this sort of remark that has come from the hon. the Minister opposite. In the 1922 revolution on the Witwatersrand there was a judicial commission of enquiry and they found that the National Party had made common cause with the Communist Party. Let me tell you something else, Sir. When they thought National Socialism was so wonderful and they were talking so much in favour of Hitler, Hitler had a treaty and an alliance with Russia, and it was when Hitler turned in the most dastardly fashion upon his former ally, that for the first time we were prepared to make common cause with the communists to destroy a greater evil. Let me remind the hon. members of just one more thing. The first world statesman to condemn Communism and its methods from an international platform was the former leader of this party, Field Marshal Smuts, when he was inaugurated as Rector of the University of Cambridge. But enough of the tactics of the hon. members opposite in respect of Communism and terrorism.

There is a third aspect of their tactics in the course of this debate and that has been that they are seeking once again to exploit race prejudice and fear to try to save their political skins. In the process, what has been revealed? There has been revealed the face of the National Party, distorted with fear, distorted with prejudice and distorted with self-confessed inadequacy. What have they done? They have not only revealed themselves to South Africa but they have damaged very materially what chances they have of dialogue with the other states of Africa. One would not mind if this revelation affected only the National Party, but unfortunately at the same time, because of the offices which hon. members hold they damage the name and the authority of the White man in the whole of South Africa, and they affect the thinking of every non-White in South Africa. And they do something more. They expose their inability to provide real leadership in a multi-racial state and they reveal that they are afraid to accept the responsibility of leadership in South Africa over the whole of South Africa. Perhaps that is why they have embraced their impracticable and unrealistic racial policy. Of course we know that these three lines of propaganda have been tried before; they were tried during the last election and they have been tried in previous by-elections, but fortunately the people of South Africa are becoming too mature and too experienced to be influenced to the same extent as they were in the past by this type of propaganda. But that does not mean that I should not pay attention to some of the real problems with which South Africa is faced.

One of the problems with which we are faced today is the effect of this Budget upon White—non-White relations in South Africa. You see, Sir, this Budget although it is a gamble, nevertheless has certain racing certainties attached to it. One of them is that it is a patchwork affair with no real blue print or dynamic plan for development at a rate adequate to maintain living standards in South Africa on the same basis as in the rest of the Western world, or in fact to satisfy the prime needs of all our people in South Africa. Secondly we are faced with the tragic fact that at the rate of development for which this Minister is planning in this Budget there is no chance whatsoever of their providing employment opportunities for all the non-Whites coming on to the labour market in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister said there is nothing that gives him sleepless nights more than the possibility of unemployment amongst the non-Whites in South Africa. I fear that this Budget is not only to give him sleepless nights but even the inadequate statistics of the present Government are going to be unable to conceal the unemployment which will develop among the non-White population.

There is a third problem in this Budget and that is that it has no real answer to the problem of inflation which inevitably is going to exacerbate the dangerous wage gap which is developing between Whites and non-Whites in South Africa at present. You must remember, Mr. Speaker, that for the unskilled and semi-skilled workers, there are no financial reserves. Every cent increase in the cost of living affects them and affects them very materially. They are going to be affected in the year that lies ahead.

Fourthly, the relaxation of the labour pattern under this Budget is so minimal and so hedged around with “ifs” and “buts” that the Old Man of the Sea in the person of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is still sitting firmly perched on the neck of the Minister of Finance and can throttle any development at any time he feels inclined to do so.

My, but I am a tough guy!

He is still in the position to force us to try to train craftsmen on the contract labour basis to compete in a world requiring an ever more sophisticated and educated trained labour force.

Lastly, the lack of funds is going to slow up development in the non-White areas, the homelands. It is slowing down the pace of development in South Africa. It is going to result in a lack of funds which is going to slow up development in the homelands and the Bantu areas of South Africa. This Government does not yet seem to have learnt that development in the homelands depends on prosperity in the existing industrial areas. Our existing economic resources are still generated in the industrial areas that exist at the present time. I wonder what the effect of all this as going to be on the race relations picture in South Africa. Hardship and poverty are the boon companions of Communism in any language in the world. Deteriorating race relations are the things which give rise to the opportunity for terrorism in South Africa. Here the Government is going to be faced with a shortage of funds for development of any kind of ron-European policy in South Africa. They have chosen this homeland policy, the most expensive of all the policies that anyone could have imagined.

It is the only safe one.

The hon. the Minister says it is the only safe one. I am coming to him. How much simpler would the problem of the hon. the Minister of Finance not have been if he could have drafted his Budget against the back ground of United Party policy and United Party thinking? Just think of it! He would have been able to opt for a far greater rate of development. He would have had a blue print for rapid development on sound economic principles. He would have been in a far happier position about creating employment opportunities for all the non-Whites that come on to the labour market in South Africa. He would have had far less trouble with inflation because he would have been making better use of his labour force. His labour force would have been more stable. It would have been better trained and more productive, which is one of his problems at the moment. There would have been more funds available for the development of the homelands on sound business lines as part of one single economy in South Africa, instead of a series of broken-up economic units often competing with each other. Can anyone deny that a Budget drafted under these circumstances would have contributed far more to sound race relations in South Africa? All this could have been achieved as part of the race relations policy which would have ensured a harmonious future for South Africa, and a future so much safer than that outlined by the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions a few minutes ago.

Let us just have a look at United Party policy briefly. It has become the fashion of the other side of the House to say that they do not know what it is. They do not know what it is, but they know very well what to criticize if they can pick out any particular aspects of it. Let me set it out for them briefly. Let me tell them that it is a federal policy. Let me tell them that it is based on a federation of ethnic or racial groups and not geographical units. Let me tell them that it rests on five principles. Firstly, it rests on the principle that all races in South Africa have a common destiny and one country and that they will progress in the form of partnership and not necessarily equal partnership. Secondly, let me tell them that each race group will manage its own intimate affairs through its own communal council. Thirdly, I can tell them that each race group will have some representation, however limited, on a group basis in those bodies which take meaningful decisions about them, including the central Parliament, that is the principle if representation in a central parliament is accepted. Fourthly, let me tell them that there should be continuous consultations at all levels. There will be more talking to each other and less talking about each other. There will more particularly be consultation between the communal councils and the Central Parliament by way of standing statutory committees. Let me tell them, fifthly, we believe that social relations between individual members of the various race groups should as far as possible be a matter of personal choice and not direction from Pretoria. I also told them that this policy will be implemented in three stages. The first stage will be a review of all legislation which is discriminatory and offends against the rule of law or impinges on the dignity of the individual. It will be determined which legislation should be repealed and which reviewed. There will be definite attempts to raise living standards of all sections of the population. Then comes the second period when there will be the creation of the machinery for consultation. It will be machinery to create proper consultation with non-Whites at all levels including such parliamentary level. Whatever the results of such consultation will be, let me give this House the assurance, something I have done before, that there will be no change in that representation without its being referred to the public by way of a referendum in which that is the issue.

By the White population?

It will be a referendum of the White voters of South Africa. In these consultations prior to the referendum standing consultative statutory committees will play a great role by bringing the White man and the non-White man, members of this House and members of the communal councils around a round table in order to thrash out future policies for us in South Africa. This is something which has never happened before in this country. Then comes the third stage in which we hope to implement …

May I ask a question?

Certainly.

How long do you visualize this second stage to be?

I think it will probably be much shorter than the road to independence which some of the hon. Minister’s Bantustans will have to follow. Just as difficult as it is for him to tell me when the first Bantustan or the last Bantustan will get independence, so difficult it is for me to tell him how soon we shall have successful negotiations completed with the various race groups.

It might be indefinite.

The question of independence of the Bantustans might be indefinite. It might never arrive; in fact, I am quite sure that in some case it will not arrive. What I want to make clear is that what we shall strive for in those consultations, will be a central Parliament in which White leadership is accepted and protected in the interests of the maintenance of Western standards and of each race group. Secondly, each race group will have a predetermined share in the government of the country. Thirdly, by introducing federal elements into the constitution, there will be a real measure of protection as to the rights of each individual and each race group. Let me emphasize again: Before we proceed to the federal constitution envisaged in that third stage, there will be approval by the White electorate by way of a referendum. I know that I will be asked what this and what that means. Let me tell hon. members rapidly how this will be applied to one group, namely the Cape Coloured group and then let us compare our proposals with those of hon. gentlemen opposite. When it is asked how that will be applied, let us first of all accept that White and Coloured have a common destiny in South Africa. That means that there will be no Colouredstan. There will be those five million hearts beating in unison in which Dr. Dönges was so interested. Secondly, when we say they will manage their own affairs, their own more intimate affairs by way of their own council, it means that they will have a communal council, very different from the present Coloured Representative Council, which will have, as a minimum, control over local government, education, health, over what I call the law of status and probably over many other matters. This communal council will consult with the Central Parliament by way of a standing statutory committee. That will be an elected communal council. It will have real powers. It will have the power to tax amongst its own people to induce responsibility amongst its own members. Then I said that there should be limited representation on a group basis in the Central Parliament.

Why limit it?

Why limit it? It must be agreed in order to ensure that White leadership is maintained.

White domination.

The hon. gentleman says “White domination”, but I prefer to call it “White leadership”, which is something very different. It is White leadership, because it will be negotiated. We have said that there will be six representatives in this House who can be White or Coloured and four in the Upper House who can be White or Coloured. We have called for continuous consultation by way of these standing statutory committees which will enable us to have proper roundtable discussions with these people. We have also said that social relations between individuals should be decided on a basis of self-determination, rather than on a basis of direction from Pretoria.

May I put a question to the hon. the Leader?

If you will wait just one moment, I shall be pleased to allow you to do so.

†When it comes to questions of public amenities, there are two kinds : Those provided by the State and those provided by private individuals. Where public amenities are provided by the State, we believe that there should be amenities for Whites, amenities for non-Whites and, where possible, amenities for both groups together, just as I believe that it is vitally important that there should be restaurants and cafés in Cape Town where an educated White man can take an educated Coloured man for a meal, the thing the hon. the Prime Minister finds so necessary when he meets members of the councils of the various homelands and distinguished visitors from overseas.

Then, I believe, one should go further. Where those amenities are provided by private individuals, it should be left to the private individuals to decide, as is very largely the case today. Certain hotels apply for and get facilities to have multi-racial entertainment. Others do not.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that the local communities would be left a wide choice in regard to these social affairs. Does this mean in practice that a community of Whites and non-Whites will be able to choose jointly to have a mixed school for Whites and non-Whites, and that his party would allow it?

Mr. Speaker, the State has its own policy in respect of schools and we have always stood for separate schools.

They will not have a choice in that respect?

This is an amenity provided by the State.

So Pretoria can do it.

I have not said that local councils can do it. The Prime Minister is being a little ridiculous. I have spoken about amenities provided by the State. The State determines them. When it comes to amenities provided by private individuals, I believe there should be a measure of freedom, just as there is at the moment for Pretoria to decide that it does not want a multi-racial athletic meeting, while Cape Town has one. Is the hon. the Prime Minister against it? Does he disapprove of it?

I want to ask the hon. member another question, if I may. The hon. member said very clearly that he believes the services provided by the State would be separate. But if the community preferred, there would also be services for Whites and non-Whites together. [Interjections.] Therefore, if the situation were to arise that a certain community in a certain neighbourhood preferred its children to attend school together, Black and White, would he respect their preference or would he refuse?

No, our policy is separate schools; that has been quite clear all the way through. But when the hon. gentleman wants to go with a Black nurse and White children to a beach, I believe there should be beaches where he can go, take them into the sea and see that they bathe safely. It is not allowed now.

Now I come to the steps to be applied: Review of legislation, very fast, and promotion of economic growth, very fast. But especially in respect of the Coloured people, the big problem is the problem of their socio-economic upliftment. That means greater attention to education, greater attention to technical training, and I believe, a firm commitment to phase in compulsory education for the Cape Coloured people. There should also be greater job opportunities and greater allowances and opportunities for them in the professional world.

Then comes stage two, which will overlap: Machinery for consultation will be working; socio-economic uplift will be a reality; communal councils will be taking real responsibility; consultation will be taking place continuously, consultation about matters which concern both groups and which concern living together in South Africa. There will be attempts to reach agreement on the lines indicated, attempts to reach agreement which will be accepted, not only by them but also by the Whites, as a result of a referendum amongst the Whites in South Africa.

Now compare this policy with the policy of the hon. the Prime Minister, the policy in respect of which he says he cannot see the end of the road, the policy in respect of which the Minister of Community Development says: “Ons het nog nie klaar gedink nie”; the policy in respect of which there is growing unrest amongst the Coloured people in South Africa on all sides; the policy which has resulted in the Coloured Representative Council losing confidence not only in the present Executive of that Council, but much worse, also in the hon. the Prime Minister. The fact that they are discarding the hon. the Prime Minister’s nominees is a motion of no confidence in him himself. What has been happening? The Coloureds have been losing confidence in the Coloured Representative Council. The machinery for consultation has been inadequate and ineffective as we warned it would be. What is happening? Consultation between the Minister of Coloured Affairs and the Prime Minister and certain of the nominees in that Council has taken place. Is that consultation? Do they really know what the Coloured people are thinking? Where are they going? Why are they afraid of our idea? We heard in this debate that they are afraid because we want to have some non-White representatives in this House to put the point of view of their people; they are afraid they would form a bloc with other representatives of the non-Whites, which will cause a position where the balance of power in this House could be controlled.

They may be the starting point—that is the problem.

The hon. the Minister says they may be the starting point. I told him there was no possibility of their being increased without a referendum towards another form of central authority or another form of representation. Why are they so afraid of this bloc? Is it that they are afraid that a bloc like that would prevent them doing what they like, regardless of the wishes of the non-White people in South Africa? It cannot be that they are afraid of the position of the Whites in South Africa, because there is a White veto. That representation can never be changed unless there is a referendum of the Whites which shows a substantial majority for any such increase.

Veto is leadership, not domination.

Mr. Speaker, I think the real trouble with these people is a very different one. It was put so well by the Minister of Labour when he made it clear that what he was doing, was putting party before country. What he was afraid of, was that it would mean that the Nationalists would not be able to get into power again. Why? Has he given up all hope of support from any non-White group for the policy of the National Party? What is he going to do? Sooner or later they have to face up to this problem. The Prime Minister says he does not see the end of the road. We are going to have two sovereign Parliaments developing in one State. Where is the road going? What about the Indians? What about dominational “baasskap” now? Here is where we get an eloquent silence from the other side of the House. Their whole attitude is “gogsa maak vir baba bang”. What about the “gogga” in their own party? What about their organization of South Africa, foothold for communism and terrorism, the Eastern seaboard exposed, the effect on the economy of consolidation, distortions and disruptions, of warring small units in South Africa?

In the interests of defence and of economic development in South Africa, they are going to have to find a solution on a basis of working together closely for all the states and groups in Southern Africa. The United Party believes we can get it on a federal basis, they are running away. They are beginning to take irreversible steps induced by fear. They are prepared to offer these people self-determination. Have they ever thought what happens if a group decides it does not want independence, but a federal association with the South African Government? Then the answer from that side of the House is, but what about White self-determination? Whose rights are now going to be paramount? That group or the White group? Now where is all this talk of freedom? Once again paramountcy and domination are the watchwords as far as they are concerned.

I want to say this afternoon very simply to hon. members opposite : They have a chance now to build up a federal relationship in South Africa which for defence purposes, economic purposes and the wellbeing of race relations in South Africa, undoubtedly could give us a rich harvest. They are throwing away this chance. They are taking irreversible steps, which may mean that they will lose this chance for ever and condemn South Africa to be a fourth-rate power, with falling living standards and poverty-stricken sections of the population. My appeal to the hon. gentlemen this afternoon is to put the country first and the party second and to rethink this situation.

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member. I fully agree with the report in the Sunday Times of 10th October, 1971, which states—

The one statement was this—

And then, Mr. Speaker, the Sunday Times goes further and says—

After the explanation of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I agree with him, because nobody here realizes what that policy is. I refer to his own speech at his central congress, where he said—

*In other words, he deceived his own congress. That is the fact of the matter, Sir, I want to put a very specific question to the hon. member today. He said he has never before been so shocked as he has been by the speeches and methods which are being adopted here, and, he said: “It has broken down national unity.” Now I want to read out to you what was said here yesterday, and I want the hon. the Leader to listen to this: he must not speak to his Chief Whip behind him now. I want to read out to him what was said yesterday in this House by the hon. member for Zululand—the hon. member must not leave now.

It is quite all right; I am not leaving you.

The hon. member said this—

That is right …

That hon. member says “that is right”. The hon. member continued—

I want to ask the Leader of the United Party: Will he further allow that spineless worm sitting behind him, when he does not expect the Minister of Agriculture to be present here in the House of Assembly, to launch an attack and try to initiate gossip-mongering stories, with the idea that the Minister will not have the particulars at hand because it is a matter which was finalized in 1964-’65? He thought that he would catch the Minister off-side with that spineless, worm-like conduct. As happened on a previous occasion, he did not give the Minister prior warning that he was going to raise a specific matter to which the Minister would have to reply. He saw the Minister was not here, and then he rose to speak. He also hoped that if the Minister had in fact been here, he would not have had the particulars. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition : Does he still continue to regard this as proof of national unity? Is that the language he allows, and if that is the language he allows, without rising, then I say that he is also a spineless maggot, smelling death. Here it stands in yesterday’s Hansard, and as a result of this language and this conduct of those hon. members, I want to inform them that they have belittled the prestige of the Parliament and of South Africa as a whole into the ground. Sir, they are the cause of the public outside having lost the respect and the courtesy they have always had for and displayed towards members of the House of Assembly. That conduct is the spineless, worm-like conduct of that hon. member. Unless the Leader of the Opposition repudiates that hon. maggot, he is also one who is smelling death.

He was dealing with a sick speech.

And both their faces remind me of one.

Both their faces remind me of one. In fact, he also looks like one; only he is thin, because the carcass off which he is living is shrivelling up. Sir, I said to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition by way of an interjection a moment ago that I would prove to him chapter and verse how they are giving encouragement to the terrorists, and I am now going to do so. I first want to tie this in with the hon. member for Hillbrow …

May I ask a question?

No, I do not reply to a question from a man who looks like a baboon.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must not refer to another hon. member as a “baboon”. He must withdraw it.

No, I did not say that he was a baboon.

What did the hon. the Deputy Minister say?

I said that I would not reply to a question from a man who looks like a baboon. I withdraw it. The hon. member for Hillbrow denied that he ever said that South African citizens had been deprived of their freedom.

On a point of order, Sir, yesterday the hon. member called the Minister a “worm”, and it was allowed. May the hon. the Deputy Minister not then call that hon. member a “baboon”?

Order!

Sir, the hon. member for Hillbrow is trying to imply here that the hon. the Minister of Public Works was telling an untruth when he said that that hon. member had said that South African citizens had been deprived of their freedom. I now want to quote to you what the hon. member said on 1st February of this year (Hansard, column 124)—

The hon. member said that we had lost the rights associated with a democratic system.

Of course that is correct.

The hon. member says “of course”, but yesterday he tried to make the hon. the Minister out to be a liar because the Minister charged him with having said that; he then told a blatant untruth.

That is not correct.

Why did the hon. the Minister say that? He said that because the hon. member, together with his confederates, circulated a pamphlet in his constituency dealing with freedoms which people had supposedly been deprived of. In that pamphlet they said that the franchise of the opponents of the Government had been restricted; that citizens were being prevented from appealing to the law; that powers had been conferred upon Ministers which ought to have been vested in Judges of the Supreme Court; that the electoral laws had been tampered with; that there was no appeal to the law against the Government’s own powerful decisions. That other freedoms had also been eroded. Those freedoms were the right to own and purchase property and the right of domicile; the right to attend mixed universities.

And mixed marriages.

Yes, the prohibition on mixed marriages as well; the contracting of marriages between persons of different races. Among other rights which persons had supposedly been deprived of, mention was made of the right to express opinions, and the freedom of the Press, the freedom of assembly and organizations, and the freedom of appeals to the law. Then the pamphlet goes on to state (translation)—

Sir, this links up with the democratic rights I mentioned here yesterday.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister from what pamphlet he is quoting there?

I shall give it to the hon. member in a moment. It is a pamphlet which the United Party circulated from house to house in my constituency. It was drawn up in the constituency of the hon. member for Hillbrow. This is the kind of news which is bruited abroad—

Then, further—

That is what they are circulating to the world. The hon. Leader took it amiss of the hon. the Prime Minister here …

In what year was it published?

Sir, it is interesting that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to know in what year this pamphlet was drawn up. I have here seven United Party re-elucidations of their policy, and not one is dated. They affix no date to their propaganda material, so that they can use it whenever they wish, depending on the circumstances. This one is not dated either, but I can tell you when it was distributed.

Is that the one with the devil on it?

Sir, I want to compare the conduct of the hon. the Prime Minister and of the late Dr. D. F. Malan in regard to the question of national unity, and then I want to compare with that and analyse the conduct of the United Party so that South Africa can see what the true position is. In this pamphlet which was circulated in my constituency by that Party, they depicted Dr. Malan as an octopus. I am holding the pamphlet up, so that you can see, Sir. The arms of the octopus are the prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, the Coloured Voters Act, the Population Registration Act, the Group Areas Act, the Suppression of Communism Act, the Transvaal Language Ordinance, the South-West Africa Act and the Citizenship Act; these are the octopus arms of Dr. Malan depriving persons of the democratic freedoms which the hon. member for Hillbrow is now so concerned about. According to him South Africa is no longer a democratic state, for people have been deprived of those democratic freedoms.

May I ask a question?

No, the hon. member will just have to take his medicine. Hon. members on that side are too spineless.

Order!

Sir, this pamphlet was distributed from house to house in my constituency by the United Party. I am going to give you the date and the day, and I shall tell you at what meeting this was launched, but before doing so, I want to draw the attention of the House to this speech made by the hon. number for Bezuidenhout. On 20th September. 1971, the Rand Daily Mail reported as follows—

Hon. members must listen carefully now. Most of the United Party members belong to organizations which meet from time to time to discuss and formulate future policy. The hon. member is shaking his head. This is Mr. Bassons speech: “Open your eyes plea by Basson.” He is now obliged to tell South Africa who these organizations are.

Probably the Broederbond.

It is probably the Sons of England.

I shall tell you who these organizations are. South Africa is entitled to know. On 19th April, 1952, the United Party entered into a contractual agreement—I have its contract here —involving the Labourites, the Torch Commando and the United Party, signed by these three people, and they dragged into that contractual agreement the Springbok Legion, the Black Sash—some of their wives came to sit here in their mourning crepe, did they not? One of them came to sit in the House in her mourning crepe!

Black is beautiful.

They also dragged in the Civil Rights League, which printed this pamphlet for them. They then became friendly with these organizations which want to destroy the colour bar in South Africa completely. The Torch Commando, which recognizes no colour bar; and they became friendly with the African National Congress and the Indian National Congress before these organizations were banned. They were co-members, back and forth, of these organizations. The people will still remember that their leader sent a telegram to the notorious Kane-Berman, who is at present again interfering in the Owambo problem in South-West Africa, in which he stated—“We shall fight together to the death.” To break down this colour bar to stir up hatred against the Afrikaner, to destroy the Afrikaner’s authority, his traditions and his orderly state, this group of organizations was propagating and encouraging anarchy, sabotage, strikes and even terrorism by means of liberalistic communism in South Africa. It is with these confederates of the United Party that they concluded a contractual agreement. I want to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout whether these organizations are now Nusas or the Christian Institute or the University Christian Movement or the Institute of Race Relations as well?

That is trash. Those things are dead.

He says it’s trash.

I shall tell you who the organizations were.

Order!

I shall tell you who they are.

Order! I am warning the hon. member for Bezuidenhout now. The hon. member can reply to the questions when he rises to speak.

I cannot discuss the last four now, because the matter is still sub judice. The United Party thought that we would forget this confederacy. But surely we have not forgotten that telegram which the Leader of the United Party sent to Kane-Berman in which he said:“We shall fight together like tigers until we are victorious.” Surely we will not forget that Sailor Malan, his ally, said at Pietersburg on 27th March, 1952, “Dr. Malan is an outlaw”.

Who is he?

Order! The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark! The hon. Deputy Minister is able to make his speech without any interjections or assistance.

Let me say this now. This Torch Commando came to hold a meeting in my constituency in the 1952 by-election, and Sailor Malan himself appeared on the platform there carrying a spade. At the time they had 400 Torch Commando members in a camp, and they took this pamphlet from house to house to tell the United Party people that they must vote against the National Party. There is a friend of mine here who was an organizer there, and here are others as well. That is, after all, the history of the United Party, and surely you must judge a man by his history and his family because “birds of a feather flock together”. [Interjections.] But what did they do? At that time they depicted Dr. Malan as an octopus. Now I come to the hon. John Vorster, the Prime Minister. In his fight against communism, sabotage, terrorism and the isolation of the Republic of South Africa, I think he is the greatest strategist South Africa has ever produced. He is a strategist in the struggle against these organizations which want to bring about the downfall of the White man and of South Africa. But, Mr. Speaker, he is not only a strategist, he is also a bulwark in Southern Africa for the survival of the Western civilization. In his selfless service to the Republic of South Africa in winning friends for South Africa, to be a factor for peace and an economic factor for Southern Africa, and to make of South Africa a conservative factor in the maintenance of the Western civilization, he is one of the greatest diplomats South Africa has ever known, with the wonderful assistance and support which he receives from the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and from the rest of the Cabinet. What are the confederates of the United Party doing? They also make him out to be an octopus. You must see this octopus. Here I am holding the pamphlet in my hand. This Prime Minister with the face of an octopus is being sent out into the world. But do hon. members know against whom they are fighting now? They are fighting against South Africa. You must listen very carefully to what we are coming up against in South Africa. The arms of this octopus must depict to the world that the diplomacy of the Prime Minister and of this Government seeks to gain a stranglehold on Zambia, Lesotho, Tanzania, Malawi, Kenya, the Ivory Coast and Rhodesia. This is sent out into the world to mar international relations and to plough South Africa under and to disparage our country. This is being used at UNO. What appears (in this report? This octopus pamphlet was drawn up by exiled United Party members, those who left the country, namely the Huddlestons, the Michael Scotts and the group who recently fled across the border.

What rubbish !

What what?

What rubbish !

Here it appears in print. If it is rubbish, it is good only for the maggots sitting there to hide under.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I am not replying to any questions. Mr. Speaker, in this pamphlet which was sent out into the world, the following was said—

These are the Afrikaners and the Boers. Then there is a further article about the Prime Minister, Mr. John Vorster. Why are these things being printed in against South Africa. Why are they being sent out into the world?

That has got nothing to do with us.

An hon. member is saying that it has nothing to do with them. It is being done because the mouthpiece of this is sitting here in the House. Listen to what that hon. member sitting there had to say. I am referring to Winchester, the little airgun. On 2nd November, 1971, he said the following to the world—

He then went on to say—

The speeches, the propaganda and accusations such as these which the United Party sends out into the world, give impetus to these articles written against South Africa in order to bring the whole world up in arms against South Africa. It is time those hon. members told us where they stand. This is not sabotage against the National Party, but sabotage against South Africa.

You are talking nonsense.

This is so because the United Party and that hon. member who is waving his hand about, is inspired by only one thing, and that is their hatred of the Afrikaners.

Hear, hear!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition accused the Minister of Defence a moment ago of having spoken about Boer-haters. It is not Boer-haters. From the earliest times already there has been a hate campaign against the Afrikaners by the jingoism and capitalism of whom they are the lackeys. They are the spokesman and this is what South Africa is reaping as a result of such a United Party and as a result of such a spineless leader who cannot call to order that spineless maggot sitting next to him in regard to the language he used.

Mr. Speaker, we expected something pretty unpleasant from the hon. the Deputy Minister opposite. For some of the things he stated here there was absolutely no basis of fact at all. When the hon. member for Zululand made use of that description he was dealing with a speech which had been entirely sick-making. However, when the hon. the Deputy Minister who has just sat down was speaking, he was dealing with a natural political response to such a sick-making speech. That is why I say that it is the hon. the Deputy Minister rather who harmed the dignity of this House by what he said. So little can the hon. the Deputy Minister quote from the writings or the sayings of United Party people against which he can bring in criticism, that he in fact used the pamphlets of organizations which have nothing to do with us at all.

What? Nothing to do with them? You have a contract with them!

The United Party has nothing to do with the pamphlet in question, a pamphlet which has apparently been written in about 1953.

What about Dolf de la Rey?

Order!

What about Dolf de la Rey?

Order!

Secondly, he attempts to attack the United Party through the writings of some of the present South African Press. It was not long ago that Dawie wrote that there was not a single newspaper in South Africa which supported the United Party because they had such a bad policy. Do you think if the papers were subject to our control, such a position would ever have been tolerated? Every member opposite knows perfectly well that those are independent, free papers which, if they operate within the law, which they do to a very high standard, have the perfect right to be published. And so for the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport to find nothing at all in all the writings or utterances of the Unitee Party which one could criticize before this House, but having to rely upon the documents of other people to attempt to smear us, I suggest is a very, very low brand of argument.

Sir, I very much want to deal with some questions of importance to South Africa. I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that at this time the country is anxiously looking to the politicians to come forward with answers to the questions which are gathering about us in an increasing degree. This Budget has added an economic question, a problem of great seriousness, to the other important problems we have been wrestling with for some time. We have always had our race relations problem and the problem of good race relations here. It is only in relatively recent times that our economy has been giving such serious causes for concern. But, Mr. Speaker, in this situation, when the country is crying out for answers, what do we get from the opposite side? We get the raking up of age-old matters of history which have no bearing upon our future problems whatsoever, often rakings which have nothing whatsoever to do with this party. And as my hon. Leader has shown, if there is to be discussion of connections in the past, it was the judicial commission of 1922 that found that the National Party was connected with the troubles of those times, indeed with the Communist Party. So if this is to be the way in which politicians are to approach the problems of our country awaiting solutions, I suggest the future is barren. And therefore it is right, as this side of the House has done, to come forward with solutions for our economic difficulties, as we have done to such an extent that the first day of the debate was described as very tame; constructive proposals relating to our country’s finances were put forward for a full day. Other speakers have come forward with constructive proposals on various points. Today our Leader has dealt with some of the most important questions facing our country. But by contrast—and doubtless because of Oudtshoorn —we have had not backbenchers but leading frontbenchers from the opposite side getting up, unprovoked, and coming with speeches which can only harm that atmosphere which must prevail for our problems to be solved satisfactorily. And so, Mr. Speaker, we have now had it again from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport …

Did you say “unprovoked”?

I say “unprovoked”. The speech of the hon. the Minister of Labour which introduced this whole cat and dog fight, followed upon a complete day of financial debate from this side and the hon. member for Johannesburg North, who devoted himself entirely to labour matters. I hasten to say, Mr. Speaker, that if it comes to a fight of that kind, we are quite ready to take the Nationalists on as we have shown. But equally we believe it is high time that both sides of this House got back to finding answers to the various problems facing us. The hon. the Minister of Community Development had to admit in his speech yesterday that in regard to the Coloured people of South Africa his party “het nog nie klaar gedink nie”. Indeed, I wonder whether they can claim to have thought at all. They in fact say they leave it to their children. Mr. Speaker, I therefore say that it is incumbent upon us, if we are to retain the respect of the people of South Africa to come forward with constructive solutions for our problems. But where we are told, as we have been told by the hon. the Deputy Minister who has just sat down and by other hon. members, that we on this side of the House are motivated in our actions by “haat teen die Afrikaner”, I think I must pause upon that important point for a moment.

Mr. Speaker, nobody can deny that we need the greatest degree of unity possible in order to solve the problems facing us. This campaign which had been launched by the Nationalists long before this debate, but which culminated in this debate, that the “Sappe” hate the Afrikaner, is part of a clear plan obviously approved by the Prime Minister. It could never have gone so far had it not been so. It is done in order to try to retain for the National Party the support of the Afrikaner, quite irrespective of possibly losing the support of English-speaking people. This is primarily done with Oudtshoorn in mind. But one cannot act in a vacuum, and what is said here today will have a bearing upon the future and has had a bearing upon the future. Now, why is this naked appeal made to Afrikaners irrespective of the attitude of English-speaking people? I say it is because of the population statistics in South Africa, namely that you can gain and retain power in South Africa purely upon the basis of Afrikaans support. You cannot gain and retain power on the basis of English support. The Herstigte Nationale Party are fully aware of this …

Your ally.

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad says it is our “ally”; it was their baby though, of the same blood. They harboured that child for a very long time. The H.N.P. realized that you can gain power in South Africa on the votes of the Afrikaner only and they are attempting to do it. They have evoked this reaction from our hon. friends opposite. For those people who want both fair play and the languages and cultures of both sections to be protected the United Party is the party to which they must turn. The Nats did at one time have a good measure of English-speaking support which shows, like Afrikaans-speaking people, that both groups are quite able to look dispassionately at the policies of the two parties. But they have lost it. Indeed, at one time the Burger said that there was as much English-speaking support for the National Party as there was Afrikaans-speaking support for the United Party. I do not know if that is correct, and I doubt it. That was the claim the Burger made, however. They have lost it on the weakness of their policies. The United Party, by contrast, was born from and wants to be the home of both sections of our people and it could never possibly turn its back on the Afrikaner. As I have said, the English-speaking section of South Africa can never put a political party into power. I believe that when the day comes that the United Party is made the government of this country by the electorate there will be more Afrikaans-speaking supporters of the United Party than there will be English-speaking supporters. If you want a guarantee for the fair treatment of the two sections, there you have it. It is for this very reason that the National Party has in the past gained power on single sectional support, and the fact that it is doing it again is highly dangerous for the fair treatment of both sections of our peoples. Where a party relies almost equally for support from both sections, that and that alone is the good guarantee of fair dealing.

I want to say that I have complete faith in my Afrikaans-speaking fellow-countrymen, no matter to which party they belong, that they will not harken to the call which has gone out from the Nationalist Party in these last months. I have absolute faith that they will observe the Nationalists making this plea and they will reject them because they will say : “These are not the policies to lead South Africa as a unified people to face the questions of the future”.

Now I would like to turn to the question of our race relations. This, undoubtedly, is the overriding question, and all will agree about that. I think it is important to pose this question : Which party has the safer and the better policy for race relations in South Africa? I believe that there is a simple test by which one can decide which is the safer and better policy. Let me by way of introduction say that hon. members on the opposite side and on this side, both the National Party and the United Party, have always said: “Let our race relations, our problems here, be solved by ourselves; let outsiders keep out of our affairs; we will tolerate no interference from outside”. In the light of that I ask : “which party’s policy is it which introduces foreign power right into the hart of our affairs? I say the answer is crystal clear. It is the National Party’s policy which does that. Why? Because they advocate—we had it from the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions again today—total sovereign independence for the areas which are at present still part of our country, so that they may go to the United Nations and do whatever they please. Mr. Speaker, you have in that fact a clear indication that you can get outside interference in our very affairs. Let me quote the architect of this policy upon this very point. I do not have the Hansard with me, but I have repeatedly quoted it. The hon. the late Dr. Verwoerd stated that these Bantu states that are to be sovereign independent, may have armies of their own, and they may make treaties with whom they please, including the communists. We had this statement confirmed by the hon. the Prime Minister in a very important respect when he gave an interview to the magazine To the Point. He then said: “If these states turn to Moscow and Peking, that is their affair”. Now, what clearer evidence do you want that that party’s policy is inviting in and opening the door to foreign intervention in our affairs?

Will they not learn the lessons of recent times? Hardly had the British left Zanzibar —it was a matter of weeks—when the communists were there. Hardly had the British left Tanganyika when the communists were there. Today, in those places, they have stirred up the local peoples to attack the Portuguese in Mocambique. Not long after the British had left Zambia we found the communists going into Zambia. Today, a few years later, we have this highly expensive railway built by the Chinese communists, bringing the communists right into the heart of Zambia, so much so that one of the members of the Opposition in Zambia recently said : “The only thing that this Tanzam railways is bringing us is communists into the heart of our country.”

What about Botswana and Lesotho?

Well, I am surprised that the hon. the Minister of Justice is so happy about Botswana and Lesotho. I would say two things in that regard. Firstly, we had no say in regard to what happened in those countries; we have got a say in regard to what happens here. Secondly. I would have thought that what happened in Lesotho was full of foreboding for the future of these Bantustans-to-be; because at the last election a communist-dominated party in fact secured the majority of the votes there. Botswana, of course, is a land-locked territory, but I am not at all happy with all the developments there. I hope the hon. the Minister of Justice is. I do not believe he is.

What about Swaziland?

Swaziland is also a land-locked territory with a great deal of White leadership and influence, which is exactly what the hon. the Minister opposite and his party wish to remove.

I say therefore that, applying this very simple test, you can see that the policy of the hon. gentlemen opposite is bringing into our affairs a foreign influence, foreign interference which our policy completely abolishes and makes impossible. I suggest that that is something hon. members opposite should take to heart. We have our problems; we know we have them, but let us, the groups that were placed here by Providence, work out a way to the answer. Let it not be complicated by the imperialistic designs and desires of the great new imperialists of the day, the Russians and the Chinese. It will not be the interests of the Black people that will be considered by the Russians and the Chinese; it will be no more their interests than those of the White people. It will be the interests of the communists which will be paramount when they seeks to push their nose into our affairs.

The hon. the Prime Minister, however, it trying to press independence upon the various Bantu states which are developing, but it seems that they are reluctant to take it. There is no need to elaborate because this has been in the news so recently. I suggest that the hon. members opposite will then be faced with the situation—if it is not taken—that their policy is not shaped for a situation where this independence is not grasped so readily. The fact, doubtless, is that the leaders of these bodies realize the quid pro quo:that they are perhaps getting something there, but giving up a tremendous amount elsewhere. This is a very big factor in their being uninterested in the proposals which are being pressed upon them.

Against this background let us look at our policy. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has set it out in detail, and I merely wish to deal with one or two tiny aspects. I first of all say it enables us, all the groups placed here under White leadership, to work out our salvation without the interference of foreign powers. We know, or should know, from our experience in South-West Africa, which is only a minor experience compared to what it would be in other places, what a terrible annoyance outside interference, even of that kind, can be. I say that United Party policy, by contrast, enables us to create the wealth and the skills, to give options, even to people opposite who may not be convinced of the wisdom of our policy, which may make them feel that one day their policy may have a chance. But if we remain poor, we may not be able to defend ourselves against those who may wish to assail us. If we do not have all our people of all groups with all the skills, how can you possibly expect them to set up, manage and maintain factories, industries and undertakings in their own areas without the White man? It is for this reason that so many of these undertakings have been placed on the border, because they must have the managerial skill and they cannot therefore separate them completely.

I say our policy is both idealistic and realistic. It is idealistic in that we make a virtue of necessity. Placed here by Providence are all these people. It has been proved, if ever you want proof, by 24 years of Nationalist rule, that you cannot separate them in the way they once thought they could. Therefore we say: Not only must we, but indeed we firmly believe that peoples of different kinds can, live in harmony and prosperity together. Now we are told of this danger of the so-called “bloc of sixteen”, if danger it be. I do not for a moment accept that it is a danger when you give a say to some of your own peoples so that they may be consulted and so that their voice may be heard. I say rather is this a safety valve. If there are those who feel that it is a danger, then I ask them what is their answer for those for whom Bantustans are meaningless. I speak of the Coloured people, the Indian people and the Bantu permanently in White South Africa. It was noticeable that the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions hurried over the question in that regard. I say that thinking people, and thinking Nationalists, realize that these people to whom I have referred must have political rights. Nationalists equally admit that they have not worked out any methods by which they can be given political rights. I want to quote a leader from Die Burger to show that what I have said is correct. In Die Burger of 11th April, they say—

That is a clear admission—and, indeed, the whole of their recent writing has been an admission—that methods must be found by which political rights can be given to these groups of which I have spoken. Sir, I say that if methods are evolved by members opposite, though they may not perhaps entail representation in this central authority, whatever they be, they will in essence involve dangers, if dangers there be, which are little, if any, different from those which they allege exist in our policy. Therefore I conclude by saying that when the day comes that hon. members opposite have done their thinking, and have come up with answers which they themselves admit they must provide, that then will be the day for them to come and talk to us again.

Sir, in the first place I am standing up to express my utmost appreciation to the leader of the National Party in South Africa and the Prime Minister of South Africa for the strong and consistent leadership he has given in South Africa since he became the leader of the National Party and Prime Minister of South Africa in 1966. I had the privilege of being in my constituency during the recent Easter recess, and I am now speaking on behalf of my voters, Nationalists and United Party men, who came to ask me to convey my appreciation to the hon. the Prime Minister for the leadership he has given in this exceptionally difficult period in which we are living, leadership South Africa is proud of and grateful for. [Laughter.] Sir, hon. members on that side may laugh about that, but I am carrying out an instruction of my voters. Hon. members on that side may laugh, but history will describe this Prime Minister as one of the great Prime Ministers South Africa has had. It is not under easy circumstances that the hon. the Prime Minister not only has to lead this country and give it his guidance, but also has to take into account the hostile international world scene. He guides not only the National Party and the Whites, but all the peoples in South Africa, and for that, without the least apology, the sincere thanks of South Africa, not only for his leadership, but for his dignified conduct in difficult circumstances. I am thinking of the very fine way in which the hon. the Prime Minister acted during the visit of the Secretary-General of the UN, Dr. Waldheim, who was here recently, and placed South Africa on the world map. I think the hon. the Prime Minister deserves the thanks and the appreciation of every member of the population of South Africa. Let us be grateful as far as that is concerned, whether we agree with him politically or not. Sir, I want to express my thanks and appreciation in particular to members of the Cabinet who took part in this debate and steered it along the particular course it has taken in the past few days up to now. I think it is high time that South Africa knows exactly where it stands with respect to the National Party which is ruling in South Africa at present, and where it will stand, as far as the United Party is concerned, if South Africa is ever hit by the disaster of that party ruling South Africa. That is why I say that it is necessary for us to know where we stand with the party which rules or might rule this country.

Sir, the hon. member for Pinelands and I, as Whips, have respect for each other. The hon. member waxed apologetic in his speech here. He tried to dissociate himself and his party from his past allies. I do not blame the hon. member. He probably has the right to do so.

Who are our past allies?

Sir, that member must please not interrupt me. I have a high regard for him, but he must please not interrupt me. I listened to him and I am now courteously trying to reply to a few points the hon. member for Pinelands made here. I do not blame him for dissociating himself from his past allies. He blamed this side of the House because we always link them up with the conduct of their past allies. He has every right to do this. [Interjections.] I listened to him, but the hon. member for Zululand did not listen to him; that is the difference and that is why he does not know what the hon. member spoke about. That is the difference. That is why he does not know what the hon. member spoke about. But let me tell him this. They are also father to the hon. member for Houghton; they brought her here, politically speaking. They were the patrons of Sam Kahn and the Native Representatives in this House. I do not know whether the hon. member was here yet at the time, but I was here when we placed the Coloureds on a separate voters’ roll, and I was here throughout South Africa’s struggle to make this Parliament a White Parliament so that they and their children can today be represented in a White Parliament. They protected them; they wanted to keep them here. Here they protected the Ballingers, the Kahns and the Basners and the other representatives who sat in this House. I therefore do not blame him for being apologetic when he speaks of his past allies.

There was a great deal of talk in this debate about national unity. It was the creed of my leader, Advocate J. G. Strydom, of Dr. D. F. Malan of the late Dr. H. F. Verwoerd and of the present Prime Minister to bring about national unity in this country. There has been a great deal of talk about that. Leaders and Prime Ministers on this side have expressed themselves on that. Today I want to make this statement. There is a place for every sensible and self-respecting White person in South Africa, whether Afrikaans or English-speaking, within the National Party.

What is a sensible English-speaking person?

There is only one party in which he can feel completely at home and that is within the National Party with its policy. All South African citizens, male and female, who endorse the principle of “South Africa first” can realize themselves fully and give effect to their culture within the framework and the principles of the National Party. [Interjections.] That hon. member is too young in politics, in spite of the greyness of his age, to put me off. I know what I stand for. I know what I want to say and I know what I advocate. My plea is for South Africa and for the South African electorate, and on this occasion I particularly want to warn the young people in South Africa against the United Party and their policy. You see, Sir, I have experienced this. From my childhood years I know what has gone on in South Africa. We had the opportunity of getting to know jingoism in this country. We know what it was to be trodden on. We know how the Afrikaner in this country was a squatter on his own land when the United Party men ruled this country. You now provoke me to say this, and consequently I am going to warn my children and their compatriots, not to surrender South Africa to the United Party in an election, because if one were to do so, one has surrendered it to the Black forces of Africa. Yes, I shall warn them here in this House of Assembly and also on political platforms outside, because I have experienced all this from my childhood years. I want to make this statement. There is only one political party in South Africa whose policy is based on and anchored in the principle of “South Africa first” and that party is the National Party.

If that is so, are you firstly a South African?

Order!

May I ask a question?

No, that hon. member should rather keep quiet. In my hand I have an election pamphlet that was issued in J 948, aimed against the Afrikaner in South Africa, against the Afrikaner Nationalist. At that time that hon. member was the editor of the Kruithoring here in the Gape, and he wrote this (translation)—

The United Party men were ruling then. £9 per year! “That is at least something to keep them alive,” he writes. But what more does the hon. member write—

Did Etienne Malan write that?

Yes, Etienne Malan wrote it. The United Party was ruling South Africa then. At that time 19 000 other young Afrikaner boys and girls and I walked around on the Witwatersrand to look for work under a United Party Government. Who is speaking of bread and butter? If one refused to sign the Red Oath, you were an accursed in your own fatherland; you were a stranger. Let us be frank with each other about these matters. Do not come along with these pious faces. It is a good thing that the United Party’s mask has been tom off, so that our young people, these people who have only lived under a National régime since 1948, can know exactly where they would stand with the United Party if it were to come into power. This piece I quoted is taken from an article on family allowance and appeared in the National Party’s official propaganda publication, the Kruithoring of 27th August, 1947.

Yes, that was a mess. I agree.

Order!

I would prefer not to be diverted from my course by speaking about the United Party’s 1948 election manifesto. We preserved it. It hurt deeply, but it boomeranged. It knocked the United Party out of power for all time. This pamphlet was drawn up and issued by O. A. Oosthuizen, General Secretary of the United Party, in collaboration with Mr. Marais Steyn.

There is no such reference there.

No, there is no such reference there, but I hope you are not ashamed of this pamphlet. Does the hon. member repudiate this pamphlet?

It was aimed at the purified Nationalist Party of those days and I agree with that.

Sir, listen to what the United Party had to say (translation)—

How is the electorate not misled by pamphlets such as these! I want to warn young South Africa against that party sitting over there, warn them never to surrender South Africa, my fatherland, to that party. It continues—

Sir, the National Party has nothing to hide. [Interjections.] We have nothing to hide. I am prepared to subject our policy to the test of “South Africa first.” “Therefore exterminate Nationalism,” they say. We shall have an opportunity of flinging it in their teeth. Sir, I want to ask you to look back and see how, since the National Party came into power in Parliament—and this applies to the House of Assembly and the Senate, but it also applies to every provincial council where the National Party governs— every piece of legislation or every ordinance it has passed can be tested on this principle of “South Africa first.” Everything we have done here we have done in the interests of South Africa first. There is no doubt about that. I should like to refer to our relations politics. I am very glad the hon. member for Yeoville has come in. I went to fetch his Hansard speech, for which I am very grateful. I am not prepared to quote the hon. member’s speech out of context. I found it lovely when the hon. member said this. He said—

Hear, hear!

*Mr. G. P. VAN DEN BERG—

That they are opposed to us.

That is a fine moral standpoint. I now ask the hon. member: If he wants to determine the destinies of the Black man in the Federal Parliament of the United Party, why does he then hold a referendum of only White people to decide whether there must be only eight representatives here or more? Now Mr. Gray Hughes must not help him. Let me just have a little courtesy, please. I have tried to be courteous throughout this debate. I really think the hon. member for Yeoville is able to answer for himself. May I just have a little courtesy?

I am not speaking to him.

I am speaking to the Leader.

Accept his answer.

I appreciate this and I am so glad the hon. member for Yeoville said it. But now I ask him how this tallies with the standpoint of the United Party, i.e. that if there must be a change in the representation of the Bantu in the Federal Parliament, there should, according to their policy, merely be a referendum of White voters. How do you then consult these people?

Very easily.

Where is your moral standpoint now? I hope the hon. member will have an opportunity to answer my question, because I found it very strange when he said that.

It is a reasonable question and I should like to reply to it.

He said—

Hear, hear!

Where is the morality of the United Party? What must the young South African electorate believe? You say that at all times you will consult those people, but if this Black mass were to act contrary to the interests of South Africa, the United Party would ensure that the majority of 200 members in this Parliament prevented their doing so.

May I ask you a question?

No, you may reply at a later stage. You spoke for a long time. I request, as far as that morality standpoint is concerned, that on some occasion or other …

If people act contrary to the interests of South Africa, would you not stop them?

No, there will be no opportunity to take action against South Africa in this country. The hon. member does not know our relations politics, or he does not want to. In this Parliament only the White man will make decisions concerning the interests of the White man. This Parliament will determine the White man’s identity. The Black Parliaments in the Ciskei and the Transkei will, in their turn, determine the identities and the interests of those countries. That is why we recognize multi-nationality. That is our relations politics and the basic difference between ourselves and the United Party. The Black man will take note that the majority of 200 will dominate and control them. I am now testing the United Party’s morality against the statement the hon. member made here.

What about the Coloureds?

When we are discussing these matters hon. members come to the fore with Coloured affairs. There will be another debate about this. The hon. the Prime Minister expressed himself on this issue. But I am not going to tell that member what I am going to speak about. I speak about these matters which are of the utmost importance to me. Where did the United Party stand when we abolished appeal to the British Privy Council? The electorate must take note of this. Where did the United Party stand when we gave the courts of South Africa full responsibility; when we passed legislation in South Africa to give every citizen, Afrikaans or English-speaking, in South Africa citizenship and when we passed legislation to give every Bantu in South Africa citizenship in his own country? Where did the United Party stand when we created the symbols of nationhood in this House? Where did they stand when we introduced a Republic, when we introduced one flag and subsequently our single National Anthem under which we could grow to one great national unit? It was time for us to conduct a debate such as this in this House of Assembly so that South Africa can take note of the direction in which the United Party wants to steer South Africa in contrast with the successful and triumphant course on which the National Party will eventually lead it.

Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot allow this opportunity to pass without reading out a quotation from a circular of the Afrikaner Broederbond. If that hon. member speaks in this House about the national unity advocated by Dr. Malan, I, too, want to read out to him a quotation of the words of Dr. Malan.

Freemason (Bokryer) !

Order!

What does this circular of the Broederbond say? It says (translation)—

Hear, hear!

The hon. members says “hear, hear!” To continue—

This circular goes on to say—

[Interjections.] I want to read another quotation of the words of Dr. Malan, the former leader of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, as they appear on page 10 of the Republikeinse Orde of 1941. I quote (translation)—

What is meant by the statement that everything which is un-national should be eliminated, is not that what is un-national towards South Africa should be eliminated, but that what is un-Nationalist or what is un-Nationalist Party, should be eliminated.

That is not true.

That is the type of argument we get from those hon. members. In the present juncture in which exaggerated nationalism often goes wild in many parts of the world today, and whereas in the course of this debate during the past few days this has once again emphasized the game played by the National Party, I am reminded of the words used by Gen. Smuts on the occasion of the 60th Jubilee of the Salvation Army on 12th April, 1943-

A dangerous nationalism is developing in the world at present, a nationalism which idolizes the idea of a distinctive people. That idolization of a distinctive race is largely responsible for the sad state in which the world finds itself today. In this manner nationalism becomes the first step to imperialism, to the spirit of domination and a reckless disregard for the rights of other groups and other people in this country. Nationalism in its exaggerated form can become a disease; it can become a spiritual obsession with people, and when nationalism assumes the form and concept of a master race, it becomes a public danger. That is what we in South Africa …

Coward!

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

Order! Which hon. member said that the hon. member was a coward?

I did, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw Sir.

Order! The hon. member for Turffontein must not read his speech.

What we are dealing with in South Africa today, has been portrayed in the theme used by the hon. members opposite in this House during the past few days. What has been the theme of hon. members opposite? The hon. the Minister of Defence wants to tell us that he has exposed the United Party. If any exposure has taken place, then it is the self-exposure of this hon. Minister, who was a Nat. organizer who climbed to the responsible position of Minister of Defence. I want to say that God should preserve us from the day when South Africa lands in difficulties or in war while that Minister is in office. This debate has shown once again that this National Party cannot provide South Africa, and particularly the young people of this country, with any positive guidelines.

Now, what were the arguments advanced by the hon. members opposite? They were, in the first place, that we were the subjects of terrorism and communism because we were allegedly strengthening their hand in their case against South Africa. In the second place, we were scolded for being Afrikaner-haters. In the third place, we were scolded for being so-called integrationists. We were accused on a threefold level. We were accused of committing a threefold offence. It was said that we were communists, Afrikaner-haters and integrationists. I am a young member in this House, and what I now want to say here, hon. members may want to reject with venom and with contempt. I accept this, because I am a youngster in politics and I am a back-bencher on this side of the House. There is something I should like to say to hon. members of this hon. House. What has been started in this House, is rendering South Africa a disservice. As regards the attitude adopted by this hon. Minister, I must say that if he had revealed it at a political meeting, I would still have been able to accept it, for it may just have been a case of his saying things which one could easily say in these times while making a political speech. He suggested that there were elements in the United Party who were Afrikaner-haters. However, yesterday afternoon this hon. Minister mentioned the names of members on this side of the House who are Afrikaner-haters. I think that is absolutely disgraceful. When hon. members opposite talk here about national unity, we cannot take them seriously. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions whether he confirms what the hon. the Minister of Defence called the hon. member for Musgrave, namely an Afrikaner-hater.

I shall tell you.

No, the hon. the Minister may not make a speech now.

The hon. the Minister should merely tell us whether he agrees or that he does not confirm it. He is the person who rises in this House, puts questions and then expects us to reply by merely saying “yes” or “no”. Let him tell us whether he confirms that the hon. member for Musgrave is an Afrikaner-hater. Just say “yes” or “no”. And then, with a pious face, the hon. the Minister wants to tell us what is South Africanship and what is Afrikanership. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I am a member of the Afrikaner people and the Afrikaner community. This is something in which I take pride. However, I am not going to be dictated to by hon. members on that side of the House as to whether or not I am a good Afrikaner. Furthermore, I want to tell the hon. members that I am a South African first and foremost and that I am proud of being a member of the South African nation. Now I want to put a question to that side of the House. What is the …

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No, I am busy. I want to ask hon. members opposite what the test is for being a good Afrikaner. I want to mention myself as an example, and then I want to ask hon. members opposite … [Interjections.] That is the attitude adopted by hon. members opposite towards Afrikaans-speaking persons who do not vote for the National Party. I was born of a good Afrikaner family. I was christened in the Afrikaans church, although the christening took place in the parsonage because my father was the proud bearer of a red tab and the Minister did not want to allow him in the church. I attended Afrikaans schools and today I am married to an Afrikaans girl. We are members of the Afrikaans church and I had my child christened in the Afrikaans church. Now I want to know what more I have to do in order to be a good Afrikaner.

A Nationalist.

There we have the answer. I am to be a good Nationalist, otherwise I am not a good Afrikaner. That hon. member is a member of the Rapportryers, and it does not astonish me to hear that remark coming from that hon. member.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

I do not wish to reply to questions. That is the attitude adopted by hon. members on that side of the House. I want to tell hon. members that this thing which they raked up and once again opened up in the politics of South Africa, is not going to be of any help to them. It is not a matter by means of which they will retain the reins of government in South Africa. I want to refer hon. members to a survey made at the University of Stellenbosch, and then I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions to give us his comments on it on a future occasion.

May I put a question to the hon. member? Could the hon. member tell us who the Minister is who did not want to christen him? [Interjections.]

Order!

My father told me this story when I began to understand things, and I asked him … [Interjections.]

May I put a question to the hon. member?

I am replying at the moment to a question put by the hon. the Deputy Minister, and he may as well listen first. Then I asked my dad why he remained a member of the D.R. Church under such circumstances. In reply my dad told me that he was a good Afrikaner and that no Nationalist would drive him away from his church. [Interjections.] That is why I am a member of the D.R. Church today and regard myself as a good Afrikaner, just as good a one as hon. members opposite can think to be.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

The hon. member wants to know whether he may put a question.

Sir, I do not want to reply to any questions. I want to refer to a survey made amongst students at the University of Stellenbosch. Various questions were put to these young people, such as: “English and Afrikaans …” [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I cannot even hear myself. [Interjections.]

Order! If hon. members do not remain quiet now, I shall ask them to leave the Chamber. This applies to both sides of the House.

The students were asked to comment on the following statement: “English and Afrikaans-speakers are separate people and must maintain their separate identity”. I want to say at once that I do not condone or condemn what is stated here. This is a survey and I want to submit it to the House. Only 10 per cent of the students of Stellenbosch replied “yes” to this. The next statement was:“Afrikaans and English-speakers should forget their old quarrels and form one people with equal language rights.” 79 per cent of the students confirmed this. The next statement was “Eventually English-speakers must be assimilated with the Afrikaner people and accept Afrikaans as their first language.” To my astonishment only 11 per cent replied to this in the affirmative. The next statement was as follows: “The preservation of one’s own cultural identity is more important than the bringing about of national unity amongst Whites.” The percentages relating to their replies were as follows : “Agree strongly, 7 per cent; agree, 15 per cent; uncertain 10 per cent; disagree 43 per cent, and disagree strongly 24 per cent.” These are matters to which these hon. members should give some consideration if they think that they are going to impress the Afrikaner, the young man in South Africa, today. In addition, a third question was put to the students, namely “the terms to describe identity”. 13 per cent said they wanted to be called Afrikaners first; 27 per cent said they wanted to be called Afrikaans-speaking South Africans; and 57 per cent of the students at the University of Stellenbosch said they wanted to be called South Africans. 1 per cent said they wanted to be called English-speaking South Africans. Now I want to tell hon. members opposite that if they continue with this type of ridicule in relation to people in South Africa who want to decide for themselves to what party they want to belong …

Like me.

I shall deal with the hon. the Minister in a moment. Then I want to tell them that they are playing with fire and breaking down what has been built up in South Africa over many years. Let us now deal with this hon. Minister who is so proud of his being a Nationalist. The most important argument advanced by the hon. the Minister of Defence was that people on this side of the House were Afrikaner haters because they did not speak Afrikaans. That is what he said. Yesterday afternoon this hon. Minister of Sport and Indian Affairs rose here, this wonderful English-speaking person in the National Party, and he did not speak Afrikaans. Why did the hon. the Minister not speak Afrikaans? Is this also contempt of the Afrikaans language? However, let us view the matter from another angle. I should like to know what respect hon. members on that side of the House have for the English community in South Africa. [Interjection.]

None.

I am speaking here as an Afrikaans-speaking member of the United Party, and I want to ask hon. members how many English-speaking people there are on that side of the House. Only one out of this total of 120 members sitting over there. What about the Other Place? How many hon. members are there who are English-speaking and are members of that Party? Two, a certain Horwood and a certain Carr.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member have the right to refer to hon. Senators as “a certain” Horwood and “a certain” Carr? [Interjections.]

Order! When the hon. member refers to the Other House, he must do so with respect.

In that case I shall say the hon. Senator Horwood and the hon. Senator Carr. But we heard that the hon. Senator Horwood had been brought to the Other Place to supply the deficiency of economists on that side of the House. Instead of our seeing him in these ranks, we hear from their mouthpiece that they want to bring Jan Haak back. Is this respect on the part of one language group towards another language group? As long as these hon. members carry on in this manner, and as long as they have the Broederbond and Rapportryers organizations in their midst, they cannot speak about national unity in South Africa in real earnest—for what happens to the English-speaking people who are going to belong to that party? The last two English-speaking persons of whom we know—these newspaper clippings are already beginning to discolour; that is how long ago it was— have already left the National Party again, i.e. Mr. Blythe Thompson and Mr. John Lepan of Natal. What do they say; why are they no longer in the National Party?—

These are the words of an English-speaking person who tried to belong to that party.

Is he a U.P. supporter now?

He is not a U.P. supporter; that is just the point. This person, Blythe Thompson, believes in the principles of the National Party, but politically it does not provide a home for him, because they do not make him feel happy on that side of the House. But then there is also our friend John Lepan—

This is the attitude adopted by hon. members on that side of the House. But very recently Rapport published this report (translation)—

What I find interesting and astonishing, Sir —I do not want to hold you up with this matter—is the following—

This is what was indicated by a survey made by Rapport. Hon. members on that side of the House are groping in the dark in an attempt to catch a few votes. They are looking for votes in the wrong place.

But allow me to proceed to another matter which I also consider to be of importance and which was raised by the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions this afternoon, namely the question of multi-nationalism, that every people should have its own facilities, even including the United Nations and heaven knows what not. Today I want to emphasize a question, a question which was put by a spiritual associate of members on that side of the House, a certain Mr. Willem van Heerden, who is regarded as a veteran Afrikaans journalist. I quote—

On countless occasions we have heard from Nationalists, from political platform to political platform and also here in this hon. House, that they have the recipe for, the solution to. South Africa’s manifold race problems. The broad philosophy and approach of the National Party is separate development, but in course of time this separate development has gained additional content. Terms such as “development along individual lines”, “parallel development” and “multi-national development” have also started to gain room in the policies of the National Party. But the latest term is “multi-nationalism”. If we want to apply this philosophy of multi-nationalism of the National Party to the Coloureds of South Africa, this whole policy of the National Party collapses. The hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions said by way of interjection that there were minority groups in the world when we asked him, “But what about the Coloureds?” I want to ask hon. members on that side of the House whether they really foresee in the future of South Africa a White Parliament, a Coloured Parliament and an Indian Parliament, “sovereign bodies of authority”, in the words of the Minister of Planning. Do they foresee a sovereign Parliament for the Coloureds within the framework of one geographic unit?

I challenge you to prove where I said that.

I shall send it to the hon. the Minister if he wants it.

I challenge you to prove it. This is the second time you have said it, and I never said so.

The Hansard I have here, is only part of the hon. the Minister’s speech, but I shall let the hon. the Minister have it. Sir, hon. members on that side must tell us where this “sovereign” power is going to lead this country. South Africa. There is only one alternative for the Coloureds, for the Indians and for the Whites in this country, as communities that have to live together in this country.

And the Bantu?

Hon. members should not try to talk about the Bantu again, for when we bring those two things together, they cry. As far as I am concerned, I may just as well include the urban Bantu in these groups, and also the communities living in the homelands of South Africa, but now I want to deal specifically with the Coloureds, the Indians and the Whites in this country. Sir, if we, as three communities in this country, want to make any progress, a central, overhead body should be established somewhere along the way. The hon. member for Piketberg made statements in this regard, and I think that he is quite correct. I want to convey my hearty congratulations to him on the fact that he is beginning to see the light and that he is also thinking in terms of an overhead body, a central Parliament, at some stage or other in the constitutional development of South Africa. Sir, hon. members on that side are welcome to talk as long as they wish, but young South Africa are not interested in the type of argument we heard from hon. members opposite during the course of this debate: they are not interested in arguments about what happened in 1948. Young South Africa are looking for guide-lines, and in this House this afternoon my hon. Leader once again stated the race policy of the United Party very clearly and very pointedly. Sir, whenever I talk to the young men and the young women in this country—we usually start talking on a non-political basis—about the problems in South Africa, we reach the conclusion at the end of our discussions that there is only one solution, and that solution is along the lines of the policy pursued by the United Party. We on this side of the House are of the opinion that by making this type of propaganda hon. members opposite will not gain even a few votes in Oudtshoorn, not even to mention the next election.

The hon. member for Turffontein has just stated that we are, with a view to the future and the problems of South Africa, looking for guide-lines. I think I can begin by telling him that when one is looking for guidelines with a view to the future, with a view to the solution of the problems of one’s country, then one must also consider the past; then one must take into account what happened in the past, the principles developed over the years, and the course thus indicated. The hon. member gave an almost moving testimonial here to his being a good Afrikaner or a good South African, but I want to tell him this, since he is now giving himself a good testimonial, that one is inclined to look for other evidence. The first thing one does as far as a politician is concerned is to look at the political context in which he finds himself, and then one looks at the policy, the policy statements, the course, the direction and the principles of the party to which he belongs. For him as an Afrikaans-speaking person, as a good South African, as he himself says, it is definitely necessary to consider his own Party. According to his own testimonials, according to what he sets himself as ideals, I think that I can draw the conclusion that he belongs to the wrong party. Mr. Speaker, I also listened this afternoon to the hon. member for Pinelands and a moment ago to the hon. member for Turffontein. It is very striking that in regard to the approach to our political problems, or cultural matters—questions in regard to which there has been a lively discussion here the past few days—and even economic matters, they began to argue from the wrong premises each time. It became quite obvious to me this afternoon from what the hon. member for Pinelands said, and a moment ago from what the hon. member for Turffontein said as well, that they are denying and misjudging what is fundamental to the existence of a nation each time. It is quite elementary, but it was not unnecessary, and it is not without substantial reason, that we have these past few days been discussing the question of language rights and the disregard of language rights, for was it not the Nationalist Afrikaner and the National Party and its leaders that not only had to ask for these things over the years, but that had to wage a fierce, sustained struggle to win a place in South Africa for the language of the Afrikaner?

It cost tears and heartache.

Sir, what contribution did hon. members on that side and their leaders and their predecessors make? At the time, when the reproach was levelled at the late Gen. Smuts that he had done nothing to allow the Afrikaans language to come into its own, he said apologetically: “Good Heavens, must I have done that as well?” That is as far as he came in regard to this matter. Sir, I want to inform the hon. members for Pinelands and Turffontein that we have seen during the past number of years how the United Party acts, not only towards the National Party, or towards Afrikaans-speaking persons, but also towards the Bantu peoples of South Africa. They opposed all measures which were adopted here to lead the Bantu, the Xhosa of the Transkei or of the other homelands, to their own nationhood. What did they do? They opposed every measure from beginning to end, as well as those measures which were intended to give recognition to the language of these people and to the right to speak their own language in their own Parliament and in their own homeland, as an official language of that specific area. Where did these hon. members stand then, who are kicking up such a fuss now about Afrikaans and the maintenance of Afrikaans? They were opposed in principle to those things. If the hon. member for Turffontein accepts that the Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking person has the right to have his own language recognized as an official language, what does he have against the Xhosa in the Transkei also being accorded that right? Over the years hon. members on that side have opposed these measures which accomplished those things. I want hon. members to consider these things.

Sir, the hon. member for Yeoville furnished an explanation here of their federal political structure and recommended it, and he then asked whether we as Nationalists were afraid of the Whites of South Africa; afraid that they may perhaps take the power of government from our hands. Sir, we are not afraid of the Whites of South Africa. He must reverse that statement completely. The Whites of South Africa are afraid of the United Party, because the United Party in the past never supported the positive steps in regard to a distinctive Afrikaans culture, in regard to the realization of our nationhood, our own national symbols our flag and our own national anthem. The United Party never participated positively in accomplishing those things. The Whites of South Africa do not trust them with the future of South Africa. We are not afraid of the Whites of South Africa. The Whites of South Africa are afraid of the United Party. The hon. member for Turffontein asked me why we were losing seats. Sir, we did not lose any seats; all that happened was that our majority in Brakpan was reduced slightly, and I have never in my life seen a party so glad about a defeat as the United Party was about Brakpan. If we want to test the United Party now one can test them in regard to the financial and economic measures recently adopted by the Government. You can test them in regard to the matters which we have already mentioned, in regard to the cultural good of the different peoples of South Africa. One can test them in regard to our political structure. Every time one discovers that there are representatives of a large portion of the population of South Africa here who are negative in their attitude towards those things which are being established in a positive way to develop a separate South African nationhood, a White nationhood, a Bantu nationhood, or nationhoods of whatever kind. Their attitude is sceptical, disclamatory, and negative. If we look back along the road South Africa has taken, if we look at our language, our flag and our Republic, and if we look at the things which have value for us, fundamental value and which are part of the achievements of South Africa—not only of the Afrikaner, but the achievements of South Africa—and one asks where they stood, one finds that they were never on the positive side. One finds that they had always tried to sow suspicion, had tried, to dismantle and, as in the case of the Republic, had worked and argued against it forcefully. Therefore I say that when we refer to these things and when we emphasize anew the need for a serious approach to our language and culture, it is with good reason. Over the years the United Party and its leaders have behaved poorly in this respect. Even recently they were still adopting a negative attitude towards these things which are of fundamental importance to South Africa and its future. We need not approach it in a very insular and petty manner. Sir, I think they are already very sorry that they voted against the Republic at the time. They would probably have liked very much to have that feather in their cap today. But these are things which cause, as I have already said, the Whites in South Africa to be very wary of the United Party and its leaders and representatives.

If we consider now the political structure—and the hon. member for Pinelande referred to this—we see that the hon. member for Pinelands once again tried to convince us that the political future as they see it and as the hon. member for Yeoville put it, “a federal political structure”, is sound and right. Then we see that in that future which they envisage, that of a race federation, there are once again the seeds of death for the future of any peoples in South Africa because it is constructed and based on the misconception that one can throw people together in a political cauldron, while at the same time failing to recognize their own identity and nationhood.

That is really a very distorted view.

One cannot have one country and one nation with eight or 10 different languages and different national anthems and other components. Now I want to put a question to hon. members. Suppose their political view and their federal parliament works initially, what moral right would there be to demand that the majority of the non-Whites in South Africa, 16 to 20 million Bantu and a growing Coloured and Asiatic population, be satisfied with a minority representation in this Parliament and that they be happy with it.

Why would they be satisfied with a lesser portion of the land of South Africa?

I want to tell the hon. member that land is not comparable. [Interjections.] The hon. member may perhaps learn something. One finds in South Africa many units of 15 and 20 morgen of land which are worth more than 5 000 morgen and 10 000 morgen, and the same applies as well to most of the land of the Transkei and most of our Bantu areas. But I just want to tell the hon. members this. They must take note that it is not only the National Party and its leaders alone who say that their political view is an illusion. A man like the Chief Minister of the Transkei, Kaiser Matanzima, has already told them emphatically …

He wants more land.

He has already told them emphatically that if the United Party should come into power he will bring about a unilateral declaration of independence. It is a responsible man who is saying that. It is a man who is speaking from innermost conviction. This is a man who is saying to them : As you see the future which you are planning for us, we find it totally unacceptable; we are not willing even to set our feet along that road. That is why it is not surprising that the United Party has even at this early stage of the year come forward with an announcement of its second interim policy, or a second interim stage in the development of its policy. I think they themselves sense, with great doubt and hesitation, that this kite of theirs will never get off the ground.

If we consider the economic questions and problems of South Africa, one finds the same phenomenon. When the Government comes forward with devaluation as a considered step, these people adopt a sceptical attitude. I find it interesting that in this matter the Leader of the Opposition spoke disapprovingly of it, while the hon. member for Parktown said : No, it is not really such a bad thing. But I shall tell you why they have said things like this, Sir. When people ask them on political platforms why they are opposed to devaluation they say they are not, and then they quote from the speech made by the hon. member for Parktown. But if someone asks them what was wrong with them in defending devaluation, they say: No, that is not true, and then they quote from the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. They make sure that in any issue there is someone who spoke along certain lines so that they can quote on any occasion from a speech which is suited to the situation. I want to say to hon. members that if we consider only the latest steps taken by the Government and the hon. the Minister of Finance, we find that these were calculated and planned with a view not only to the present economic situation of South Africa, but also to the future and the future development of the country. And when we consider devaluation I must say that I am amazed that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not act more positively in regard to this step, for I think that if one considers only the position of the gold mines and of the gold-mining industry in South Africa and the important place it occupies in regard to our foreign balance of payments, and if one takes into account that the gold mines have over a period of 35 or 36 years been producing gold at the same dollar price, then it amazes me that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not, simply for the sake of this important industry in South Africa, welcome this step wholeheartedly. We can concede to mining management in South Africa and to the mineworkers that they have over the years achieved a tremendous amount in being able to keep pace, in being able to produce and keep on producing at a fixed price in spite of rising costs. I think the gold mines in South Africa have proved what an increase in productivity can really do to strengthen one of the most important sources of revenue, industrial pillars of a people’s survival and development. And in this matter they were completely negative and no-one really knew where the United Party stood. Mr. Speaker, the same applies to their conduct throughout in regard to any good cause. We can go further back in history; we have the classic example which was mentioned here yesterday. If one looks back to the days before Iscor when we had nothing, and when a start had to be made with laying the first foundations at least for the development of a South African industry of our own …

We already have several steel factories …

Where? But the point is, Mr. Speaker, that I said that if we seek guide-lines for the future we must consider the past. I want to remind the hon. member of this, and then ask him, where does the old South African Party and the United Party stand? Why do they never see these things in their correct perspective? Why do the interests of South Africa never weigh heavily enough with them? On that day, Mr. Speaker, when their predecessors decided to oppose the basic measures to the extent of a Joint Sitting of this Place and the Other Place, they demonstrated what their disposition was. For what was the consideration in those days? In those days the consideration was that the dominions, the dominions of the great Commonwealth, should provide the raw materials and that they must buy from Great Britain. According to them we would even to this day have had to import our steel from Great Britain and other countries. Mr. Speaker, the fact that we are today on the verge of the third and fourth Iscor, simply proves what the basic policies of the National Party—not those of the United Party—have meant for South Africa over the years. And now we come to our own era, the era in which we are all living, and then we can consider what the Government has done for South Africa. We can analyse the present Budget. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. the Minister of Finance and the Government did not try to be popular with this Budget. No, Mr. Speaker, you can analyse it point for point, and you will see that there is profundity in it. There are things which are being done in this year, 1972, which will produce good results for South Africa in 10, 20 and 30 years’ time. Where do they stand? Mr. Speaker, when Sasol was established, they were a lot of sceptical people. They were the fault-finders. They are the people who said that Sasol could not succeed. The National Party evidenced the faith and the vision and the daring. And the National Party had the strength of its convictions to say that we should save for this matter in order to realize it. And today it is the basis for a great industrial set-up which has developed out of it, Mr. Speaker, you can consider the Orange River development scheme; it is not only a fine dam and a wonderful water resource (we opened it this year), but it is a matter which testifies to profundity with a view to the future of South Africa. Mr. Speaker, as happens in most cases with good causes … [Interjection.]

Does the hon. member for Yeoville think that it is his privilege more than that of other hon. members to make interjections time after time?

He cannot behave himself.

Mr. Speaker, as it happens in regard to most good causes in South Africa, the United Party did have a person who spoke in favour of and who advocated the Orange River development project. But fundamentally it is National Party policy and in years to come, in 20, 30 or 40 years’ time, South Africa will also benefit tin the economic sphere from the good results of these things which have been done. But, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have to say to these hon. friends today that if one sits down and gives a little quiet thought to what the future of South Africa requires, I do not see in them the people who have looked after my interests, my interests as an Afrikaans-speaking person in the past and who will look after those interests in the future.

Nor ever.

If we consider the political structure which they are establishing, then even the Bantu are telling them at this early stage : We want nothing to do with it. Mr. Speaker, in regard to the problems of the hon. the Minister of Finance and the Government, and the development which is being planned, I see in the Budget this year and in the measures adopted, the development of a greater future; I see the necessary profundity in regard to matters which will in future develop South Africa and make of it a stronger, greater and happier place to live in, not only for us as Whites, but also for the different Bantu peoples, the Coloureds and the Asiatics of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to carry on from where my colleague left off. The attacks made by that side of the House on the hon. the Minister and on this Budget were an exact repetition of what we had in the Little Budget debate; they were an exact repetition of what we have in this House year after year when the Budget is discussed. When there are economic problems in the country, whether it is inflation, the growth rate, devaluation, a low balance of payments or whatever, hon. members opposite have only one recipe, namely their magic recipe. Does this hon. House know what their magic recipe is? The hon. member for Parktown referred to their magic recipe for the solution of our economic problems in this debate as well as in the Little Budget debate. There he called it, inter alia, “the game plan”. That is the solution. Now I want to tell the House what their solution comprises. Their solution lies only in the free introduction of Black labour into our labour market. It must be admitted without any control. There must be no influx control. When I make these statements, I can prove with chapter and verse that I am not simply making a false accusation against the Opposition. Their solution lies only in the uncontrolled employment of Black labour. During the Part Appropriation debate, when the hon. Minister advanced his reasons why it had been necessary to devalue and to introduce import control, the hon. member for Parktown levelled the accusation at the hon. the Minister that our country was in this position as a result of unnecessary interference in the private sector. That was the accusation made by the hon. member for Parktown. As he put it, there is a ‘host of controls”. The hon. member agrees with that, not so? What was the hon. member referring to when he spoke of the “host of controls”? He was referring to the Physical Planning Act and, as he put it, “the restraints on the training of manpower” and “the restraints on the use of manpower”. What does this same gentleman say in this debate The hon. member for Parktown says—

Then the hon. member referred to certain concessions the hon. Minister of Finance was prepared to grant to certain industries in the PWV area. He said that certain industries would have to meet certain requirements. Today I want to plead very earnestly with the Minister that certain requirements should be met. Two weeks ago a seminar was held in Durban. At that seminar one of the big industrialists said: “We take on Bantu freely as we like and we will twist this Government’s arm”. I want to issue a serious warning that we will not grant those concessions freely.

The hon. member went on to say—

That is precisely what he said and he referred to “job reservation” and to section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act. I want to say here today that we shall always keep job reservation on the Statute Book and every white and coloured worker in South Africa should know that we shall never do away with section 77 in our labour legislation. The hon. member for Constantia saddled the same horse and said—

There is the proof that they see the solution solely in uncontrolled labour and uncontrolled influx of labour and the ousting of the White man from the labour sphere by cheaper labour. I make that accusation against those members.

I want to return to the member for Parktown, who is now the apostle of a “vigorous training programme.” The hon. member referred to the “restraints on the training of manpower”. His only advice so far has been “that we must curb Government expenditure”. That was one of the hon. member’s proposals under the “game plan”; “you must curb Government expenditure”, he said. How is one to accept this? If there has to be more training it must be accepted that more academic, technical and university institutions must be established. How does one do this if one has to curb Government expenditure? It is ridiculous.

His second solution to the problem is the better utilization of labour. Do you know what he recommends, Sir? He says, inter alia, “Listen to the advice of Tucsa.” This is his solution for the better utilization of labour. He says, “Listen to the advice of Tucsa.”

I have a report here, namely “The Seventh Report on Apartheid of the International Labour Organization, 56th Session”. The general secretary of Tucsa, Mr. J. A. Grobbelaar, addressed the students of Wits on 14th April. 1970. He spoke on trade unionism. I read the summary to you—

Hon. members opposite, with their pious faces, call in Tucsa as their witness and ally to whom we have to listen. Tell us whether or not we should admit the Black man to trade unionism. Do not remain silent. Where is the hon. member for Johannesburg North? This is the same proposal that the hon. member for Houghton openly advocated here yesterday. But that hon. member does not have the courage to say it. Tell us whether you agree with Mr. Grobbelaar, whom you called to witness. Now they sit.

Furthermore I want to refer to a resolution adopted by the allies of Tucsa, namely the British Trade Union Congress. They adopted a resolution at their 101st Annual Congress in Portsmouth. The resolution reads—

These are your allies. The hon. member for Parktown must tell us now why he does not repudiate this. Is he one of the “ridiculous” politicians? I am one of them. I say that the Black man is not ripe for trade unionism. Is that hon. member prepared to say that? No, there they all sit. Sir, can you see the piousness and the hypocrisy?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, I shall withdraw it, they remain pious. Their only solution to the problems of our country is to introduce more and more Black labour into our White metropolitan areas. They are not prepared to let us employ the Black man properly and use him productively in the Bantu homelands and border areas. Not one of them pointed out what political, social or economic problems their policy could create for us in South Africa. They shy away from that. The Opposition levels the accusation at us that our labour policy has contributed to inflation and to a low growth rate, and then they say that we have not made the necessary provision for training. I do not want to dwell on this for long, but let us just take a look at what they did when they were in power. What was their contribution to the current expenditure of universities? It was R1½ million then, whereas in this Budget is is more than R66 million. Let us look at the number of students. In 1948, when they were governing, there were 18 500 and in 1971 there were 87 000. The anticipated number of students by 1980 is 124 000. I now want to ask whether we have neglected our duty. Have we withheld training from our workers? No. In this way we can mention one example after another. We have had phenomenal growth in the sphere of vocational and technical education. In 1958, there were 8 courses with only 306 students. Today this education has expanded to 117 courses with more than 7 000 students. In this a Government which has neglected its duty? It is also illuminating to note that for the 10 financial years prior to 1948 R500 000 was spent on capital expenditure for vocational education. These are the people who are accusing us. In the ten years prior to 1968, on the other hand, 70 times as much was spent, namely R34 million. The hon. member for Johannesburg North is one of the people who remarked that we only look after the education of the White child. The number of White schoolchildren in the Republic of South Africa increased by 4,7 per cent from 1969 to 1970, whereas the number of Bantu children increased by 8 per cent. Is this not goodwill on the part of this Government to educate the Bantu child in South Africa? I think hon. members opposite should check their facts before speaking about this again. I am not going to elaborate on the training of apprentices, because we know what this Government has done in this regard. We know what this Government has done in regard to the training of adults. We also know what this Government has done as regards the conducting of trade tests for adults. The opportunity has been created for adults to be trained. The opportunity has also been created for the youth to be trained, and likewise for the adult to pass trade tests in order to qualify as artisans for industry.

The second accusation by the hon. member was in connection with our so-called “restraints on the use of labour”. I want to dwell on this for a moment. Hon. members opposite level the accusation at us that we do not use our manpower properly and that there is a tremendous shortage of manpower, especially in our metropolitan areas, the White areas in South Africa. I believe that the solution in these particular areas lies firstly in the better utilization of White manpower in White areas, and in this the private sector can play a very important part. They are the people who are always the first to be inclined to point a finger at this Government and to say that not enough is being done. However, let us look at the distribution of our Whites in our industries. What do we find? We find that 30 per cent of our White men and women are employed in our public sector, which includes the central government, the provincial administrations and local authorities. 67,3 per cent of all Whites are employed in the private sector. If those people perhaps plan and programme a little better, I think they will be able to use that White labour much better and more effectively. However, they always want to point a finger at the Government.

Whom are you quoting?

I am not quoting anybody. I think for myself. Only a United Party man cannot think for himself. This Government is accused of everything. Those people would do well to examine their own affairs properly for once. I believe many of them can be managed more effectively. I want to give you a practical example, Sir. Sasol’s sales turnover increased by 30 per cent in the past two years. Its White staff decreased by 10 per cent in the past two years. That is effective management, and it must be applied in the private sector.

One remedy for overcoming the manpower shortage is immigration. This we are also doing properly. We are bringing the immigrants into the country on a selective basis. Hon. members also pleaded for more immigration. We know that “bring the good and the bad”, not so? As long as he breaths, he can come. Do you know what they wanted to achieve by that, Sir? They wanted to bring the Englishman in to plough under the Afrikaner in this country. They did not do it on a selective basis.

Before we refer to the so-called “restraints on the labour policy”, I think we should take a proper look at our labour needs in this country. When we know what our needs are, we must look at the supply. Only then will we be able to determine whether or not we have the necessary labour in this country. Recently a survey was made of our needs. The report was open to inspection by every member. A proper estimate was made. It was not taken from thin air; it was conducted scientifically, based on a growth rate of 5½ per cent, with an increase in productivity of, say, 2,9 per cent and taking into account an immigration figure of 31 000. What was the finding?

Whom are you quoting?

I am not quoting. I am referring to the finding in the report of the Human Sciences Research Council. What was their finding? Their finding was that the demand for White manpower would amount to 1 112 000 in 1973. Sir, do you know what the supply for that year will be? The anticipated supply for that year is 1 134 800. This represents a surplus of 22 600 Whites. As far as women are concerned, a shortage of plus/ minus 6 000 is estimated. We have therefore made a proper survey of our needs and know what we require. Then those hon. members are the people who speak of “the restraints”. We know what the “restraints” are that they want to “remove” under their “game plan”—I shall come back to this—i.e. uncontrolled influx and employment of Bantu. Indirectly they are also pleading for the Bantu in trade unionism, but they are not honest enough to admit that. I want to ask, can we imagine today in what chaos we would land up in this country if we had to accede to the requests of the United Party? It would result in absolute chaos. Their policy would mean the end of prosperity. Their policy would be the end of the peaceful coexistence of the various national groups in our society.

Whom are you quoting now?

Oh, I think that poor friend is getting so hackneyed that he may as well go. We have the greatest labour peace and quiet, but one comes to the conclusion that the hon. member for Houghton yesterday pleaded for labour unrest in South Africa. I do not know whether she should continue to have the right to occupy a seat in this House. How many countries’ economies have not gone to rack and ruin as a result of labour unrest? We in South Africa, on the contrary, are experiencing the greatest peace and quiet, and if we have to choose between either survival or growth, our choice remains that of survival with controlled growth. Over against that those people with their “game plan” want to throw South Africa to the wolves and push her into the abyss.

The hon. member who has just finished his ill-read contribution to this debate made several points which I think have got to be answered. The hon. member closed off by saying that he would choose the “voortbestaan van die Blanke” with controlled growth rather than unrestricted growth. But, Sir, surely to goodness it has been brought home, even to the obtuse member for Vanderbijlpark, that his own Prime Minister has sleepless nights when the growth pattern of South Africa falls behind a certain tempo. What kind of story is this that he believes in the “voortbestaan van die Blankedom” and that growth can be damped down below a certain tempo, when his own Prime Minister has given him the lie in his mouth?

He talked of the growth rate as you want it.

The hon. member made out no kind of case at all. In his Budget the hon. the Minister of Finance has been forced to make certain concessions. He did not say that he was making them out of the fullness of his heart or because of his love of the economy of South Africa or anything else. He has made these concessions because they have been forced upon him by the economic reality of what is happening here in South Africa. The fact that he has been forced now to allow a labour relationship of one to 2,5 in the Reef Triangle is not due to the fact that the National Party has suddenly seen the light; it is because they know that as they are going on they cannot possibly hope to steer South Africa out of the economic mess and muddle and distress in which we have landed as a result of their policies without making concessions to the people who are all-important in the future of South Africa—the private entrepreneurs, the industrialists, the people who are carrying South Africa on their backs, the people on whom the future of White and Black in South Africa depends, the people who are being crushed into the ground by the burden of taxation imposed by this Minister, the people upon whom the future employment of everybody, White and Black, depends. Sir, to come and postulate here that the hon. the Minister has brought forward a magnificent Budget is totally false. The hon. member for Paarl said that this was the greatest of the great Budgets ever introduced by the hon. the Minister of Finance. If ever there was a case of “spot met si-ekte”, it was that statement made by the hon. member for Paarl. The hon. the Minister is absolutely down to the bone; he has to budget for a deficit; he has to dip into the reserve funds which he so carefully took out of circulation to try to damp down inflation in the years gone by. Now suddenly, to rescue himself from the position in which he finds himself, he has to go and dip into those funds to try to prop up the sagging economy of South Africa. To hail this as a prestige Budget and as something which is being done out of the greatness of his heart, Sir, is a totally false attitude and a totally false way of presenting the picture. Of course, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark came here with his usual hysterical absurdities and stupidities and talked about the United Party wanting an unrestricted inflow of Bantu labour. It is absolutely nonsensical. He knows that perfectly well. He has been told time and time again that the inflow of Bantu labour has got to be regulated. It has to be regulated in the interests of the White workers and it has to be regulated in the interests of the Bantu workers themselves. It has to be regulated in the interests of the people who have housing …

You live in a fool’s paradise; that is where you belong.

Sir, the hon. member was born in a fool’s paradise and he has never escaped from it. It is quite impossible for anybody in this country to postulate that there should be unrestricted immigration of Bantu into the urban areas, or that there should be unrestricted access to Bantu labour for the urban areas and for industry. What we want and what we have been insisting on is that there shall be training: that there shall be an ordered and regulated pattern of industrial employment; that there shall be agreement between the trade unions and the employers, as there has in fact been. One of the shining lights of the last couple of months, or maybe the last year of the Nationalist Party régime, has been the fact that they have recognized that the future pattern of development in South Africa demands that there shall be more and more Bantu people and other non-Whites employed in jobs which over the years have been regarded as jobs for Whites, because there simply are not enough White people left in this country to do all this work, and the Nationalist Party has been forced to recognize that.

Sir, the hon. member talks about the gold price. We all know that gold is a wasting asset; that we have only a limited period of time in which to strengthen, ourselves against the shock when gold will no longer be the undermining of our economy. In these circumstances, Sir, you would have thought that the Government would have gone out of their way to plan now and to build up now the sort of industrial substructure and the base on which we would be able to compete with the world outside. But we have had a concerted campaign from politicians, out of political interests, to limit the expansion that can take place; to limit the intake of Bantu labour; to limit the future growth of industry in South Africa in the interests of what stands revealed today, stripped naked of any pretence, as being nothing but a wasteful and stupid policy of trying to divert the main trust of South Africa’s economy into various border areas and into the Bantu homeland areas themselves. Mr. Speaker, surely to goodness the one lesson that we have learned, which the hon. the Minister himself has conceded in the concessions which he has made, is that the central economy of South Africa is the one thing which is absolutely vital to the future of everybody here in South Africa. It carries White and Black on its back. I believe that the one thing that comes out of this Budget is the fact that the Minister has at last recognized that our future, our common future, depends on the most efficient and the most sensible direction of the central economy, the metropolitan economy of South Africa, without which the development of border areas or any other kind of industry is impossible, because we simply cannot fuel it; we have not got the wealth; we have not got the resources. We are simply unable to go in for a serious and meaningful decentralization of industry without the wealth that is engendered in the central area.

Sir, I think I can leave the hon. member for Vanderbiilpark there. I think I have wasted enough time on him. Sir, the hon. member for Piketberg came here this afternoon and mentioned the Orange River scheme. If there is one thing of which the Nationalist Party ought to be ashamed, it is the fact that for years and years Uncle Tom Bowker from this side of the House plugged the Orange River scheme and begged for the Orange River scheme and pleaded the merits of the Orange River scheme to the derision of the Nationalist Party on the other side.

You had the opportunity to build it when you were in power.

When the United Party went out of power, it was moving towards a planning stage where it could have been implemented. Year after year Mr. Tom Bowker pleaded in this House for that scheme to be implemented, and the only reason why the Nationalist Party decided to implement it was the dire condition in which South Africa found itself in 1961 after Sharpeville. This was going to be the big gesture of faith in the future of South Africa, when the economy was in the doldrums. When Minister P. M. K. le Roux first announced the Orange River scheme in the Other Place, this was going to be the big gesture of faith in the future of South Africa. It is one of the ironies of history that within three years of having announced this gesture, the facts of the economy of South Africa caught up with the Orange River scheme, to the point where today the money which is committed and which has to continue to be committed is becoming something of an embarrassment to the Government and they are being forced to cut down and cut back and, in a sense, to waste some of the money that has been spent there already, simply because the costs have accelerated against the whole concept of this scheme. Sir, one thing that we have asked for, and for which we ask again, is that somewhere in that scheme a place be found to commemorate the name of Mr. Tom Bowker. Here is a man whose political life was virtually committed to the implementation of this scheme.

Mr. Speaker, some time ago when I was discussing another matter I drew a parallel between the position in which we find ourselves in South Africa today and that of France in 1789 when the French Revolution was building up and dark clouds were gathering about the head of the king. My hon. friend, the member for Rissik, took me to task. He wanted to know how I could say that South Africa was reaching a state in which a revolution could become possible.

I was most interested to notice in the Sunday Tunes of 26th March a headline which says: “South Africa could face revolution.” And it was under the name of Prof. Nic Rhoodie. The hon. the Prime Minister has sleepless nights when he thinks of people being without work, and I want to say to the hon. member for Rissik and other hon. members opposite that the key to the future, the coexistence of White and Black South Africa lies in urbanization. It is in the life condition of the Bantu employed in the urban areas, Bantu who are permanently resident there, people who constitute today one-third of the total Bantu population of South Africa, people who are tied to White South Africa, people whose future depends on White South Africa and on what we do and what our decisions are, and people on whose backs we are carried about when it comes to industrial production. 70 per cent of the total labour force in industry today is Black. Here we have the stark antithesis between the Nationalist Party’s vision of the future of South Africa and ours. We say that these people are the new wave of people in South Africa; these are the people who more and more are going to be significant in the Black population, and who will be more and more significant in the irrelations with White South Africa. We have today the policy of the Nationalist Party which postulates independence for eight areas in South Africa and for ten areas in South-West Africa and, do not forget, a parliament for the Bushmen, which is part of the Nationalist Party’s policy. We have today this policy of the Nationalist Party coming to a climax. We have today the chickens of the Nationalist Party coming home to roost.

We have heard that before.

Yes, we have heard it before. We have heard the chickens of the Nationalist Party coming home to roost when Dr. Albert Hertzog and some of his friends had to leave the Nationalist Party. The trouble was that the chickens came home to roost but the Nationalist Party had moved the tree.

The ostriches of Oudtshoorn will come home to roost.

I do not know why somebody has not thrown an ostrich egg at the hon. the Minister. I say this is a matter which is today coming to a climax, because for the first time now the Nationalist Party is being put to the acid test by one of the people whom they have created, one of the people they have put in a position of power, one of the people to whom they have promised all sorts of things, and one of the people to whom they can never give satisfaction, out of the mouths of leading members on the other side; because there is a headline this afternoon in the newspaper, which has been appeared before, just recently, where Chief Matanzima of the Transkei asks South Africa for independence. The report reads as follows—

What about it?

The hon. member asks what about it. He will see what about it. The motion reads that in the opinion of this Transkeian Assembly the Government should consider the advisability of requesting the Republican Government to grant independence to the Transkei comprising the following towns and districts and then there is a list of all those in the Bantustans, plus the White areas of Elliot, MaClear, Mount Currie, Matatiele, Umzimkulu and Port St. Johns, and this has been characterized by the Leader of the Opposition of the Transkei Assembly as being provocative, to say the least. Sir, I have mentioned before in this House that there have been three revolutions in our time. The one was in China when the Communist Party took over. Then there was a revolution in Kenya by the Mau-Mau and there was a revolution in Vietnam which resulted in the French colonial power being thrown out. It is a significant thing that every one of those revolutions had a “slagspreuk”, a war-cry, a slogan.

A Slogan?

That is a good word, is it not? The war-cry was “Land and Freedom.” Here you have a Nationalist Party which has deliberately created the sort of system in which there can be no other outcome but a confrontation on the points for which we have no answer, namely the land. You can give them their freedom, but in terms of the motion of the Chief Minister of the Transkei, they will not accept the freedom until they get the land.

What was the …

If that hon. member wants to make a speech, I would welcome it. There is a chance to make a speech, and then he can tell us where the headquarters of the Bushmen people are going to be in South-West Africa. I am longing to hear that, because I am indeed very interested in the Bushmen people. One day, I suppose, we shall get the answer, that is if he can find enough Bushmen. What has happened? The one thing we have to avoid is that the Chief Minister of the Transkei will take up a position from which he cannot retreat, because if he takes up a position from which he cannot retreat, a confrontation may come about. From the confrontation neither White South Africa nor Black South Africa can benefit. It was a delibrate creation of that hon. the Deputy Minister, his Minister, his mates, his predecessors, and the Nationalist Party as a whole that South Africa has been brought to the stage where we are standing on the brink of a confrontation. We cannot blame the Chief Minister of the Transkei for that. We took the chance to visit the Transkei during the recess and we went around in the Transkei, but how anybody can believe that that country can become a really meaningful independent country is absolutely beyond me! I cannot understand it and I cannot imagine any thinking, sensible person wishing to sever out of the living body of South Africa an area which is so economically depressed and which has so little economic future.

What about Basutoland?

Basutoland was not in our hands and we never had the choice. To do it deliberately when you have it in your hands—how can any thinking person today simply throw this thing out and allow or force the Chief Minister into the position where he has to make demands of this Government if the Government’s policy is going to be realized? We await the next speaker of this Government, because somebody must tell us what they are going to do. The Cabinet says that they have refused. If that is the case, then we shall have a deadlock, because the Chief Minister of the Transkei says that he will not have independence until he gets the land. Now the Nationalist Party tells them that they will not give them the land.

They will sell out the Whites.

Yes, one wonders just how long the Nationalist Party will stand by the commitments they have made to the White people in those areas. This is one of the problems, and it is a very real problem which has been brought upon South Africa by deliberate action of the Nationalist Party.

For ideological reasons.

It has been done for a reason which we believe comes out of the very heart and soul of the Nationalist Party itself, namely that desire to be separate from everything and to be separate from everybody. I think this is something which has brought us to a very serious situation indeed. A leader which appeared on 13th April in the Natal Witness says—

What did he say about that Opposition?

We met him and we were very interested indeed in discussing matters with the Chief Minister. One day I will have the chance to chat with that hon. member and I shall tell him some of the things which we have found out and which are most interesting indeed. Here we have a very clear picture of what the future of South Africa is going to be. It is beginning to emerge, and one of the leaders in the Natal Witness says—

The Lord help the Nationalist Party if it is a matter of delicacy! —

Mr. Speaker, I have just come back from my constituency and there we have been discussing the question of the consolidation of those areas with every single farmer I have met. I want to say this, that if this Nationalist Party ever again passes a Budget which does not make provision for funds to be able to buy out on a block basis farmers whose land is delimited for Bantu occupation, they are inviting disaster for South Africa, for White as well as Black. Mr. Speaker, probably the first speech I made after coming into politics I think was to ask that there should be block purchases—where there is land delimited for Bantu settlement—of White farms and that they should be bought out immediately they are proclaimed. Because, Mr. Speaker, it is impossible for a White farmer to survive on land which has been delimited for Bantu settlement and which has not yet been handed over. And anybody—the hon. member for Langlaagte …

Ex-Benoni.

… with the split personality.

The R60 million member !

It was good value. Mr. Speaker, think of the propaganda we got out of it. That hon. member, and both those hon. Whips over there were with me when we had the discussions with the farmers at Weenen and will remember the stories of the farming community told us, that the Bantu population in the Msinga reserve and other areas on the other side of the Tugela River—and the hon. the Minister of the Interior will also remember it, because it is in his constituency—regard the land as land which is going to be theirs and that they now resent bitterly the continued occupation of that land by White farmers.

Have you got the Agricultural Union with you?

Mr. Speaker, I will discuss the Agricultural Union with the hon. member under the Vote because I had a consultation just the other day with the Agricultural Union and what they said was that they would not be a party to buy more land in Natal until such time as the department begins to use beneficially the land which has been purchased in the past. And, Mr. Speaker, what could be more reasonable than that? When you come up against the antithesis between the policy of this National Party and the attitude of the party on this side of the House, then you get a commitment on our side to the continuance and the maintenance in this country of Western, Christian civilization which is held and carried in the hands of the White man. And I challenge any hon. member on that side of the House to deny that that is the factual position in South Africa, whether we like it or not or whether we believe in the intervention of the Deity or for whatever reason we find ourselves in this country. Mr. Speaker, we carry in our hands the Christian civilization of the Western world which means so much to Black South Africa. I want to make this point, and I will make this point again and again, that White South Africa has got labour as much as it can expect to have. The hon. the Minister of the Interior warned us that we cannot expect to go on living at this standard of living we are living today. But what we carry in our hands are the expectations, the hopes and the desires of Black South Africa. And everything that they can hope for in the future comes from the continued association they have with us in our urban areas, in the industries which we are creating, because the industries create the wealth and the wealth creates the conditions which allow them to live as civilized people. And as soon as one begins to cut away and to cut through the bond which exists today between White South Africa and Black South Africa, one will be jeopardizing the future of both. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is no good thinking that if White power goes in South Africa, that Black power will take its place. There is no such thing in the world as a vacuum. If White power goes in South Africa Red power will take its place. And I think we must be quite agreed on that, that Black power, the Bantu population in this country today, have not yet reached the stage where they can maintain a meaningful, separate existence. [Interjection.] I wonder if the hon. member has spoken to people who live in Kenya? I have relatives who live there. I invite the hon. member to tell me how many of the White people who live in Kenya today, would not get out if they have the chance? Why is this? Because in Kenya the population explosion is threatening to drive down the standard of living of every single person in that country, because there is not enough production there. There is no means of satisfying the rising hopes of people who have gone to school and have been educated, who have left the countryside and moved to the towns and who are looking for work and for the wider horizons that employment brings them. At the present rate of development in Kenya, there is not a hope that the expectations of those people can ever be met.

They would be in exactly the same position in South Africa.

The same position is not present in South Africa simply because White South Africa today provides the financial kills, the knowledge and the organizational ability. We provide the drive and initiative which fuel the economy and Black South Africa provides the labours which turns the wheel.

Oh, no, man!

That hon. member says this is not the case. I would like to know with which of those two statements he does not agree. Does he not agree that White South Africa provides the initiative capital and know-how to fuel the economy, or does he not agree that Black South Africa provides the motive power which turns the wheels? I would like to know with which of those two he does not agree.

It does not have the perspective in which you put it.

He says it is nonsense.

I will reply to you.

I look forward to his reply. Let me put the question to him specifically: With which of those two suppositions does he not agree? Will he tell us, too, what his alternative is?

We toured the Transkei and saw the factory which is being started at Butterworth, the tea plantations and, in fact, everything the department could show us.

And it does not impress you?

What we saw, was impressive as regards the scale on which it was being done. However, I want to ask the hon. member if he is satisfied that that would be sufficient to provide employment for even the natural increase of the people in the Transkei in time to come? There are being created not only in the Transkei, but throughout the length and breadth of South Africa, and particularly in my constituency—I do not know what will be left of my constituency; this may be the last time I will ever be elected to Parliament, as I will have no voters left; think what a tragedy that would be for White South Africa— centres of Bantu population which have absolutely no hope whatever of achieving any kind of meaningful production. This is so, firstly because their system of land occupation is against it and, secondly, because there is not enough capital anywhere in Bantu society. This capital cannot be generated either to make any kind of real investment in industry, which would be the alternative. I have said before in my constituency, and I say again that, where there are Bantu areas being built up and consolidated in the middle of White farming areas, the one thing that is going to destroy both White and Black South Africa is Black people looking over the fences of their areas, which are overcrowded and overgrazed and where they have no economic future, at the fair green fields of the farmer just across the border.

That is irresponsible.

This is not irresponsible. It is the truth. I have said already that three major revolutions in our time … [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to allege that we are dealing with a desperate Opposition in South Africa. I allege that we are dealing with an Opposition which has only one end in view, and that is to try to govern this country, no matter what the cost. If one considers this debate and the suspicion which is being sown among the general public, one realizes that if this official Opposition were to come into power, we might as well say goodbye to the concept of White as we know it in this country—not only we who believe in Nationalism and in the identity of the Afrikaner, but also the English-speaking person in this country with his culture and his identity. I do not say this to make people feel politically unhappy or upset, but this Opposition is an Opposition which has forgotten that in order to govern a country, one has to do it on a basis of principles. I think the whole background and basis on which the National Party is built is founded on principles, but there is a vacuum, a gap, as regards principles on that side of the House and I challenge the official Opposition to deny this. They can say it is nonsense, but I repeat that their modus operandi, their method, is to sow suspicion. What did the hon. member for Mooi River do during the first ten minutes of his speech? He tried to run down the hon. the Minister in regard to our financial set-up and economy in South Africa. We have a fundamentally sound economy in this Republic, one of the best economies in the world. I find it pathetic to see hon. members, such as the hon. member for Yeoville, speaking of an act of insolvency and saying that the hon. the Minister of Finance is gambling with this Budget.

Of course he is gambling.

The hon. member for Durban Point says: “Of course he is gambling”, but I say that this is an irresponsible allegation to make in respect of a Minister who has submitted a Budget which is in my humble opinion one of the best Budgets we have ever had the privilege to debate in this House.

Can we believe such things?

I believe in principles. The hon. member is still too much of a greenhorn to know what a principle is. When the hon. member has grown up and acquired a backbone he can voice an opinion on matters of principle. [Interjections.] He can carry on as much as he likes, but I have to listen to the insults of the hon. member for Florida day in and day out. He must learn to make his interjections in a more proper and responsible way. Then I shall respect his youth. He is not a symbol of the young people of South Africa. The young people of South Africa … [Interjection.]

You are just afraid.

I have never been afraid in my life. My history is an open history, but I do not know the history of this hon. member. I have never run away in my life, but I think the hon. member will run away from a toy gun. I want to put it very clearly that this Budget, which is referred to as a gamble, exposes such an allegation as being an irresponsible one. This Budget is an assured risk for the future, and the assurance lies in the fact that the hon. the Minister of Finance has unshakable belief in the future of this Republic. A lack of the necessary faith and realization that this Republic must be governed with far-sightedness can be the only reason for speaking of gambling. The hon. the Minister of Finance has come with a Budget, however, which is an assured risk, a risk for the future and the development of this Republic. This is not the first time in the history of the Republic that we have a balance of payment problem. It has repeatedly happened in the past. We have repeatedly been up against the problem of a balance of payments shortage and we have met that problem in several ways by means of thrift, increased production, greater efficiency and the export of gold and other minerals. But what the hon. Opposition does not realize is that we are entering a new era, one of the greatest financial challenges ever faced by this Republic. Then one expects responsibility, not only from the National Party and the Government, but from all the people of South Africa, in order to accept this economic challenge of the next decade as a national challenge.

I shall prove these facts. The hon. member for Mooi River spoke lightly of gold, of the balance of payments and of the Stabilization Fund, and made all kinds of disparaging statements. What, however, is the actual position in regard to our economy? Between 1948 and 1968 the gold production in the Republic of South Africa increased fourfold in value and quantity. Since 1968 the production has remained constant at a thousand tons a year. It has remained unchanged over the past few years. Ten years ago the gold production in South Africa paid for 50 per cent of our imports. Today it barely pays for 25 per cent. For that reason gold no longer has the value it used to have in the past. We are grateful for the revaluation of the gold price and the premium. Today it is at a record price, namely $49,25 on the open market, the highest it has ever been on the premium market. There is great confidence in the commodity, and we are grateful for that. If one looks at the Reserve Bank one sees the optimism. Last year this country, which is supposed to be bankrupt, earned more than R700 million in foreign exchange. We are dealing with a commodity here which we realize is still of great value to the Republic. But we are entering a new era in which we must attempt to mine other ores and to bring about further development. In order to enjoy the same exchange value as that which we obtained through gold, it will be necessary to mine between 50 million and 100 million tons of other ores. This will mean a whole economic evolution; it will bring new transport possibilities and harbours. This is the challenge for the future.

The second challenge is industrial development on the basis of decentralization. Provision is made in this Budget for no less than R13,5 million more than in the previous year for the development of border industries. It has been indisputably proved that we are being far-sighted in our approach to the future. Millions of rands have been spent on the infrastructure and on the provision of services by the State in recent years. In the private sector 38 per cent more was spent on industry last year. This year 34 per cent more was spent on the expansion of capacity in the manufacturing industry. I should like to take this further tomorrow in order to prove beyond question that this country has a tremendous future and that this country can be economically entrenched, providing that we can get co-operation. I shall also prove tomorrow that the contention that it is necessary to draw the Bantu into White jobs is a farce and a trick. It has been proved by men such as Dr. Basie Kleu and others that it has nothing to do with the employment of Bantu, but that it does have to do with capital formation …

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