Mr. Chairman, may I please ask for the privilege of the half-hour.

The first point to which I should like to draw attention this afternoon, is the position which the Prime Minister occupies in the Government of South Africa. He is undoubtedly the person who has the most power; he appoints the Ministers and he can dismiss Ministers. He is the final arbiter of national policy. It is in that capacity of his that I want to take up a matter with him this afternoon, one which I regard as one of the most important and pressing problems facing South Africa at the moment, and that is the economic policy being followed by this Government at the present time.

We are used to the Government’s tactics of trying to run away from any discussion of the country’s economic situation and to their attempts at distracting attention from it by setting up false beacons. In Brakpan, as we still remember, the false beacon was that the United Party did not want to put its heart and soul into fighting communism and terrorism, and now, with a view to Oudtshoorn, the false beacon is an attempt at reviving racial hatred and racialism—an outrage towards South Africa, which makes every responsible South African shudder. In view of what happened here last week, the Prime Minister is called upon to clear up this matter, but we cannot allow him to run away, too, from a discussion of the bad economic situation of South Africa. He is the final authority in the Government and he has to account for the things which are so manifestly wrong in the economy of South Africa, under which so many people suffer, especially the ordinary citizen, the person with a fixed income, the aged, and the newlyweds. Before we deal with anything else, he must first discuss this matter with us. His responsibility is even greater because of the failure of his party’s financial group and his Minister of Finance to reply to the criticism which had come from this side. [Laughter.] Sir, hon. members on that side laugh. Yesterday when the hon. the Minister delivered his reply, they sat here fast asleep. He battled for an hour, but achieved nothing. In places he revealed complete confusion.

For example, he tried ridiculing us because our speakers had pointed out that the economy was advancing ever more slowly, while prices were rising ever more rapidly. To him this seemed to be a contradiction, but it was not, Mr. Chairman. The biggest problem of South Africa is the very fact that economic growth is being retarded in the midst of inflation, an unfortunate phenomenon which economists strikingly describe as “stagflation”. If the Minister of Finance is unable to see this dangerous phenomenon, then one must wonder how competent this Government is to govern South Africa in these difficult days. Sir, I have already warned before that this Government is completely incompetent to handle our economy. On various occasions I have sounded the particular warning that unless it handled our economic affairs correctly, we would lose control of the relations question in South Africa, and this applies not only to relations between Whites and non-Whites, but also to relations between Whites and Whites, for there is one thing about which the hon. the Prime Minister and I may have no argument, whether we apply his solution or my solution to South Africa …

What is your solution?

… and that is that we still need ever-rising standards of living in South Africa. Without that, no-one can hope to maintain peace in South Africa, and we shall undoubtedly experience discord and bitter strife as a result of that.

Sonny, did you write that speech?

Sir, I warned, as I have just said, and what happened? The cost of living has increased enormously, and it is still increasing. Our standards of living have not kept pace with the rise in the standards of living of countries in Europe from which we expect immigrants, and it is falling more and more behind. Do we have the necessary money, Sir, to safeguard ourselves in a dangerous world? Is our economy strong enough to deter our enemies in a dangerous world? What happened this Session? These Budgets were presented, all with the same feature, i.e. a large unexpected deficit.

I say “large” because it is clear that the Minister of Finance tried to conceal his deficit by juggling the figures. The second feature was that reserves were either depleted or were being depleted, and all three gambled on the revival of the economy, although the Minister of Railways did not seem to be too happy about it. But what is even worse, is the fact that the main Budget left us with a series of unsolved problems. Businessmen and industrialists must plan in advance. What particulars did they obtain from the Minister? Last year they were up against an increase of approximately 7 per cent in the cost of living which, of course, diminished the buying power of their customers, and a growth rate, not of 5½ per cent as envisaged by the E.D.P.—not even of 4 per cent which others anticipated—but of approximately 3,7 per cent. Now, what is the forecast for this year? On what basis must the businessmen and the industrialists plan? What is John Citizen to expect? What did we get from the hon. the Minister? We did not get any forecast of the growth rate for this year, or of the growth rate he is striving to achieve. Neither did we get any forecast of the rate of inflation, or to what extent he believes he will be able to curb it. We did not get any dynamic plan for the future. What we got, was some relaxing here and some tightening there; there was some nibbling at the whole problem, but no vigorous action.

†Now, what are the results going to be, and how do they affect the responsibility of the hon. the Prime Minister? First of all, the growth in our living standards is not going to keep pace with the growth in living standards per capita in Europe, As I have warned before, it is going to become increasingly difficult for us to attract immigrants to South Africa. We may even once again lose some of our valuable people who will be drawn to higher standards overseas. Secondly, the growth rate of last year, and the sort of growth rate which seems to be envisaged at the moment for this year, are not going to be able to create work opportunities, not only for the Bantu coming on to the labour market, but also for the Coloureds coming on to the labour market.

Let me warn the hon. the Prime Minister. There are those who are forecasting already that unless we have a growth rate of at least 6 per cent there is going to be growing unemployment among both the Bantu and the Coloureds by next year, 1973. Thirdly, while this Budget may promote some growth I do not believe it is going to cope with the inflationary pressures adequately to prevent the country being faced with a spate of claims for wage and salary increases before the end of the year, with ever-growing burdens on the ordinary man in the street. Fourthly, the concessions made in respect of our labour pattern, and the additional use of our labour, may help us to take up some surplus capacity in industry, but it certainly will not provide a long-term answer to the problems with which the South African economy is faced at present. Fifthly, the decline in the tempo of industrial development in our existing industrial complexes is going to leave the Government with a shortage of funds, a shortage of funds for the development of the Bantu homelands, a shortage of funds for the decentralization of industry and, in fact, for the whole fabric on which this Government’s non-White policy is based. Sixthly, the revised taxation schedules, giving with the one hand and taking with the other hand, giving a minimal relief, are going to be totally inadequate to get the best out of our entrepreneurial and executive classes in South Africa.

All this means only one thing to me, and that is that there is serious trouble for South Africa and all its people ahead unless proper steps are taken and taken quickly. I believe that the position is so serious that I am going to put five questions to the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon, questions which I believe need urgent and clear replies. I believe that he, as head of the Government, cannot shirk his responsibility in respect of these questions.

The first thing I want to know from him is whether it is still the policy of his Government to reduce the number of Bantu in the White areas regardless of the consequences. I have already indicated that the generation of funds for the decentralization of industry, the development of the homelands and the infra-structure in the border areas depend on the prosperity and growth in the existing industrial areas. I must describe them as economic power stations of South Africa. They provide the power for development not only in the White areas, but also in the Bantu areas of South Africa. If their sources of labour are limited and their development is frozen, they are not going to develop sufficient power for development elsewhere for the carrying out of the policies to which the hon. the Prime Minister is committed.

The second question concerns the plans, if any, which this Government has for the rapid training of our labour forces, Whites and non-Whites, to produce an adequately trained and productive labour force to compete with sophisticated labour forces elsewhere in the world. I want to say at once that the steps so far announced are totally and utterly inadequate to achieve that objective; nor have they any chance whatever of succeeding in so far as the Bantu are concerned as long as we are trying to train craftsmen who are chained to the migratory labour system, a system which means that they are available for a maximum of 12 months at a time and then must return to the homelands before they can resume their work in the White areas. This applies to all the Bantu other than those who are protected under section 10 and those in the border industries.

I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister now that I do not want to be put off with fatuous talk about this being the responsibility of the employers of labour in South Africa. This is a national problem which must be tackled on a national basis; it must be tackled by the Government of the day in the full knowledge that employers can only move within the ambit of Government policy.

There is a third question I want to put to the hon. the Prime Minister. It concerns the use of non-White labour in jobs previously done by Whites. We know that the Government claims that its policy is the controlled use of non-White labour in jobs previously done by Whites, in consultation with the trade unions. I suspect sometimes that they have tried to borrow that from the United Party. What is the control that is going to be exercised? Is the Government going to control this problem in a weak, half-hearted manner, or is it going to go ahead in a determined effort to improve the productivity of the whole labour force, as the ultimate answer to the problems of inflation or a bigger internal market and a bigger export market? There have been some answers from the hon. the Minister of Labour in the Other Place. We want the hon. the Prime Minister to give us an answer. There are enormous benefits awaiting this country if only it would employ all its labour resources to the best advantage. We know, of course, that for various reasons there are problems associated with the increased use and higher training of non-Whites, problems which can only be sorted out if there is proper consultation and all parties put their cards openly on the table and discussion is frank and open. I believe the success of such negotiation depends 100 per cent on a clearly defined programme of Government objectives and, in the first place, on maximum development of the economy and the increasing use of non-Whites on an orderly basis and with the approval of the trade unions in the second place. I know that Tucsa has already called for the establishment of bodies throughout South Africa, on a nation-wide basis, to gather the facts and to be in the position to help and advise with labour negotiations on these issues. Without accepting the responsibility for the guidance of these bodies under a clearly defined policy, the Government can be the instrument of chaos, chaos in the ranks of labour and chaos in the ranks of the employers as well, where similar difficulties can arise. This, I believe, is going to be the final consequence of the position as it exists now. The hon. the Minister of Finance seems to have vaguely indicated that businessmen have the responsibility of employing additional non-White labour in jobs previously done by Whites.

I come to the fourth question. I want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister whether at a time like this, at a time when we are faced with a slowing up in our growth rate and a time when we are falling behind in the per capita increase in the living standards of the countries of the Western world, the Government is going to continue to spend precious money and use even more precious labour—particularly trained labour—for the creation of infrastructures for the decentralization of industry exclusively for ideological purposes.

Fifthly, we want to know—and I believe industrialists throughout South Africa want to know—whether the relaxations forecast in the provisions of the Physical Resources and Planning Act, as announced by the Minister of Finance, are final, or whether further relaxations will be granted. Will those relaxations granted be temporary, or will they be final? What is the position? Are those industrialists who expand and who allow the greater use of Bantu labour in those areas to which the Act applies, going to be able to rely on additional use of Bantu labour in the future, or will the Act always be hanging over their heads as a source of uncertainty and as a source of frustration in the future? I put these questions to the hon. the Prime Minister, because he will appreciate that the answers not only involve the Minister of Finance, but also the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, the Minister of Planning, and the three or four Ministers responsible for the education of the various groups of our population. That means that lack of cooperation on the part of anyone, a lack of co-operation in a coherent and clearly defined policy, can create bottlenecks which could cause chaos, uncertainty and insecurity. This could be fatal to peaceful economic progress and the future of our country. It is no good planning for relaxations under the Planning Act if you find that the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development does not want to make the labour available. It is no good the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development making labour available where it cannot be absorbed because of the activities of other Ministers elsewhere, while there is again a shortage in the labour force needed for the development of South Africa in other regions.

I believe that my analysis of our problems and the questions which I have put to the hon. the Prime Minister, indicate how heavy his responsibility is to the overall co-ordinated planning and for the policies which are necessary to solve our human problems in South Africa today. His Cabinet should be a delicately attuned symphony orchestra acting in harmony under his baton. I want to tell him that at the moment they seem to me more like a rag-time band notable for their disharmony. I hope the hon. gentleman will show the nation that he is capable of accepting this responsibility by dealing with this part of our debate very explicitly and very clearly so that every entrepreneur and every trade union leader, indeed every businessman in South Africa, will know exactly what his position is and can have clear guide lines for his plans for the growth and prosperity of South Africa.

In putting these plans to the hon. gentleman, I want to remind him once again of three things. The first is that the success of any non-White policy in South Africa will depend on economic prosperity and increased living standards, increased living standards not in a vacuum but increased living standards in comparison with the countries of the rest of the world. The second thing of which I want to remind the hon. the Prime Minister, is that our security in a dangerous world depends upon our economic strength and the defensive instruments which that economic strength can command for South Africa. Thirdly, the greatest bulwark against Communism in the world of today is a prosperous and a satisfied community. I want to warn the hon. the Prime Minister that the widening gap between the incomes of the different races in South Africa may be the gap through which Communism will breach the defenses of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear to me that if there is one disappointed man in this House, it is my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition. The way in which he started this debate showed me only too clearly exactly how disappointed he is. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made the statement—we all know it is correct—that in the final instance I am responsible for all my colleagues. I want to tell him that I gladly accept that responsibility. He said I was responsible for the actions of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. I want to say to him that it is a proud responsibility I take upon myself. In passing I want to say that in the years in which this Minister has been sitting in this House of Assembly and in the years in which he has handled important portfolios, he has rendered invaluable services to South Africa. I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the Budget which the hon. the Minister of Finance has introduced once again, bears the stamp of a Budget handled by a man who not only knows what he is doing, but I am expressing it as my conviction that there are very few people, if any, who would have been able to emulate him in this. [Interjections.]

It is of no avail if we laugh about it contemptuously; let us reason out the matter with each other across the floor of this House like fair-minded, reasonable people. Let us see whether there is any substance in the charge made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Was the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not in the House yesterday?

I sat listening …

Did he not listen yesterday to the replies given by the hon. the Minister of Finance? This is not something one says lightly of one’s opponents in this House, but surely the Leader of the Opposition was here yesterday.

Yes, I listened carefully.

Yes, he listened as carefully as a schoolboy, which is what he was yesterday, could listen to what the hon. the Minister said.

But he did not reply to the questions.

Not only did the Minister reply to the questions …

He did not.

… but I only wish you could have been sitting here in my bench to see how you looked. This is my opinion; but let us leave it at that now. I have a very high regard for the Minister, while the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has a low opinion of him. But surely we need not judge only on my opinion and on his. Surely it has been our experience in the past year in particular that the various economic interest groups in this country, whether their orientation be Afrikaans speaking or English speaking, have not on one single occasion hesitated to say candidly what they thought of Government action and what their standpoint was in respect of economic affairs in South Africa. We had a Budget which was introduced against the background of not only very difficult circumstances in South Africa, but also extremely difficult international economic conditions, circumstances which have affected all countries of the world intimately, which are continuing to do so and, as the hon. the Minister indicated, will continue to do so in the future. The hon. the Minister introduced his Budget and neither the hon. the Leader of the Opposition nor hon. members opposite, who in the past have let no opportunity pass of quoting some or other person or of citing some or other businessman against us, have been able to cite any business interests, business groups, business organizations or economists of repute against us in respect of this Budget. Surely it is my duty to take note of what the Chamber of Industries says. Only this afternoon, between one o’clock and two o’clock, I was listening to what the economist of the Chamber of Industries said here in Cape Town this morning, namely that as a result of this Budget there was every reason to be optimistic about the economic future of South Africa.

Hear, hear!

In addition, I listened to what the Chamber of Commerce and the Sakekamers had to say. I have listened to the standpoints of all possible interest groups, and what was the keynote of these? As my friend the hon. the Minister of Finance said, some of them said that they would have liked to have seen the Budget take this or that form, but this is natural and goes without saying. However, what was the keynote of this criticism, which did not emanate from politicians who wanted to make political capital out of the matter, but emanated from economists and business institutions? The keynote was that the Minister had not only introduced a good Budget, but had once again laid the foundation for growth in South Africa, and that South Africa had reason to be optimistic. It is probably a long time since there has been such appreciation for a Budget among businessmen as that which appears from the comments which have been made on this year’s Budget. Who am I and the Leader of the Opposition to have a great deal to say about this Budget if these are the comments of the people intimately affected by this Budget? It is clear to me that the Leader of the Opposition is very disappointed. After all, the Opposition prematurely took delight in saying how badly South Africa was faring. They prematurely took delight in saying in what a predicament this Government had landed the economy of South Africa. What are they doing now? It is true that in recent years there has been a deceleration in growth. We all know this. But surely it is not the first time this has happened. It happened in 1968 as well. The figure for 1968 is approximately the same as for the year which has just passed. This has happened before too. And yet, in spite of the fact that it happened in one single year, 1968, we maintained a growth rate of 6 per cent for the 1960s, as compared with the 5 per cent for the decade from 1950 to 1960 and 4 per cent for the decade from 1940 to 1950. Surely these are the economic facts with which we are faced. On what grounds can the hon. the Leader of the Opposition presume to reproach us in this regard? To me it is an indication of disappointment on the part of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Since he has levelled the charge at me, let us look at South Africa for one moment now. We took over the government in 1948. Many hon. members sitting in this House know little about 1948, because they were still young then. But fortunately we still have the figures, although our memories have become vague. Relatively speaking, South Africa was an undeveloped country in the economic sphere in 1948. Not only was South Africa poorly developed in 1948, but my hon. friends sitting on the opposite side had no confidence in its industrial and economic future.

You cannot say that.

I shall prove it to the hon. member.

Who established the Industrial Development Corporation?

No, but wait. It is true that it was established, but it seems that the hon. member for Yeoville is not listening to my argument. I say that side of the House had no confidence in the industrial and economic future of South Africa.

That is untrue.

Very well, the hon. member may say to me it is untrue …

And unfair.

… and unfair, but I shall prove the truth of it to him. The GATT agreement was negotiated by the United Party in the 1940s. Even today we are still paying as a result of the terms they negotiated in that GATT agreement. We are paying for that because the United Party adopted the attitude that South Africa did not have an industrial future, but only an agricultural future. They adopted the attitude that in that GATT agreement the emphasis should at all times be placed on South Africa being an industrial country, and no terms were negotiated with a view to the establishment of industries here in South Africa. They regarded South Africa as an agricultural country, but they saw no chance for the industrial development on the economic front. Surely this is an obvious fact, and nobody can deny it at all.

I am saying that South Africa was comparatively undeveloped in those years, and in that regard we need not rely on guesswork again. We need merely look at the figures again today. I, as the responsible person in this regard, must satisfy myself whether the National Party has acted in the interests of South Africa and whether the Ministers for whom I am responsible have guided that development into the right channels. And, Sir, I have satisfied myself of that. What do the figures tell me? The figures tell me that in 1947-’46 we had a Budget of R349 million. That was the Budget strength of South Africa in 1947-’48. I must point out to hon. members opposite that we were handicapped by the GATT agreement, that they rallied the world against us when we took over and that they held out no idealism and no hope for the future. Their propaganda was : Because this Government has taken over, the banks will close and the feet of the unemployed will resound in the streets. This, Sir, was the message they conveyed to the outside world about South Africa.

You are raking up old stories.

Yes, it is old stuff, but it is true. Bad medicine remains good for hon. members opposite. In spite of those facts which we opposed—in fact, one can see it for oneself in the figures— we have developed South Africa. Naturally, things developed slower initially, because there was a very great deal we had to rectify. Thus one finds that 10 years later that R349 million had become R698 million. The figure had almost been doubled, but things nevertheless proceeded at a slow pace initially. Ten years later, in 1967-’68, a figure of R1 956 million was reached; and four years later, the figure of R3 648 million was reached. In other words, in slightly more than two decades, it has increased to that extent, but in spite of this, that side is accusing the Government of being incompetent; it is accusing the Ministers of the Government, especially the Minister of Finance, of being incompetent, and what do we find? We find that thanks to my predecessors, and thanks to this Minister and his predecessors, we were able to increase a Budget of R349 million in 1947-’48 to R3 648 million slightly more than two decades later.

Let us go further. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition levelled a further accusation at me. He accused me and my hon. friend, as well as the National Party and my predecessors, of not having ensured proper standards of living for our people. If this were true, it would be a very serious matter. But let us see how true this economic argument of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is. We have not merely remained even, if one takes 1948 as a basis; we have not merely added the cost of living to salaries. We have raised the standard of living of the people in South Africa, Whites and non-Whites, in an unparallelled way. Again it is not necessary that my word or someone else’s has to be accepted for that. We can merely look at the figures. As a basis, we may take the figure so often used by hon. members opposite, namely that the rand of today is worth only 40 cents as compared with that of 1948. I am prepared to accept that figure of 40 cents for the purposes of my argument. In the first place I want to say this, then: It is obvious that the cost of living has risen, not only in South Africa, but throughout the world. It is obvious that the value of money has decreased; the penny is no longer the penny it was in 1900. This applies throughout the world. The point is not whether the standard of living has risen. The point —and I must satisfy myself on this—is not that the cost of living has increased; the point is whether salaries and wages have kept pace with the increase in the cost of living. The point is not merely whether the cost of living has increased; the question is whether the standards of living of the people have risen in spite of that increase and whether they have been able to pay it. What do the figures tell me, Sir, because I have to satisfy myself on this score? In order to satisfy myself on this score, I examined the position in respect of different categories of people in order to see what they received from the United Party in 1948 and what they receive from this Government. We can look at any aspect whatsoever; let us look at the position of a bricklayer. The hon. member levelled the reproach at me that we are prejudicing the standard of living of our people and that, economically, we are not looking after our people. We have heard several times from hon. members opposite that we should go back to the economy of 1948.

Sir, I called for the various figures in order to see what the answer is. The answer is that under the United Party the average wage of a bricklayer was R21-67 per week in September, 1946. The average wage for a bricklayer in 1972 was given to me as R82-33 per week. It has increased from R21 to R82; that is the average. Accepting that the rand of 1948 is worth 40 cents now, hon. members may work out for themselves what the position is. Let us take the case of a motor mechanic. I shall leave out the cents for the moment; his weekly wage was R17 per week; now his average wage is R64 per week. I take the case of a police constable; a police constable younger than 18 years received R30 per month under those hon. members, and if he was 18 years or older, he received R33 per month. That same police constable is not receiving R30 per month and R33 per month now; he receives R110 per month and R130 per month now.

He has not received his fair share of the growth of the country.

Sir, surely the hon. member can work out himself whether he has received his share of the growth or not. But let us go further to see what they as a State were prepared to do for our people. In their time a teacher in the lowest category received only R45 per month; under us, a teacher in the lowest category receives R190 per month; in their time the salary of the teacher in the highest category—this was the maximum on which one could start—was R70 per month, and now it is R325 per month. Sir, let us see how they treated the female teachers. In their time the starting salary of a female teacher was only R36 per month; now she receives R145 per month. In the highest category they received R56 per month; now they receive R1 560 per year, i.e. R295 per month.

After how many years?

I said they received R1 560 per year.

That is not R300 per month; it is approximately R130.

I did not say that. I said that female teachers in the highest category received R295 per month. In their time the female teachers in the highest category received R56 per month, i.e. R680 per year, and in our case it is R3 540 per year, which works out at R295 per month. Sir, let us forget about all these other people for a moment. Let us take the matriculant, who is the basic unit in the Public Service, in the banks and in all undertakings. Let us see what prospects they offered a matriculant in the Public Service, and what the position is today. In their time a matriculated male clerk received R36 per month in the Public Service. Under us he starts on R130 per month in this year of 1972. Lastly, let us look at nurses, and then we will have dealt with the entire spectrum. In their time a White student nurse received the princely salary of R27 per month.

Disgraceful!

Now the starting salary is R130 per month.

We lived well in those days.

A trained nurse received R49 per month, and now she receives R190 per month.

What about Cabinet Ministers?

Sir, it is perfectly true that the salaries of Ministers have also increased, but it is also perfectly true that the salaries of members of the House of Assembly have increased, and it is also completely true that one member of the House of Assembly was opposed to it, namely the hon. member for Houghton, but it is also true that she receives it at the end of every month. So much for the reproach the hon. member levelled at me in respect of the standard of living and in respect of the increase in the cost of living, which were the arguments used against me by the hon. the Leader. But I again ask the hon. the Leader: Who developed South Africa economically to the extent to which it has developed? Surely it was this side of the House. It is not necessary for this side of the House to tell the country it should trust us with the economic development. After all, we have proved that we have done so. [Interjections.] I shall come to that. The hon. member need not be concerned about it. But who had the confidence? They who are now talking of unemployment? Who predicted that there would be unemployment in South Africa?

Erasmus.

No, it was the United Party after 1948. But what unemployment was there not when we took over?

Almost none!

Oh, surely the hon. member knows he is talking nonsense now. I do not have the figure here with me, of course, because I am not like De Goede or the hon. member who looks into a crystal ball in order to know what the hon. the Leader is going to raise here. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition speaks about unemployment, I want to say to him that if there are people who are concerned about unemployment, it is this side of the House, and if there is one man specifically who should be concerned about it, it is I, because of the position I occupy. And I have said time and again that this is the one thing which I am afraid of in South Africa, namely mass unemployment, particularly among the non-Whites.

Why are there no surveys of unemployment in the homelands?

Sir, the hon. member may ask that of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and discuss with him what the figures are that the labour bureaux have there. These speak for themselves, but this is not a discussion which we can conduct across the floor of this House now. I maintain that there is no unemployment in South Africa.

Nonsense!

I maintain that there is no unemployment in the homelands, and I maintain that there is no unemployment outside the homelands. To tell the truth, there are many people who think that we are building up a tremendous shortage as far as Black labour is concerned; there are many people who are concerned about that. I want to say to South Africa and, for that matter, to hon. members opposite that they need not be concerned about unemployment. Even they will have enough to do as long as this Government rules South Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is merely making a statement. He adduces no proof for it. He merely makes the statement that “our living standards are falling behind”. On what grounds he says this I do not know. He adduced no proof for it at all, and he cannot do so either. But what is the “serious trouble”? Why does the hon. member use these words, i.e. “serious trouble” that is in store for us? These are difficult days, most certainly, but surely the hon. the Leader knows as well as I do that, as far as these problems are concerned, the necessary measures are being taken by this side of the House. As I said at the beginning already, it is true that we have had one year that was worse than the others. We had it in 1968 as well and we overcame it, which is precisely what we shall do now as well.

With great display, the hon. member put five questions to me. In the first place, he asked me whether it was the policy “to reduce the number of Bantu regardless of the consequences”. Who has ever said that? Who has ever said that we …

Blaar Coetzee.

No, that is ridiculous. Who has ever said that we would reduce them “regardless of the consequences”?

What did Blaar say then?

We said we should like to reduce them and we are doing our utmost to do so. Our entire policy is aimed at doing this, but we have said all along—and this is also my reply to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition— that we shall not cause the South African economy to be disrupted. This has been our keynote at all times, namely that we are acting in such a way that the South African economy will not be disrupted.

May I put a question to the hon. the Prime Minister? Can the hon. the Prime Minister inform us whether he still stands by the policy of his predecessor that by 1978 the stream of Bantu workers will be reversed to the reserves?

My predecessor made a projection. He said he believed the number of non-Whites in the White areas would increase, that the rate of that increase would drop and that by 1978 the tendency would be reversed. Let me say at once that I am not one of those persons who make that sort of projection. My predecessor made that projection. It is quite possible that it may happen. I want to say that we are working towards it. We would be very grateful if we could achieve that. If we cannot achieve it, we will know that the circumstances did not allow us to do so.

Then it would be a failure.

No, surely it is not a question of a failure when one works for something in the future and the circumstances prove to be different. This is my reply to the first question.

In the second place the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me what our plans were, if any, in respect of the training of non-White workers.

Whites and non-Whites.

Yes, Whites and non-Whites. Is the hon. the Leader a stranger in Jerusalem? Does he not know what training institutions have been established over the years by this side of the House?

They are not enough.

One can never do enough, but when the United Party was in power, there was nothing. [Interjections.] Let me give hon. members an example, since they are annoyed about my statement. I used to live in Brakpan. At that time it was a town with 25 000 White inhabitants. Until the National Party took over in the Transvaal in 1949, there was not a single high school for Afrikaansor English-speaking children in that town. Do hon. members know this? Twenty-five thousand White inhabitants and there was not a high school for Afrikaans and English children in the whole of that town! Today there are no fewer than five for Afrikaans and English children in that town. These, then, are the hon. members who want to come and talk here! We are training not only the Whites, but also the non-Whites. To tell the truth, the accusation is levelled at us by the allies of the United Party that we are doing too much for the non-Whites in that regard. What is more—and I still want to say something to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition about this—not only do the Hertzogites, their allies, level that accusation at us, but the United Party itself does so too. Do we then not have it on record—the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has still not replied to it, and in this Budget debate I shall insist than he give me a reply—that the Leader of the United Party in South-West Africa, the Hon. Senator Niehaus, reproached us with spending too much on the education of the Black people in Owambo?

We have already repudiated that.

He has said what he meant.

Thirdly, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me what the policy was in respect of the use of non-White labour in positions previously occupied by Whites. But he has received the reply to that innumerable times. He received it from my hon. friend on my left, the Minister of Transport, as well as from the hon. the Minister of Labour.

That was another reply.

The reply was that we believe in controlled employment, that we believe the White worker should be protected and that we believe the White worker should not work under the non-White. Surely we have told him that innumerable times—what nonsense is this that he comes along and asks the question again?

Fourthly, he asked me whether we would continue spending valuable money on the establishment of infrastructures for the border areas and the Bantu areas “exclusively for ideological purposes”. What nonsense is that? In the first place, that infrastructure must be established, whether it be next to the Bantu areas, within the Bantu areas or in the White areas. Our policy is very clear, because we are serious about it and because we want to retain the non-White in his homeland. It is very clear because we have viewed the matter from all angles—from the economic angle, the sociological angle and ethnological angle. We saw that, viewed from those angles, it is better for the Bantu to remain in his homeland and work there if this can be done. I am not apologizing to hon. members opposite or to anyone for the fact that I am spending money in order to develop the infrastructure near the homelands or within the homelands. The hon. members opposite then make great play of saying that they also want to develop the homelands …

We have always done so.

They make a great show of that, but how can you develop the homelands if you do not create the infrastructure for it? If they are not prepared to do so, surely it is only mere talk?

The hon. the Leader asked me whether the relaxations were temporary or permanent. The White Paper sets it out very clearly. After all, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can read and he heard what the Minister said in his Budget speech. The position is that it depends on the type of industry, and we have said explicitly that future industries which have a certain labour ratio and which want to supply certain demands cannot be established in certain White areas. They must be established in the border areas or in the Bantu areas.

With that I have replied to the five questions put by the hon. the Leader. After putting these questions the hon. the Leader said that my Cabinet looked like a “ragtime band”. That may be so; it is his opinion; but looking at the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I must say I think his consists of mouth-organs.

Mr. Chairman, we have had an interesting few minutes from the hon. the Prime Minister but it seems to me to have proved very little indeed. The hon. gentleman has come out with the fact that in his opinion the United Party entered into the GATT agreement upon the inner belief that South Africa’s future was a future as an agricultural country and not an industrial country. Fortuitously the hon. member for Pinetown is sitting behind me. Between 1945 and 1948 he, on behalf of the Board or Trade, was engaged in investigations into the following industries with a view to their extension and their development in South Africa : The shoe industry, the clothing industry, the footwear industry, the furniture industry, the timber industry, the leather industry, the chemical industry, the canned fruit industry and the biscuit industry. Yet the hon. the Prime Minister says that we were expecting that South Africa would only develop as an agricultural country.

Why did you then negotiate the agreement?

The hon. gentleman says, “Why did we then enter into the agreement?” The hon. the Prime Minister knows there have been opportunities for revision of that agreement over the years. Why have there not been revisions? The hon. the Prime Minister knows that. It was taken up the other day with the hon. the Minister of Finance. The hon. gentleman knows that very well.

He has set out to show that when one looks at wages, people are being paid more today than they were in those days when one has regard to the value of money. The value of money is not everything. The question is: What share have those people had in the prosperity of South Africa? Here you have a national income multiplied ten or eleven times, but where is there an increase here of ten or eleven times of what it was 25 or 26 years ago? So, I do not think these increases reflect all that credit on the hon. gentleman and those who are working with him.

Then the hon. gentleman asks: Who has developed South Africa? Mr. Chairman, who laid the foundation for the development of South Africa? It is the United Party with the plans it made during the wax years with its economic advisory council and the wonderful reports that were put in on which this Government build.

The hon. the Prime Minister has challenged me to show that living standards have not risen faster in the Republic than elsewhere. I am speaking from memory, but I have the figures with me in one of these files. But as I remember the situation according to the Reserve Bank figures, in the ten-year period, 1958-’68, the standard of living per capita rose in South Africa approximately 2,5 per cent per annum.

2,4 per cent.

2,4 per annum. In Great Britain it rose approximately 2,5 per cent per annum. In the countries of the European Economic Community they rose approximately 5 per cent per annum and in Japan they rose approximately 10 per cent per annum. That is why I said to the hon. the Prime Minister that our living standards were falling behind the increase in living standards in the countries of Western Europe from which we hope to get our immigrants.

The Prime Minister did not do his homework.

It seems to me that with the present situation, we are falling further behind the increase in living standards of Europe at the present time. We have no figures from the hon. the Minister of Finance of his expectations for the coming year. We have no idea what he is envisaging by way of a growth rate. It seems to me that my case is made and the case of the hon. the Prime Minister lacks any proof whatever.

We have had our differences about unemployment. We are always in an unhappy situation when unemployment is discussed in this House. We are in an unhappy situation because we have no figures in respect of the Bantu homelands. Time and again we have asked the hon. the Minister for figures concerning Bantu unemployment in South Africa, but all we get are the figures of registered Bantu unemployed, which are the figures of those who take the trouble to register in the urban areas. On the figures given to us by one of these hon. Ministers only the other day, he believes that the population of the Bantu townships is far greater than what the official figures are. I believe he is correct; I believe that there are vast numbers of Bantu in those townships, fair above the figure which is authorized. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister will find that he will be very surprised to see what the extent of unemployment is in some of those townships. I have visited some; I visited one outside East London which I believe is carrying 50 per cent more people in it than what the population was intended to be. I believe that a very high percentage of that extra 50 per cent are unemployed. But he will not find them in the figures of the registered unemployed Bantu in South Africa. It gives me no pleasure to take this up with the hon. the Prime Minister; it is a source of great regret to me, but I feel the time has come to say quite straightly and honestly across the floor of this House that it is no use coming to us with figures of registered unemployed Bantu, while no attempt is made to give us the unemployment figures in the Bantu homelands and of those in the townships who are avoiding registration or are in excess of the population at the present time.

The hon. the Prime Minister replied to my five questions. The first question had to do with the reduction in the number of Bantu in the White urban areas. He said, of course, that he was making no projections and forecasts in respect of 1978, but that there will be no removal of Bantu if it led to a disruption of industry. I understand that, but what we are worried about is not the disruption of existing industries, but about the growth of the existing industrial areas to give sufficient power and strength to the development of the future of South Africa. The second matter I took up with the hon. gentleman was the training of employees, White and non-White, in order to enable us to compete with sophisticated labour forces in other parts of the world. The hon. gentleman said that the United Party had done nothing. Has he never heard of the COTT scheme? Has he never heard of what was done in the war years? Did he never hear of those things? He talks today about the tremendous amount that is being done. The last figure I have shows that there are only 3 676 Bantu in the whole of the Republic getting technical and vocational training. This figure is in respect of March, 1971. The Prime Minister then dealt with the question of non-Whites doing the work of Whites and he said that we had received a reply already. That is one of our troubles. We have had conflicting replies. I leave this matter to members of the labour group to deal with. He went on to say that no matter how difficult the situation may be at the present time, he was going to continue with the decentralization programme, because he believed in it and asked whether we also believed in the development of the Bantu homelands. Of course, we believe in the development of the Bantu homelands, but just because of this very difficulty we suggested that it should be done with private White capital. The hon. the Prime Minister and his Government would not face up to that and have now reached the stage where they talk about development on an agency basis.

Not now!

I agree that in the life of the Government the change has been marked. It is now development on an agency basis, whatever it was before. But until the Government gets around to align development on the basis of private White capital and initiative going into those homelands, we are going to remain as we are today with minimal development and with the suspicion that there is a vast amount of unemployment in those areas. The hon. gentleman also replied to my last question and indicated that the dispensation depended upon the type of industry. I think we are at cross purposes here. The hon. the Minister of Finance talked about dispensation for industries very largely engaged in exporting … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, if a Leader of an Opposition ever talked himself out of a position, then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition talked himself out of one this afternoon; for what a plaintive display did we not have from the hon. Leader this afternoon! While I concede that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is a gentleman, and a good man. I sat here this afternoon wondering whether one would not feel slightly ashamed if he had to be one’s Prime Minister. I know that is a harsh word, but it is true. What have we had here this afternoon?

Last week we discussed finances in this House in the Budget debate. Yesterday afternoon those hon. members sat there as if mummified while the Minister of Finance discussed finances here. After the Budget debate and the reply yesterday—I wonder whether this is not the first time in history this has happened—the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stood up and tried to turn this debate into a financial debate. Why did he do that? For one reason; he must steer clear of certain matters. He grabbed at this subject this afternoon as a fig-leaf. Therefore what you saw here this afternoon was the hon. the Leader of the Opposition running awry. While my people are asking for bread, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition offered them a stone this afternoon. His conduct here this afternoon reminded me of what Dr. Malan once said. Listen now to how applicable this is to that hon. Leader, with his feet of clay. I quote (translation)—

Sir, if we want to discuss economic matters, I can discuss them with you. Here you have Tegniek. I quote (translation): “New upsurge expected—Budget arouses optimism.” They say that we may expect a growth rate of 5 per cent to 6 per cent this year. But what do we have from the Opposition? While we are asking for life for our people, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition makes this pitiful performance.

Sentiment.

If it had not been for sentiment, you would still have been unmarried today.

Let me tell you what is at issue here, Sir. Last week we said here that there are Boer-haters on that side of the House, and there are Boerhaters sitting on that side. I just want to quote what appeared after Brakpan in one of the newspapers which support the Opposition.

Which newspaper?

I shall tell you in a moment. This person writes—

Now, you must hear what this person wrote—

They must still tell us which “restrictive laws” they are going to repeal. But that is not what I want to spend time on. Listen to this—

Now, you must hear what they have to say—

Sir, what does that mean? There are people who, according to those hon. members, will be kicked out of the “top jobs” in the Civil Service, when they come into power. These are Afrikaners. (Interjections.] These are decent ordinary Afrikaner people for whom they have no time at all, and whom they do not care about in the least. They do not mind saying that when they come into power, they are going to put those people out in the street. They talk about the Bantu and the Indians who have to be given work, but in respect of my people, my Afrikaner people, they say that they will put 4 000 of them out of their jobs; it makes no difference what becomes of their wives and children. Sir, I think it is a disgrace to adopt that kind of attitude. [Interjections.] Sir, I shall continue to quote from this passage—

Then they say—

In other words they say openly in this Sunday newspaper that those Afrikaans business concerns will be dealt with in this way by the United Party when it comes into power.

Who says that?

There you can see it. Sir. There it stands in the Sunday

Tribune … [Interjections.] Let the hon. the Leader of the Opposition rise now and repudiate this report. As a result of this attitude of those hon. members on the opposite side, and as a result of a Boer-hate attitude towards the Afrikaner … [Interjections.] … as a result of the fact that the Afrikaner knows in his heart of hearts that he has no future under that party, hon. members on that side must not think that something struck them last week; the bolts of lightning that are going to strike them are still coming; they are only hearing the first rumblings of that thunderstorm.

May I ask who wrote that article from which you quoted?

I shall tell you who wrote the article; it is a chap by the name of “Hens Straaidum”. [Interjections.] Sir, it gave one great pleasure to see how there are certain organizations in this country which have taken fright at what has developed here. In the Rand Daily Mail of Monday, 17th April, 1972, the caption above their leading article reads: “Cool it; it’s explosive.” Now you must hear what they have to say.

Who wrote that?

This is the leading article in the khaki newspaper, the Rand Daily Mail. There they say—

We say: “A militant youth is necessary.” Let me say to those hon. members this afternoon : If there was ever a fine opportunity, then it was at Blyde River where that Afrikaner youth … [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman …

Speak Afrikaans.

… it is quite clear that hon. members on the other side of the House are back to the tactics which they employed in the Budget debate. The hon. member who has just sat down started by saying, “We have had a whole week,” and then he stopped; he was going to say, “… a whole week to discuss financial matters”, and then suddenly the realization percolated into his brain that we had had only one day to discuss financial matters before the hon. the Minister of Labour turned the debate into a real “skiet en donder” one. Sir, as far as I am concerned, we will stick to the matter that really concerns the people of South Africa, economics, and not Oudtshoorn, which will be dead duck by Thursday evening.

Sir, I have listened here now to two speeches, one by the hon. the Prime Minister and one by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, and I ask myself what either of these speeches has contributed to the well-being of South Africa, and regretfully I have to say that they have contributed nothing whatsoever. The hon. the Prime Minister indulged in long historical surveys, going back to 1948 and going back to what Brakpan used to be, but he showed no concern for the present in South Africa and, what is worse, not only did he show no concern for the present, but he gave no thought whatsoever to the future. He praised the hon. the Minister of Finance, but as the Minister of Finance is not in the House I will leave this and deal with it under the hon. the Minister’s Vote. He then went on to say that conditions in the world were bad generally and that the hon. the Minister had produced this wonderful Budget in conditions which were bad here, as in the rest of the world. It is true that conditions throughout the world are not good, but we have told hon. members on that side of the House time and again that we are a young, developing country and that the conditions which apply to the older and well-established countries in the world do not apply in South Africa, and that if we had utilized all our resources of men and materials, we would have placed ourselves in a position to resist the onslaught from without. Instead of that, what happened? As soon as things went sour overseas, we were completely pregnable; we could not stand up to the onslaught from without and before we knew what had happened we had to devalue. That is what the Government did to this country, and it is no good their going to the public and saying that devaluation is a wonderful thing. Devaluation is a step that you take as a last resort, and every economist knows it. The hon. the Prime Minister said that everybody had accepted this Budget of the hon. the Minister of Finance as something quite remarkable and quite outstanding and quite wonderful. Sir, what did the public really say? They said that the hon. the Minister of Finance—and I am giving the best construction that was placed on the Budget— had acted as best he could within the scope of what he was able to do within the context of Nationalist Party politics. That is all he did. He did not come with a Budget that meant something to the country. He tried to flex his muscles as much as he could within the chains to which he has been bound during the past 11 years that I have been in this House. Sir, what is the question that everybody asks after they have given this faint praise? They ask: Is it enough; will it do the trick; are things going to be better?

Sir, my hon. leader dealt with certain vital economic issues and asked for certain answers. Our complaint against the Budget and the hon. the Minister of Finance is that he said much but told us little. Regretfully I have to say the same of the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon. On the 29th of last month, until the 1st March, there was a meeting in Cape Town of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council. Following this meeting the Prime Minister issued his usual statement. This statement summed up the economic position of the country and assessed the immediate future in the following words—

Sir, what does all this mean? Is this a clear-cut, positive, dynamic statement of policy by the hon. the Prime Minister? It is the same kind of verbiage that we had from the hon. the Minister of Finance —words, words, words which are completely meaningless, which are absolute mumbo-jumbo. But there is one thing in this statement which is correct, Sir, and that is where it says on page 5—

This must have come as a great shock to the hon. the Prime Minister, because it was his hon. Minister of Finance who, looking at South Africa and its economy through his rose-coloured glasses, had been making optimistic statement after optimistic statement throughout 1971, until the truth became apparent to him when he had to prepare his own Budget and found that he had a deficit, which I still say amounted to R131.4 million. It is no good the hon. the Minister telling us that he had a balance of R72 million odd to begin with. Any industrial or financial company that goes to its shareholders and says, “We have had an enormous loss this year, but don’t worry, we have some reserves and everything is fine”, would soon hear from its shareholder. Sir, 1971 has come and 1971 has gone, but what about 1972? What did the hon. the Prime Minister say about 1972? He said—

Sir, what does this mean?

Exactly what it says.

We have asked the hon. the Minister of Finance, and now the hon. the Prime Minister, time and time again: “What is your projected growth rate for 1972; what does a moderate acceleration mean?”. The growth rate in 1971 was 3,7 per cent; in 1970 it was 4,8 per cent. The projected growth rate for 1970 to 1975 of the Economic Development Programme is 5,5 per cent. In both 1970 and 1971 we have fallen behind the requirements of the Economic Development Programme. What we want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister, because the hon. the Minister of Finance will not tell us, is what his growth rate projection is for 1972. What is his projection in monetary terms, and what is his projection in real terms? Perhaps we can get an answer from the hon. the Prime Minister to a question which I have asked the hon. the Minister of Finance five times and to which we cannot get an answer from him, and that is what he estimates the rate of inflation is going to be. By what percentage is the cost of living going to rise this year? Sir, the public is entitled to know. We cannot work in the dark. The object of the hon. the Prime Minister is growth coupled with an acceptable rate of inflation. Sir, that is an object with which we agree but, for the benefit of the hon. the Minister of Finance, we do not want stagflation with a high rate of inflation and a low rate of growth. We want heating up of the economy to ensure a growth, with a cooling down of inflation by removing the factors that make for inflation; and that is what the hon. the Minister did not understand when he asked us about our hot policy and our cold policy—hot for development and cold for inflation. Sir, what are the limits within which the private sector has to work? Nobody tells us. There is no indication whatsoever from any source whatsoever as to what the projections are for 1972. What are we to aim at? What are the objectives; what is the programme to attain these objectives? Are we to wander around in a vacuum of ignorance? The businessman, the entrepreneur, the financier, is supposed to sit behind his desk and plan to help the hon. the Prime Minister to increase the growth rate in this country and he wants to know what the limits are, what the guidelines are, what the boundaries are and where we are going. Not in one single word uttered by the hon. the Prime Minister or by the Minister of Finance can we find the answers. [Time expired.]

The hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, is resolved to continue the debate in connection with financial matters, but undoubtedly to his disadvantage. Notwithstanding all the optimism prevailing outside, the Opposition is now adopting a pessimistic tone, and I want to accuse them of doing this in a cool and calculating manner. If we look at the sad tidings we have heard from that side of the House since 1968, we find the following pattern: In February, 1968, the United Party issued notes for its speakers. I have a copy here in my hand, and they advised their speakers to concentrate on the “White labour shortage, housing, pensions and grievances”. That was in February, 1968, and after 1968 we had that tremendous upsurge in our economy, which they now want to use to their advantage. Again we find ourselves on the threshold of such an upsurge, and again we have these calculated sad tidings, which I say are intended to create a spirit of pessimism outside, and probably it is also being done with a view to canvassing a few votes at Oudtshoorn. I can say more about these notes that were compiled by a very intelligent and cunning person. Initially I thought it was the hon. member for Hillbrow, but to our amazement we later discovered it was the hon. member for Yeoville who compiled them. But I want to come to a much more serious matter than this one. I say that here there is calculated and cold-blooded action being taken to create a general spirit that can adversely affect the country’s economy. I say that this borders on economic sabotage. Let us now look at the speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister, who has just resumed his seat. They asked for proof that the United Party are Afrikaner-haters. In my hand I have the minutes, the Hansard, of the debates and the Natal Provincial Council proceedings of November, 1971.

Listen now to the voice of Natal.

The hon. member, whose provincial councillor this is, may put up his hand meanwhile and say whether he agrees with him or not The provincial councillor, Mr. Waterson, was then speaking in support of a motion in connection with National Party policy, and after he had discussed the entire spectrum of National Party policy, he came to the following statement, and this deals with nothing but the various policies of the National Party. He said—

We know which Press is causing that. But now he continues—

He is referring to Ministers who made responsible statements in connection with the danger on our borders, and he said—

Remember, they caused the situation on the borders—

Now I want to engage in a discussion with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, even though I am a backbencher, I believe in democracy. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition believes that in this country we fight matters out at the polling-booth, and if the hon. Opposition believes that in this country we rule by way of majority decisions of this Parliament, they must not only put this provincial councillor in his place, but they must get up and apologize to us for having had something like this in mind. Anxiety and suspicion crept into my mind about this matter being discussed in Natal. Mr. Waterson is a member of the Executive Committee. In all probability he would be taken up in the Cabinet if the Opposition came into power. It may safely be said that they would not have enough talent in the House and that they would consequently have to bring in people from outside. Our question to them now is whether this will take place within a month or two of the election. I want to ask this of the hon. member for Turffontein, who is sitting there with his head bowed and who speaks on behalf of the youth of South Africa. He must tell us whether this is what he is going to do with his fellow-Afrikaners. Does he endorse this?

What?

I want to tell the hon. member that if the marrow in the hon. member’s bones is of the kind we think it is he will keep quiet and say nothing about this. If the marrow in his bones is similar to that of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, we expect—I must say “alas”—no reply either. We would very much like to be pleasantly surprised as far as this matter is concerned.

How is this matter presented abroad? The debate that took place in the Natal Provincial Council enjoyed very wide publicity. For example, The Friend of 19th November of last year reported this debate. The Sunday Tribune of 21st November of last year also reported it. They reported what Mr. Trevor Walmer said in connection with the Broederbond. I think it is definitely the hon. member for Orange Grove’s Broederbond, because he speaks so much about it. I shall quote from the report in the Sunday Tribune: “Mr. Trevor Walmer warned that the country was heading for a dictatorship. Describing the Broederbond as ‘an evil pressure group’ …”. So he continues. Immediately afterwards Mr. Derek Waterson’s threat—this N�remburg idea—was reported. They hereby create the impression that that specific segment of Afrikaans cultural life will be eradicated and destroyed. That is the implication it embodies. If that is the case, the question immediately arises: What about all the dedicated public servants who have helped to implement this policy? Is the Opposition also going to do a ‘N�remburg’ on them? What about all our academics and students who are dedicated people? I want to ask the hon. member for Durban North whether he agrees with this. He must tell us what they plan to do about this. Do they agree with the statements of the provincial councillor or not? The hon. member for Durban North is also a legal man. He knows that one does not abuse the courts in a country that is ruled democratically. What is the hon. member’s answer? Now he sits there! What is your answer? Do you support the proposition of the United Party member of the provincial council or not? Zip! No reply.

What about? What did he say?

We are asking those hon. members whether they would also regard all the academics as war criminals. Would they also do a N�remburg on them?

Were you against the N�remburg affair?

Would they also do a N�remburg on the academics? We want to know today what their answer is, because it is useless debating with hon. members about economic affairs while they have these diabolical plans up their sleeve. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, here we find ourselves squarely within the old tactics of hon. members on the opposite side. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition came forward with a reasoned speech on the economy of our country. In that speech he very courteously put certain pointed and very important questions to the Prime Minister.

To which he received replies.

The Prime Minister replied, and I shall say something about that in a moment. Immediately after the hon. the Prime Minister had replied, it was, as far as the hon. members on the opposite side were concerned, the end of the debate on the most important problem which South Africa faces at the moment, i.e. the vicissitudes of our people under a Government which is unfit to manage South Africa’s economic affairs. They are running away from it because they simply dare not enter into a point-blank confrontation with the United Party in a debate on the economic conditions in South Africa and on the economic misdeeds of the Government. They dare not give us a hearing on what is happening to the income of the man in the street, to the rising cost of living, to inflation, on how the savings of our people are being eroded by inflation and how the rand is being ruined by inflation. They do not want to touch upon those matters. He has my sympathy, because I do not think he can do better. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education and the hon. member for Primrose, are pushed forward to revert immediately to stories about racial hatred, language injustices and I do not know what else—everything with the object of inciting the feelings of the people and of playing with the emotions of people in the hope that they will forget what is really being inflicted upon them by an incompetent Government. I do not want to speak about these matters, because at the moment we are engaged in more important matters. However, to the face of the hon. the Prime Minister, whom I know to be a fair man— I know he is a strong man and a hard debater, but fundamentally he is a fair man —about the extreme lengths to which the propaganda of the Nationalist Party is going in order to stir up these stories about racial hatred. The hon. the Minister of Defence started it and then all the small fry followed suit. Here I have this morning’s Transvaler, which carries one of the most flagrant and most untruthful reports I have ever read about the Parliament of South Africa and its members.

It is a good newspaper.

It is a good newspaper; it lies better than the Burger, and that says a great deal. I now call upon the hon …

What about the Sunday Times?

The hon. the Chief Whip can answer me. In this newspaper an article has been published under the heading (translation) “U.P. members who do not know Afrikaans”. I want to mention to hon. members just a few of the names mentioned here.

Yes, mention them all!

They mention the hon. member for Zululand as a person who does not know Afrikaans. I may just tell hon. members that I regularly speak Afrikaans to him. [Interjections.] Together with him and hon. members from the opposite side of the House, I serve on a Select Committee which, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, is a very important one. Practically all the evidence submitted to that Select Committee by the State, is led in Afrikaans. We do not object to that. The English-speaking members do not object to that; they accept it. And they are supposed to be racists, Afrikaner-haters.

Boer-haters.

The hon. member for Zululand, and the hon. member for Green Point, who was not mentioned in this regard, follow that evidence, are able to examine witnesses about it, and have not once asked for a translation. He, the hon. member for Zululand, a person who knows Afrikaans and who does not make a point of being served by parliamentary documents in his own language, is branded as being unilingual. These are the thanks he gets! Then my friend the hon. member for Rosettenville is …

What newspaper is that?

Die Transvaler. Here it is.

Of what date?

This morning’s edition. The hon. member for Rosettenville is a person who recently made speeches in Afrikaans in the mining regions of the Free State on the problems of mineworkers …

Who?

Dr. Fisher, the hon. member for Rosettenville. Such is the ignorance. Here the Chief Whip on the United Party side is mentioned, a person who was given a testimonial the other day by the Chief Whip on that side of the House, a testimonial to the effect that they speak Afrikaans to each other. But Die Transvaler does not take any notice of that. I do not have the time to mention all of them, but my friend sitting next to me here, the hon. member for Transkei, is also mentioned in Die Transvaler. At every session so far the hon. member has made speeches in good Afrikaans in this House. He has already done so this session. He is held up as a unilingual English-speaking member in this Parliament. The hon. member for Durban North is also mentioned here. He is a person who has often spoken Afrikaans in this House. Mr. J. J. J. Scholtz of Die Burger paid tribute in one of his articles to Mr. Mitchell’s use of Afrikaans in this House. An ex-Senator. Mr. Paul Sauer, got up and congratulated him on the Afrikaans he used in the Senate. But Die Transvaler sends out into our country the report that he is a unilingual person, that he is a Afrikaner-hater, that he does not want to speak Afrikaans. Then there is the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District. He is an ex-public servant who, under Nationalist Party Government, received promotion time and again after having passed the language tests. He is probably the only member of this House who has a certificate of bilingualism signed by the late Dr. Verwoerd. But Die Transvaler says he is not bilingual, he is an Afrikaner-hater and he cannot speak Afrikaans. And so I could go on. Let me mention another one. They mention my friend the hon. member for Walmer. He comes from Graaff-Reinet. They say he is not bilingual. In my view the most beautiful and the purest Afrikaans is spoken in the Karoo. And here we have a person who speaks Karoo Afrikaans like a Karoo farmer. He is one of the most bilingual men in this House. But Die Transvaler does not hesitate to send out the report that he cannot speak Afrikaans and is therefore an Afrikaner-hater. What are politics in South Africa coming to if the propaganda of the Nationalist Party descends to as low a level as this, if such downright lies, such unverified, uncontrolled lies are sent out into the world purely with the object of gaining a few votes at Oudtshoorn by exploiting racial hatred? This is disgraceful.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, not in Committee.

I want to come back to the hon. the Prime Minister just for a moment. His speech was an important one, because he obviously sat down thinking what matters the hon. the Leader of the Opposition might raise. Then he prepared a speech in reply to that. But he could not anticipate everything which my hon. Leader would raise. That is why he made certain statements which are irrelevant and which, with all due respect, are not true. For example, he said that the Budget met with general approval on the part of the businessmen or South Africa, and that we had not quoted any criticism of the Budget. But that was not necessary. The criticism of the Budget was expressed 10 days before the debate started. We came forward with our own criticism, which was well-founded and substantial. [Interjections.] Hon. members on the opposite side may as well laugh. I happen to have here one or two articles written on the Budget. Why did the Prime Minister not refer to them? Why did he not refer to the fact that the people in the motor industry had complained strongly that this Budget was going to do the motor industry no end of harm? Why did he not quote the letters and statements in the newspapers to the effect that the man in the street was getting nothing out of this Budget? I have several of them. Why did he not quote the criticism of the labour policy of the Government, criticism which came from various interested parties? There is, for example the following one:

It goes on in this vein. This is well-founded criticism, the same criticism as that of the United Party, but the hon. the Prime Minister wants to pretend that there has been no criticism of the Budget and that it has been generally accepted. Then, to the astonishment of every person who knows the history of South Africa, the hon. the Prime Minister came forward with a wild assertion which is entirely unfounded.

What is that?

I shall tell you. It is that after the war, when the reins of government passed into the bands of the Nationalist Party, the United Party had no confidence in the industrial development of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville came along in his dramatic way with the Transvaler of this morning and accused the newspaper of having made charges about certain aspects against certain members of his side. Why did the hon. member not tell us precisely what was stated in the Transvaler. The Transvaler does not state that they cannot speak Afrikaans. The Transvaler states (translation): “Who would struggle to make a speech in Afrikaans.”

That is a lie.

Why did the hon. member not quote the whole report from the Transvaler? Why did he only select a few names? The Transvaler mentions Mr. D. D. Baxter, and I want to ask if Mr. Baxter can make a speech in Afrikaans in this House? I have not yet heard Mr. R. M. Cadman making a speech in Afrikaans in this House. [Interjections.] If they can speak Afrikaans, why do they not do so now and then?

How many times have you spoken English in this House?

I can speak English and I shall speak English when it is convenient. Everyone knows that I am bilingual and that I can speak English. The hon. member for Yeoville stood up here with a very finely demure face and said he wanted to protest against the blatant racialism that allegedly came from hon. members on this side of the House last week. On the eve of the Oudtshoorn election, and before 1975, I want to protest about the false idea the United Party and the English Press gave the country about the debate that took place in this House last week. It was not a debate about racism. National Party members only brought to the fore the Opposition’s attitude to the Afrikaner and to the heritage of the Afrikaner in South Africa. They cannot mention one instance where the National Party has deviated one iota from the course it has designated from its earliest days in respect of unity in South Africa, the heritage of the English-speaking community or anything else. The National Party has revealed the United Party as being Boer haters, people who have not made a single contribution to national unity and the development of national unity and White unity over the past ten years. I am also disappointed about another aspect.

I want to record my disappointment at the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, not only on behalf of the people in the public gallery today, but also on behalf of the South African people generally, about the pace he tried to set in this debate today. It is unheard of that economic affairs be discussed under the Prime Minister’s Vote. Why is the United Party today harping on economic affairs? Last week they could have spoken about economic affairs the whole week. Today we are interested in matters such as relations politics, a burning question in South Africa today. We want to speak about that. About policy matters and the weighing up of one policy against another—that is why the public gallery here was full at quarter-past-two this afternoon. At the moment, however, it is half full again.

You will not dictate this debate to us.

Before my time is up, I want to dwell on the hon. member for Yeoville again for a moment. The United Party men do three things in politics. They either run away from a debating point, as they are doing today, they accuse the National Party of racism or they lay claim to the National Party’s implementing United Party policy. Last week the hon. member for Yeoville again appropriated the outgoing policy of the National Party for the United Party men. He said that as far back as 17th January, 1929, in the Phoenix Hotel, Gen. Smuts explained the outgoing policy the National Party is now appropriating for itself. Let us just look at what Gen. Smuts said.

What are you quoting from?

Firstly I am quoting from Hancock and, secondly, from the Cape Times of 18th January, 1929. Gen. Smuts said the following—

Hear, hear!

—

… so that one day we may have a British Confederation of Africa states, a great African Dominion stretching unbroken throughout Africa. That is the cardinal point in my policy. We shall not work for South Africa alone …

Do you still say “hear, hear”!

Now I just want to tell the Opposition, they call themselves “South Africans”. I call myself an Afrikaner. If this holistic Smuts idea were perhaps realized in future, what would they be then? Would they then still be “South Africans”, in the big “United British Africa” where the term “South Africa” would have been “dropped” from the vocabulary of South Africa? I see the hon. member for Yeoville is giving instructions for silence. They must probably not reply to me in the debate. They must probably continue with economic arguments. That is what they must speak about. In contrast the National Party has never, in its relations politics, ever thought of a “British Africa”: it has not thought of a “British South Africa”.

The National Party recognizes the autonomy and the right to self-determination, even of the smallest people, not only in Africa, but in South Africa, where everyone can have an identity of his own. Is that what comes to the fore in the United Party’s idea for South Africa and Africa? No, because they are still thinking in terms of the Smuts idiom, of a “United British Africa”, in which there would have been no room for any “South African”. There would not have been any room for the hon. member for Yeoville if he were still to call himself a “South African”. In contrast there is room in the National Party’s politics, in our idea of multi-nationality, for a Xhosa with his own identity, an Afrikaner with his own identity, and in Africa for a Ghanaian and a Malawian with their own identities. But that party opposite thinks in terms of a conglomerate without identity, national heritage or anything that can inspire and summon up action and pride for a fatherland.

Mr. Chairman, under difficult circumstances the hon. member for Waterkloof did his best for his side, but all he proved was that in 1929, based on the historical facts of that time, Gen. Smuts announced an outward policy for South Africa towards Africa.

Do you agree with Gen. Smuts?

No, one does not necessarily agree in 1972 that the circumstances of 1929 should still prevail today. It does not make sense. But what I do want to say to that hon. member is that if Gen. Smuts’ vision were a success and such a federation of states had existed, we in South Africa would, in view of what has happened since then, have had circumstances today in which the outward policy which the Prime Minister is trying to pursue now, would have been an accomplished, successful policy. There would have been a federation of states in Southern Africa, in which South Africa would have been the leading state. The point I made at the time, and which I want to repeat here, is that it took my friends opposite 40 years to find out that Gen. Smuts’ view was the right one and then to try to echo him and imitate him.

But I was levelling the, I am tempted to say, “reproach” at the Prime Minister …

Reproach?

Yes, reproach, that he could have made such a statement, as a statement of fact, that at the time of the change of government in South Africa after the war, the United Party allegedly did not have any confidence in South Africa as an industrial country. He based this on one isolated little incident, namely the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Why did the Prime Minister not give some thought to the matter before saying that? Why did he not remember that it was that Government which established the Industrial Development Corporation for South Africa in order to make capital available, not for State enterprises, as is the case today with many of the projects of that corporation, but in order to enable the citizens of South Africa financially to establish industries in South Africa; a policy which was carried out with great success? Why did he not mention that it was the United Party of Gen. Smuts which established the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research for South Africa, a council which did a vast amount of good work at the time and still is doing so as regards research for the purpose of developing our industries on a sound and scientific basis? Why did he not mention that it was that Government of Smuts which established the Bureau of Standards for South Africa, that he had so much confidence in our industries, that he wanted to ensure that the standard of our products could compete with that of the world?

I could mention other examples. Why did the Prime Minister not first think that it was that Government which introduced the Workmen’s Compensation Act for our industries, which placed the Unemployment Insurance Act in the Statute Book and which modernized the Shops and Offices Act with a view to the development of the manufacturing industry in South Africa? Why did the hon. the Prime Minister not think of the fact that in the almost 25 years during which the Nationalist Party has been in power, it has not placed on the Statute Book one new idea for our industrial development which can compare with one of these Acts? Because the hon. the Prime Minister made such a wild statement, I now challenge him in all courtesy to rise and mention to us one new Act of similar significance to the industrial development of South Africa which has been placed on the Statute Book during the past 25 years. And I am not referring to a bit of patchwork here and there and the changing of titles of United Party Acts—I am referring to a new idea, a new concept, a new imaginative Act, such as the establishment of the Industrial Development Corporation, to show that they have confidence in the industrial future of South Africa.

All that has happened, is that because of the tremendous encouragement which was given to industrial development as a result of our war effort and the effect of Acts and measures such as those I mentioned, the Nationalists were able to build on the philosophy, the endeavour and insight of the United Party, with a limited degree of success. If one pauses to think for one moment what South Africa’s position could have been today in the industrial sphere, were it not for the restrictive shortsighted, ideological restrictions which this Government imposed on our industrial development, it takes one’s breath away. In the Johannesburg-Pretoria-Vereeniging triangle, on the Witwatersrand, there are people today who are very keen to expand industries, but they are being restricted by the shortsighted labour policy of this Government, a policy which is so wrong that with every Budget we get very feeble steps on the part of the Minister of Finance to get away from his own policy.

Once again he has come forward with a statement of policy to the effect that where industries wanted to establish branches in the border areas or where they work in shifts, he would allow them to use more Bantu labour in the cities. But why has he said that? Because my Leader is correct in saying that the power and the means for implementing any policy in South Africa, including the policy of the Nationalist Party, for the solution of our race problems, are created in the White industrial areas of South Africa. Their restriction of industries in the White areas of South Africa contradicts and impedes the implementation of their own policy. Just as correct and sound as the United Party’s insight was, so wrong, shortsighted and un-South African are the actions of the Nationalist Party. Mr. Speaker, my hon. Leader put questions to the Prime Minister in regard to labour.

He received the replies.

No, he did not. Now I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister again: Taking into account the contradictions in the statements of policy of his Ministers, what is the policy of the Government in regard to the training and employment …

What are the contradictions?

I shall mention them to you now. What is the policy of the Government in respect of the employment in industry of the available manpower Providence has given us here in South Africa? Last year the Minister of Finance spoke of a relaxation in the restriction on non-White labour under certain circumstances. He was repudiated in this House by the Minister of Labour and by the Minister of Bantu Administration.

That is not true.

We have heard now that steps will in fact be taken for the training of non-White labour and for imparting acumen, know-how and skill to them. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration introduced a new Bantu Education Act, and in the Senate he said that the object of that legislation would be to train a large number of Native artisans in the reserves; this is apparently the policy. Here we have the contradictions : On 15th February this year the Minister of Labour made a statement in the Senate on the training of labour, and this is the crux of his speech. He himself called it “the policy”. He said, according to the English Hansard :

“Maximum opportunities for training?”

Yes. The Hansard says “minimum”, but I read “maximum”, because it is obviously a printing error. The Prime Minister should tell us now where the areas are in which the Coloureds and the Indians should be trained. Firstly, there is no separate area for the Coloureds. Does this mean the Western Cape? Will the Coloureds now be given special opportunities in the Western Cape, similar to those the Bantu are going to get in the reserves in terms of the new Bantu Education Act? It would be a good thing, but is it his policy? What about the Coloureds of the Transvaal; what about the 40 000 or 50 000 Coloureds of Johannesburg? Where is their area? Where are the Indians going to be trained? In Natal? In Johannesburg? Why is there an area for the Coloureds and an area for the Indians when it suits the Government to evade their responsibility and a clear statement of policy, while there is no area for the Coloureds or the Indians when we come to the crux of the problem of race relations in South Africa? We hear such a great deal about relations politics. If the Government believes, as it said here, that these people should be trained in their own areas, why do the Prime Minister, his newspapers and everybody deny that areas of their own can exist in South Africa for these people? Is that not a contradiction? Will the Minister clarify it for us? Sir, we must realize one thing. It does not matter what policy South Africa is going to accept eventually for the solution of its race problems. Whether it is the Prime Minister’s policy, the United Party’s policy or the Progressive Party’s policy, its success will depend on how rapidly we can raise the standards of living of all our people in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down really vented his spleen about Die Transvaler, a short time ago. Now I should like to ask him also to look, for a change, at the newspapers which are their mouthpieces. The United Party mouthpiece with the largest circulation, the Sunday Times, reeks in its very being of hate and venom directed against the Afrikaner and Afrikaner institutions. That is why it uses Afrikaner institutions to stir up suspicion and doubt among the Afrikaner people, mainly for the purpose of presenting the hon. the Prime Minister in an unfavourable light. The propaganda must be prepared in a subtle way, in order to cause questions of suspicion and doubt to arise concerning, amongst other things, the competence of the Prime Minister, his position as leader within the National Party, his authority within his own Cabinet, and the efficiency of his administration, to mention just a few examples.

One of the most unpleasant and objectionable attacks on the hon. the Prime Minister’s leadership within the National Party and his indisputable authority within the Government came from the Sunday Times last Sunday. The purpose is clear, Sir. Suspicion and doubt must be created in the minds of the Nationalists concerning the hon. the Prime Minister as a figure of power, which is What he really is in these times of crisis …

The doubt is there already.

… not only in the interests of the National Party, but in the interests of all South Africa and of its neighbouring states as well. The aim of the Sunday Times is to rouse suspicion and doubt in (regard to the person of John Vorster.

It is not necessary to rouse it.

Why? In the first place because he is Prime Minister of South Africa, in the second place because of the dynamic power with which he governs, and, in the third place, because of the brilliant way in which he leads his party. That is why it is necessary to rouse suspicion and doubt about him, so that the National Party may be weakened as a result of that.

What does Rapport say?

Sir, the Sunday Times does not tell its readers that as a result of the threats of terrorism on its borders, the U.N. pressure about South-West Africa, the world pressure about a variety of aspects, the onslaughts of sabotage in our midst and threats of communism, South Africa finds itself in the most difficult circumstances in which it has ever been. Sir, neither a Jan Smuts nor a Dr. Malan nor a Dr. Verwoerd had to face these confrontations and their intensity in the way in which the present Prime Minister has to do from day to day. The Sunday Times does not tell its readers that the successful handling by the hon. the Prime Minister of these problems, these confrontations and onslaughts, has shown him to be one of the most competent Prime Ministers South Africa has ever produced … [Interjections.] … which also benefits and protects the poison pens of the Sunday Times, who would long since have lost the shelter of their offices from where they can continue their work of destruction among the Afrikaner people, had it not been for the safety, the peace and order guaranteed them by these strong and calculated actions of our present Prime Minister.

Instead of drawing the attention of their readers to these facts, the Sunday Times came along last Sunday and pictured the hon. the Prime Minister as a powerless and flustered pawn in the hands of a good colleague who shares the back benches with me, merely on the grounds of a so-called position within an Afrikaner cultural organization awarded him by the Sunday Times, for which I would in any case have respected him if it had been true.

Is he not the chairman?

Besides, Mr. Chairman, this good colleague of mine was a great spiritual leader of the Afrikaner in the clerical field when he was editor of the Kerkbode and, subsequently, of Hoofstad. Therefore we are grateful that he is here in the House of Assembly today to continue his good work for the Afrikaner in the political sphere as well, and particularly because he is a loyal supporter of the Prime Minister.

And the Broederbond.

The Sunday Times now places this good colleague of mine in a position of authority over the hon. the Prime Minister, who submits to it weakly and helplessly, according to what the Sunday Times wishes to imply to its readers. This is how it is put—

Sir, I have never seen as humiliating a position as that in which the Sunday Times wants to place the Prime Minister in the eyes of his people, but the people of South Africa know, the Opposition knows, and even the enemies of South Africa know, and that is why I find it surprising that the Sunday Times does not know that when it comes to matters and actions and decisions dealing with the safety and the welfare of this country and its people, to whom he is an inspired leader, the hon. the Prime Minister does not allow himself to be pushed around by anybody within or outside this House, no matter what his position within or outside the party and no matter how much esteem and regard he deserves as a result of that position.

Mr. Chairman, the Sunday Times is becoming a disgusting newspaper as a result of the hate and venom which it directs against the Afrikaner week after week. If there has ever been an instrument in the hands of (the United Party which held up to ridicule the United Party’s new slogan that they are striving for national unity, then it is the Sunday Times. If they wish to lend any meaning to this empty slogan, they will be obliged to clean up this cobweb-covered part of their household.

Serfontein is breaking the United Party.

I do not believe that the United Party has the means of properly disinfecting this foul mouthpiece of theirs, and if they do not do so, I shall hold them equally responsible for the onslaught of hate and venom made on the Afrikaner people by the Sunday Times week after week.

I do not want to devote much attention to the hon. member, as he has apparently declared war on the Sunday Times and it is not my duty to defend the Sunday Times. He seemed to be very concerned about the position of the hon. the Prime Minister and he is now acting in his defence. But I think the Prime Minister can get someone better to do that. At the same time he is dragging in this “cultural organization” again, but I want to ask him just one question about this “cultural organization” If they devote themselves to culture, why is it necessary for them to have secret telephones? Actually I want to return to several points made by the hon. the Prime Minister. In his response to my hon. Leader’s introductory speech on this Vote he was very indignant about the assertion by my hon. leader that the development of our standard of living was lagging behind in comparison with certain countries of the world, and he asked, “Where is your proof?” But to my knowledge the specific statistics now repeated by my hon leader have been quoted by us five times during this session. The Reserve Bank recently indicated that during the decade of the sixties, which is held up to us as one of the most prosperous periods in our economic history, our per capita growth was 2,4 per cent a year, which was lower than that of Britain; it was half of that of the common market countries of Europe and a quarter of that of Japan. What more does the hon. the Prime Minister require by way of proof?

Then he went further and read out to us how our Budgets had increased since 1948. What did the hon. the Prime Minister hope to prove by that? It may mean, after all, that more and more money had been wasted. But any economic student in his first year knows, after all, that in the growth process of a country there is an S-type curve and that after you have passed the initial stage, a country grows more quickly. This is inherent in the economic process. So what does the hon. the Prime Minister expect? He also reads out to us long lists of wage increases, of what the wages were in 1948 and what they are now. This indicates, after all, that the hon. the Prime Minister really does not know what is involved. You cannot take a wage of 1948 and adjust it to the buying power of the rand and then compare it with wages today. If you want to make that sort of comparison, you must compare it with your national revenue and with your gross domestic product. But in any case, inherent in what the hon. the Prime Minister says is the idea that people will just have to be content to remain where they were a quarter of a century ago. It is universally accepted by trade unions all over the world that people may expect their standard of living to rise by at least 2,5 per cent a year. Now I ask the hon. the Prime Minister to take those figures of 1948 again and to make the necessary adjustments to the buying power of the rand; he must add 2,5 per cent a year on a compound basis and then he will see that the position of these people has not improved; it has deteriorated since 1948. His whole argument was that wages had increased. But, Sir, this is the case all over the world. He is trying to indicate that it is thanks to our good Government that wages have increased, but I can assure the hon. the Prime Minister that wages have increased in all the communist countries as well. Am I to conclude from that that they also have such good governments? No, that sort of argument does not get us anywhere.

My hon. Leader indicated that there is this income gap, the wage gap, and he tried to indicate that this is a gap through which the communists may get in. I should like to return to that, because the hon. the Prime Minister also expressed himself on this matter earlier on in this session and the Minister of the Interior used very strong language in regard to this matter. In the No-Confidence debate earlier this year the hon. the Prime Minister expressed himself as follows. He said—

Then he went on and said that his Government was committed in regard to the matter. But what we find so surprising is that within his own speech, after having stated his standpoint so strongly and saying that his Government was committed in regard to this matter, he announced that the average wages of White workers had increased fourfold and those of non-Whites had increased threefold since 1948. If arithmetic means anything, if figures indicate anything, then the hon. the Prime Minister’s own figures indicate that the gap has not narrowed but widened. Here, then, we have another typical example of the Government which always has a policy; it has a fixed policy on every matter you can think of, but in practice and in reality it works in precisely the opposite direction. What is the use of having such a policy if it cannot be implemented? The indications are there that this gap is steadily widening. One can quote many statistics to prove this. I may just mention that in 1948 the average wages for Bantu in the production and construction section was 25 per cent of the average wages of the Whites. At the present moment the wages of the Bantu are down to 17 per cent of those of the Whites. In other words, where the ratio used to be one as against four, it is now one as against six. So the position is deteriorating. The Government is moving further and further away from its policy, and why do we have this position? It is because of the policy of the Government itself, because if you introduce job reservation and implement the Physical Planning Act, what are you doing? You are placing an artificial ceiling on the economic development of the non-Whites and keeping down their wages, but at the same time you are creating an artificial shortage of White workers. This means that their wages are artificially increased— not that they benefit by it, because as a result of inflation their own standard of living shows only a minimal improvement, and in that way the gap keeps widening. Now we ask the hon. the Prime Minister what he is going to do about this. He has now indicated his policy to us, but he is making no provision for the training of these people. When we talk about training the hon. the Prime Minister speaks of the shortage of high schools which existed in Brakpan 25 years ago. Every indication and every projection suggests that by 1980 we will need one million additional non-White workers for skilled labour of a more specialized nature. Where are they going to come from? What steps is the Government taking in order to train them?

As regards school education, it is true that three million Bantu are attending school at the moment. But as the hon. member for Johannesburg North indicated the other day, 70 per cent of them do not go beyond Std. 2. Only 4 per cent of them receive secondary or more advanced training and only a third of 1 per cent receive vocational training or attend technical high schools. How is the Government ever going to eliminate this gap if they set about it in the way referred to by the hon. the Prime Minister? We have grown tired of all these promises and statements of policy by the Government. This House and South Africa now want to know what positive steps the hon. the Prime Minister is going to take to eliminate this gap.

†Mr. Chairman, there is another important issue. Recently, in addressing the Sakekamer in Cape Town, the hon. the Prime Minister told them that some of them were trying to develop a psychosis of discontent. He referred particularly to what he called “fair-weather Afrikaners” and “other South Africans”. I find the distinction he draws most interesting in view of the kind of discussion we have had recently. Apparently Afrikaners, and certainly “fair weather” Afrikaners, are not South Africans. Be that as it may, he then indicated that these people were asking for more labour and concessions. These are his words as reported in the local Press:

This is a very important pronouncement by the hon. the Prime Minister. He is now trying to indicate that South Africans want a social welfare State, while at the same time suggesting that his Government is implacably opposed to it. These, again, are not the facts of the situation. They work in directly the opposite direction. We have today a state of socialism in South Africa … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just spoken of socialism should listen to the Deputy Leader of his side of the House, the hon. member for Yeoville. Because the hon. member for Yeoville has told the voters in Oudtshoorn that it is the United Party’s policy to give every man in South Africa a pension under a national participation pension scheme. He said that even Mr. Harry Oppenheimer would draw a pension under their Government, but he would have to pay in more than he would get out of it. This is the sort of absurdity which hon. members on that side of the House spread in the country in order to draw votes. When the hon. member who has just spoken comes along with these stories of his we are not impressed. The election in Oudtshoorn takes place tomorrow; what is said here today will no longer have any effect on it. The moment of truth for all time has come for that side of the House. For too long they and certain newspapers which support them have conducted a campaign of mud-slinging directed against leading Afrikaners, trying to humiliate them and stirring up suspicions about them in the minds of the general public. They are doing this on advice received from experts from America. [Interjections.] Yes, we know what we are talking about. I want to tell the hon. members that where the moment of truth has now come and they have been challenged by members on this side of the House, such as the hon. the Minister of Labour and the hon. the Minister of Defence, they should not complain. I hope the hon. member who is now leaving the Chamber will stay for a while.

He could not understand.

The hon. member who is leaving the Chamber was extremely upset …

Who is he?

The hon. member for Parktown. He was extremely upset about the fact that an hon. member on this side of the House had dared to ask him why he did not make a speech in Afrikaans in this House and why he was not going to make a speech in Oudtshoorn.

Why don’t you speak English? Switch over to English.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. members want me to speak English. I will speak English any time. They know I can speak English but there is no sense in speaking English just for the sake of proving that you can speak it.

*The hon. member is very upset because we asked him to go and make a speech in Oudtshoorn. Has the hon. member ever thought of the feeling created among Afrikaans-speaking people by this campaign which is consistently conducted against us? Have hon. members ever thought of the feeling it creates if they pretend that they are going to come into power in this country and sit in the Government benches while some of them do not want to speak Afrikaans? I know the hon. member for Parktown can speak Afrikaans, but the point is whether the hon. member wants to speak it. We are basically concerned here with a question of attitude, and this side of the House is not alone in talking about attitudes: they can go and read about it in the Sunday Times of last Sunday as well. That newspaper said, inter alia—

Then the author of the article says—

This is said in a newspaper which supports the United Party.

Who wrote it?

The hon. member must not ask me who wrote it. If they take exception to the fact that we say that there are elements—and I am not saying that it is always the case in the outside world, but I am referring to this House— in the United Party side who have no respect for the Afrikaner and his institutions, they must bear in mind that we are only saying what has already been said by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He is the man who first said that there is no place for an Afrikaner in the United Party. Our memory is not so short, after all. On 2nd June, 1960, Mr. Christopher Kavannagh wrote an article about the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. It appeared in the Cape Argus. He said—

That was way back in 1949.

Then the hon. member went on and told how he had walked into one of his own party’s offices—

But that is not all. I want to read out to hon. members what was written by a person who is not an Afrikaner, but an editor of one of the newspapers which support hon. members opposite, Mr. Gerald Shaw, who wrote in the Cape Times on 21st June, 1969—

That is also the theme of the hon. member for King William’s Town, who said that he would give up his Afrikanerhood. The writer went on—

I want to issue a challenge today to hon. members on that side of the House. Every hon. member in the House must be able to speak both official languages. When I say that, I do not expect every South African to be able to speak both official languages.

because circumstances may be difficult. But the moment a man becomes active in public life it is as important for him to be able to speak both official languages as it is for a diplomat to learn the language of the country in which he is going to live.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?

Yes, you are welcome to ask a question.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member what the ratio is between bilingual speeches from that side and from this side of the House?

Do you see what the hon. member is playing at again? We are concerned here with a question of attitude. I want to challenge them and say that any member on this side of the House can be asked to make a speech in English anywhere and he will do so. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I want to go further. I want to guarantee, on behalf of this side of the House, that, even without there being any intervention by our Prime Minister or party authorities, no person will be elected as a member of this side of the House if he is not bilingual.

What about Frankie?

The hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation often speaks Afrikaans. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he is prepared to guarantee, in the first place, that if he should ever come into power and have to compose a Cabinet, every member of that Cabinet would be able to use both official languages. I want to ask him a further question: Is he prepared to guarantee that any candidate who stands for that party in future will be able to use both official languages? The point is not whether you can speak the one as fluently as the other; we are basically concerned with an attitude. I want to allege that that attitude is lacking on the part of some members on that side of the House. Because that attitude is lacking on their part, I say that this side of the House has every reason to tell the people of South Africa: You know now that if this party which is aspiring to come into power were in fact to succeed, you would be back where you were in 1939, with a Government which includes a large number of members who are unable to use the other official language and to serve the people in their own language.

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition started, he asked me certain questions to which I replied. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also levelled certain accusations to which I want to come back now, for those accusations were also echoed by the hon. member for Yeoville. According to the note I made, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition accused this side of the House of stirring up racial hatred. I waited for the Leader of the Opposition to embroider on this accusation. Apparently he does not want to do so. The accusation levelled by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition against me and this side of the House, i.e. that we are stirring up racial hatred, would stand if I did not reply to it now. Now I want to say at once that we in South Africa can afford many things, but there are several things which we cannot afford. One of them is that we cannot afford hatred to prevail between English- and Afrikaans-speaking people in South Africa. Secondly, we cannot afford hatred to prevail between Whites and non-Whites. Thirdly, we cannot afford feeling to be aroused between town-dwellers and country-dwellers. In other words, I want to make the statement that no matter how important other things may be—at a later stage I shall come back to the economic aspects mentioned here—it is and remains a fact that in a country such as South Africa the question of relations is of cardinal importance. If there are political parties and if there are individuals that are stirring up feeling between the two language groups, they must be pointed out.

Hear, hear!

If the blame lies with my side of the House, with my party, those members must be pointed out. If the blame lies with members opposite, they must be pointed out. If it lies with the Afrikaans-language newspapers, we must say so, and if it lies with the English-language newspapers, we must say so too. As far as I am concerned, I have been pointing this out ever since the first day I took over this office, in the very first speech I made. I am in earnest, and I challenge any member on that side of the House to point out any act committed by me over the past years since 1966 and before that as a Minister, which was calculated to stir up feeling between Afrikaans and English-speaking people. If the hon. member for Yeoville or any other person wants to point a finger at me in that regard, I challenge him to do so. With me it was not merely a question of words. I have shown by way of actions, and so has my party, what our attitude is in this regard. I did not hesitate to use strong language in public, as I did in Heilbron because there were people who wanted to take away English language rights. I did not hesitate to join my colleagues in taking a strong stand against Dr. Hertzog and his people who wanted to violate the English language rights in South Africa. I stated my point of view in respect of English-speaking South Africa in the presence of several members on the other side of this House on the occasion of the laying of the foundation-stone of the monument to the 1820 Settlers. In that regard we have taken an unshakeable stand. During the course of the last elections I said, and I want to repeat it in this House today—and this is also my reply to the accusation made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—that even if I had known that no single English-speaking person voted for the National Party, I would still take the stand as I had stated it in this House. My concern is not with whether or not people vote for one; my concern is with the principle which one has to accept in that regard. This is what I said and this is what I did. I want to tell the Leader of the Opposition that what we want from him is not words. I have stated my point of view on co-operation, and he has stated his. However, in this regard we do not want words only. We want actions. We want respect for each other’s language.

Who does not show any respect?

I shall tell him now who is not showing it. It is that person who has had the opportunity and who has the intelligence to learn a language but refuses to do so. What is more, I shall also tell him—and my hon. friend the Minister of Defence referred to it, and in the same way hon. members are my witnesses—that I asked the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for South Coast to appoint to the Executive Committee of Natal people who are Afrikaans-speaking and who are able to have interviews with Afrikaans-speaking people in their own language. After all, I asked him very courteously to do so.

Do you believe what Die Transvaler says …

I shall come to the report in Die Transvaler in a moment. In fact, I am still coming to many things which will embarrass the hon. member. I made an appeal to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but he did not even condescend to reply. I made an appeal to the hon. member for South Coast, courteously across the floor of this House, but he did not even condescend to give me a reply to it. How often have I not asked the Leader of the Opposition to join me in making an appeal to our people to respect each other’s language in practice, in making an appeal to people to the effect that language incidents of this kind, where a person refuses to serve another person or speak to him in his language, should not take place? And yet the Leader of the Opposition had the audacity to level the reproach across the floor of this House, and the hon. member for Yeoville indirectly associated himself with it, that we were stirring up racial hatred. I think we may now, because I said that we could not afford hatred being nourished between White and White and between White and non-White, very profitably give our attention to this matter. The actions of the leadership of the United Party create that position between White and White. The newspapers which support it, are helping with a lavish hand in that regard. The hon. member for Yeoville and other hon. members may tell me now, “Yes, these are merely the accusations you are levelling against us, but we are levelling the same accusations against you.”

Oh, no, we are not levelling unfounded accusations.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has just done so. Now. I do not want us to debate this matter on the basis of the attitude I adopt or the word I give, because I see the hon. Opposition before me from the outside and they see my party from the outside. If we want to have a fruitful discussion on this matter now, I think it is fair, and that the hon. member for Yeoville will grant me this, that we hear the evidence in this regard as to who is guilty of this matter, and call in a person who knows both parties well, who knows the inner workings of both parties. He is a person who is fond of putting himself on the pedestal of an “elderly statesman”, a person who is fond of lecturing to us on how we should speak the truth, on how we should not make exaggerated statements, and a person who is regarded by the English Press as a crown prince on that side. I am referring here to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Now let me say at once that in respect of this question, namely who is responsible for arousing racial hatred in South Africa between White and non-White— which I want to condemn with all the power at my command—I am prepared to acquiesce in the judgment not of my side of the House, but to stand and to fall by the judgment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Because, Mr. Chairman, I want to repeat, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout knows this party from the inside and he knows that party from the inside. To tell the truth, this is his second acquaintance with that one.

For what party did you stand in 1948?

I stood on behalf of the Afrikaner Party. Let me tell the hon. member now that in spite of the fact that I stood alone, I was defeated by only two votes.

That was enough, though.

Yes. If we must accuse somebody now—the hon. member accuses me and my party; I accuse him and his party—I am prepared, as far as this matter is concerned, to stand by the judgment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I am going to quote from the English Hansard.

What year was that?

I shall tell you now. In fact, I shall send the Hansard over to you when I have finished; then the hon. the Leader may acquaint himself with it.

Could you just tell me what year it is?

It is 23rd April, 1952. I shall read from the English Hansard, col. 4164 of that year—

So said the hon. member for Bezuidenhout—

Then he went on to quote what Gen. Smuts had said in this regard. Continuing, he said—

I want hon. members to note that, and particularly the hon. member for Yeoville—

†This is what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said. Then he went on to say—

We should send him to Oudtshoorn.

He went on to say—

And then my hon. friend the hon. member for Yeoville, Mr. Marais Steyn, made an interjection; he said, “oh;”. After he had made that interjection, according to Hansard, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout went on to say—

Again I say, “Oh!”.

If the hon. member wants to say anything about this matter, he can talk to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout went on to say—

What have you proved now?

I am glad the hon. member has asked me that. I have now proved in the words of a frontbencher of the United Party that at that stage …

Twenty years ago.

… in 1952, when he spoke here, and not only in 1952, but also when he spoke here in 1955—I have that quotation here, too—elements of that kind were present in the United Party. At that stage, according to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, there were no such elements present within the National Party. The hon. member for Durban Point has asked me what my point actually is in that regard. My point is that either the hon. member for Bezuidenhout cannot be believed when he says that this was the position in the United Party—and if hon. members say that they cannot believe him, they should tell us that when he spoke in this House in 1952 and in 1955 and said these things, he was propagating untruths about the United Party …

I do not agree with what he said.

Sir, it is not a question of whether or not one agrees with it; it is a question of whether what he said about the United Party is true.

That was his opinion.

If the hon. member wants to tell me that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was telling an untruth when he said these things, then I accept it from him and should like to hear him on this point.

That was not the spirit of the United Party.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout can rise personally, for his integrity has now been prejudiced.

That does not worry me.

Of course, if the fact that his integrity is being prejudiced does not worry him, there is nothing I can do about it.

I did say it.

Was it true at the time?

The hon. member says he said it. In that case I shall put this question to the hon. member : Was it true when he said it, or was he simply making propaganda?

Is the hon. the Prime Minister making the insinuation that when I spoke at the time, I did not believe what I was saying?

I am merely asking the hon. member for Bezuidenhout—and he need not become angry about it—whether what he said at the time, is true.

I do not tell untruths when I speak here.

Very well, then, in that case I have it from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that he told the truth about the United Party when he said these things.

The member for Yeoville is giving him advice now.

If he told the truth, I ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, when he enters this debate, to …

I hope you are not making insinuations again.

I shall make as many insinuations as I feel justified to make on the strength of the facts at my disposal. The hon. member need not think that he can put me off by saying that. Whilst he has told us now that these things are true, I want to know from him whether this is still the position within the United Party.

That is a very easy question.

Of course, if that is still the position, I need not take my case any further at all; in that case the attack made on me by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition falls away. But I want to give the hon. member for Bezuidenhout a proper chance if he says that what he said was true when he spoke here in 1952 and again in 1955 …

And in 1960.

… and even when he left our party. Then I want to make this point, in view of the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition accused me and my party. When the hon. member for Bezuidenhout left our party, he said many things, but there is one thing he could never say, and that is that hatred was being stirred up by this side of the House. He could not say that, nor was it the case. That was not the case in Dr. Malan’s time; it was not the case in Mir. Strydom’s time, and it was not the case in Dr. Verwoerd’s time, and it is most definitely not the case in my time.

May I ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he regards it as more important to score a debating point than to put an end to the bitterness which the Minister of Defence engendered?

Sir, I am not dealing with a debating point. [Interjections.] Hon. members should not ask a question and then react in this manner while I am replying to it. Elementary decency requires one not to behave like that. To me this matter is very important because with me it is not merely a question of words, but because this party has shown by its actions that it wants to perpetuate the goodwill between Afrikaans and English-speaking people; that it wants to bring Afrikaans and English-speaking people together. But this party continually finds, in everything it does, that English-speaking people are being roused against it. I could confirm this to you in so many ways. We may just as well take this example, and I simply picked it at random while going through my files in this regard. Take the appointment of my friend Mr. Frankie Waring and that of the late Mr. Trollip. My predecessor saw in them two people who could be included in a Cabinet on merit.

We may differ on that.

Yes, we may differ on that, but it so happened that this was the prerogative of the late Dr. Verwoerd, and he appointed them. I repeat it, but even in the light of those appointments that were made by Dr. Verwoerd, the hon. member for Yeoville never stopped inciting the hatred of English-speaking people against the National Party. I have here the Sunday Times of 14th July, 1964, and the heading is “Marais Steyn says Nats are unfit to rule.” Then there is a second heading: “Contempt for English.”

I stated that.

Yes, but why does this amount to “contempt for English”?—

Shame on you.

English-speaking people were incited against the National Party, and English-speaking South Africa was told that Dr. Verwoerd was treating them with contempt. Sir, these are delicate and sensitive things. An honourable man, such as the late Mr. Trollip was—and who knew him better than I who lost to him in 1948—and an honourable man such as the Minister of Sport and Recreation are …

Who said they were not honourable? I say they are unfit.

The hon. member agrees that they are honourable, but their appointment amounts to “contempt for the English”—not for South Africa, but racial hatred is incited against the English-speaking people.

Why did he appoint them?

Because he considered them to be competent to hold the offices they did. This exerpt goes on to say—

And then these are the hon. members who now want to wash their hands of it by saying that they do not incite racial hatred. Did we not find at the last election that the hon. member for Wynberg and others appealed to English-speaking people to vote against the National Party, not because the policy of this party is wrong, but purely because they are English-speaking people?

What about the call to the Afrikaner voters?

We made appeals to Nationalists, both Afrikaans and English-speaking. [Interjections.] I have never in my public life made an appeal to a person to vote for the National Party just because he speaks Afrikaans. But while we are on that point, I want to state it very clearly here that on numerous occasions the accusation was levelled against us, and the hon. member for Yeoville was one of those who did so, especially at the time of the referendum, that we did not want to establish a Republic for the reasons for which we said we wanted it. No, allegedly we only wanted a Republic here in order that we might interfere with the rights of the English-speaking people. That accusation was levelled against us, and now I state here categorically that this Government has now been in power for 24 years and that in those 24 years there has been no interference with the rights of English-speaking people, and I stand here fully realizing my responsibility as the leader of this party, and I am telling the hon. member for South Coast that I shall not allow anybody to interfere with the rights of English-speaking people as long as I am in charge of this Government.

How long did Mr. Marshall Clarke remain in charge of the Railways after you came into power?

Suddenly, while I was talking about the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, a groan went up because that was allegedly so long ago, but now the hon. member has come forward with an even older story. But, surely, he knows that across the floor of this House the National Party as the Opposition had the courage to say that if we came into power, we would remedy that injustice which had taken place on the Railways.

You said the same about Poole.

The National Party said that beforehand, but I do not want to allow myself to be distracted by the hon. member for Yeoville. I say that as long as I am the leader of this party, because with me it is not merely a question of words, I give the assurance on my part that I shall not allow any interference with the rights of English-speaking people. But having said that, I want to say this to the Leader of the Opposition across the floor of this House. I have no reason to feel confident that if the United Party came into power, the rights of Afrikaners would be safe in South Africa. I want to tell him clearly that I have no reason to accept that, and I do not have it because we have the evidence of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout on the spirit prevailing within that party. I do not have that confidence because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition refused to join me at any time in making appeals to our people in this regard.

What appeals?

Sir, I made appeals to the hon. member across the floor of this House, and in public I made appeals to the hon. member on numerous occasions.

The House considered them to be of such minor importance that they were not even interested.

I shall come to that. The hon. member will have an opportunity to reply. Now I read this in the Sunday Times. I do not want to condemn anybody on the strength of what Mr. Serfontein wrote in the Sunday Times, but Serfontein made the statement in the Sunday Times that Sir de Villiers Graaff had told his people in private that he would not appoint anybody who did not have a full command of Afrikaans, and that he had said this to his caucus. I do not know whether he said that. I should like to know from him whether what Serfontein said in that regard is correct, and if he said it in private, in his caucus, why does he not say it in public for all to hear? These are delicate matters. People are very sensitive.

Yes, it is very delicate to insult one’s fellow South Africans.

The hon. member for Yeoville has said to me across the floor of the House that I insulted my fellow South Africans.

Because you said that you had no confidence that the rights of Afrikaans-speaking people would be safe under the United Party.

I told the House why I said it. I said it—and I shall repeat this to the hon. member for Yeoville ad nauseam—because that hon. front-bencher of the United Party had said that that was the spirit prevailing in the United Party. I want to say that that is the spirit prevailing within the United Party because, if I assume that he told the truth, I have no reason for accepting at all that they, since he left them, have changed at all. If they have changed, he should tel me so.

Must we go back now into each other’s past? [Interjections.]

The hon. member has asked me now whether we must go back into each other’s past. I am replying to an accusation levelled against me and my party by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and an accusation levelled against me and my party by the hon. member for Yeoville, namely that we are stirring up racial hatred.

You are stirring up racial feelings.

I say this afternoon that I have proved in practice what my standpoint is in that regard, but what have the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party done? From that time up to today they have been wooing Albert Hertzog and his people. [Interjections.]

Where?

We told the hon. the Leader of the Opposition across the floor of the House that in Brakpan his party employed the same reprehensible propaganda as did the Hertzogites. He has still to say a word about it.

As you know, I denied it immediately after you had said it.

No …

Yes.

Hon. members may look up my Hansard and they will not find one single word to that effect. The hon. the Leader did not say a word.

It is of no consequence whether it has been recorded there—I did say it.

No, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not deny it; after all, Die Burger subsequently accused him of not having denied it, and to this day he has not said a word about it.

I denied it at once; I did so immediately, in this House.

No, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke after me. He could go through his whole speech, and having done so, he would see that he did not even refer to it. Now, these are the hon. members on the other side of the House who have the audacity to accuse us of inciting racial hatred. They are the people who are going to exploit a word used by the hon. the Minister of Defence in his defence against the hon. member for Durban Point. What did the hon. the Minister of Defence say? He said, “There are people in the United Party …” He did not refer to the English-speaking people as a whole.

He mentioned them by their names.

Yes, he mentioned people within the United Party who, in his opinion, hate the Afrikaner. What did they go and do with that?

What was his proof for that?

His proof was that these people did not respect Afrikaans. That is what he said, and he said so across the floor of this House. What have hon. members been making of it? Hon. members have been trying to imply that the Minister insulted the English-speaking people.

Yes; it is a disgrace.

Hon. members have been trying to imply that the hon. the Minister is inciting hatred against English-speaking people.

Definitely.

I now challenge the hon. members. This Minister has been Minister of Defence since 1966. He became a Deputy Minister in 1958 and a Minister in 1961. Over all those years he came into contact with hundreds of English-speaking deputations and others. I challenge hon. members to refer to any remark made by this hon. Minister or by any other Minister in this House which was offensive or insulting in respect of English-speaking people in South Africa.

Since 20th March of this year he has been waging a campaign aimed at hurting the English-speaking South African. And all of this is merely for the sake of Oudtshoorn.

The hon. the Minister has not been waging any campaign since 20th March or at any other time in order to hurt English-speaking people. The Minister joined all of us in conducting a campaign for respect to be shown to the South African in South Africa. [Interjections.]

How is it to be shown?

The hon. member for Durban Point has asked me how it is to be shown. One shows one’s respect best by speaking the other person’s language, by being bilingual so that one may be able to speak the other language as well. That is what the Minister of Defence said.

His test was that it was not being spoken in this House.

No, the hon. the Minister did not even refer to that. To tell the truth, the hon. the Minister wanted to test whether they could address the Afrikaner in Oudtshoorn in his language. That is what he wanted to test. I want to repeat that the less soft-soaping we have in respect of this matter, the better. In that regard I want to agree with the Sunday Times. It is time we stopped having incidents of this nature. [Interjections.] We can only accomplish this if I on my part urge my people to respect the rights of English-speaking people, but then I expect the Leader of the Opposition to put this foot down in respect of the rights of the Afrikaner. Having done that, he can expect me to tell my newspapers that they should not hurt the English-speaking people. But hardly a day goes by without something of the Afrikaner being disparaged by the Press supporting the hon. members opposite. I want to make a very serious appeal to the Leader of the Opposition to use his influence and to be prepared to say in this House what I have said in regard to this matter today.

Mr. Chairman, it was very interesting, but I must say, extremely disappointing, to have had to listen to the pious talk of the hon. the Prime Minister on race relations between White and White in South Africa, when he knew full well that his Minister of Defence had been engaged for as long as three weeks in inciting feelings among English-speaking people and Afrikaans-speaking people … [Interjections.] … for the purpose of trying to gain a few votes in Oudtshoorn. He started at Ceres and continued at Villiersdorp.

No, it was just the other way round.

When he could not get any further because insufficient attention was being given to his appeals he came to this House and tried to take the matter further here. But what did the hon. the Minister say? The attitude he adopted simply was that if there was a member of this House who did not have full command of Afrikaans—and the test, according to him, would be that he should address either Oudtshoorn or this House in Afrikaans …

But quote what I said.

I am not going to waste my time. You can deny it if this is not so. [Interjections.] Yes, we know you very well. If there was any member of this House who did not have full command of Afrikaans, that member was an Afrikaner-hater. Is that the promotion of good relations between the population groups? I am putting this question to the hon. the Prime Minister. Today he spoke so nicely about good relations between English-speaking people and Afrikaans-speaking people. He stood on his record as Prime Minister. Is he of the opinion that issuing a challenge and saying that anyone who has not used Afrikaans in this House is an Afrikaner-hater is a way of promoting good relations between the English-speaking people and the Afrikaans-speaking people in this House? The hon. the Prime Minister said, “Yes”. Now, I want to ask him how many English-haters are sitting on that side of this House. How many members are there on the back benches on that side of this House who have addressed this House in English?

Never yet.

Every one of us has.

That hon. member says, “Every one of us has”. If it was not so ridiculous, I would have taken him up seriously. There are people who went to the trouble of counting these speeches and the figures concerned appeared in the newspapers. There are others who made surveys and their figures are even more striking. Sir, it was a deliberate attempt by this hon. gentleman to try to incite the feelings of the Afrikaner, to do an injustice to the members on this side of the House and to try to sow racial hatred between Afrikaans-speaking people and English-speaking people, for one purpose only, i.e. to try to gain a few votes in Oudtshoorn for his party.

Albert Hertzog’s tactics.

That in itself was bad enough and the hon. the Prime Minister associated himself with it. Then we had something further. We had the hon. Minister for Social Welfare and Pensions coming out with a statement in this House that all Afrikaans-speaking people are good South Africans, but not necessarily all English-speaking people. I tested the hon. the Minister at the time. I said : “What about Bram Fischer?” I want to put a further test to him this evening. I also want to put it to the hon. the Prime Minister. Does he agree with the statement of the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions? Will he tell me?

Make your speech; I shall reply to you.

I am not surprised that the hon. gentleman is running away, because I want to put a further question to him. Does he then accept that all the members of the Herstigte Nasionale Party are good South Africans, good South Africans who want to take away the English-language rights in South Africa? Are those good South Africans?

Any man who wants to take away another man’s language is not a good South African.

Now he has repudiated the Minister for Social Welfare and Pensions. I am very satisfied with that.

Now you cannot remain in the Cabinet, Connie.

Now you will not become Prime Minister.

I think it is time we put an end to this sort of stupid propaganda-making by the hon. the Prime Minister and his Minister of Defence. Let us, instead, get down to the future of South Africa together. I want to say quite simply to the hon. the Prime Minister that here in the Republican Constitution is a clause which sets out the rights of the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking citizens. There are two official languages and each man is entitled to use whichever language he chooses. Therefore any member in this House is entitled to use whatever language he likes, whenever he likes. The fact that he uses that language is no insult to the other language group. Whether a man, who becomes a member of this House, is unilingual or bilingual, is the problem of his voters who elect him to this House.

In other words, you are prepared to accept a unilingual candidate?

That is rather contradictory, because here in Hansard is the report the hon. the Prime Minister gave us when the hon. member for Umlazi crossed the floor of the House. He told us with great pride that he had asked him two questions : Did he accept the principles of the Nationalist Party and did he lay down any conditions. Did he ask him if he was bilingual?

That is a principle of the Nationalist Party. [Interjections.]

Was Odell bilingual?

You see how ridiculous the hon. the Prime Minister is making himself, Sir. What about Culwick whom they nominated against Harry Lewis in Natal? He had been in South Africa for just over two years, not even five years. He was disqualified because he did not have the necessary qualifications. Was he bilingual? Did the Prime Minister veto him is a candidate? What about Senator Peterson, who was elected as a Senator in Natal? Was he bilingual? Let us draw a veil over that sort of thing. We want to build South Africa together. I believe that when a man comes up for Cabinet rank he should be bilingual. I believe he should be able to serve the people of both races in their own language. I agree with the Prime Minister. What else does he want? How else must a man be a good South African other than vote for the Nationalist Party? That is what we want to know. The tragedy is that as a result of the activities of this hon. Minister of Defence, he has caused a bitterness in South Africa which is going to take years for the Nationalist Party to live down, despite what I accept as the genuine attempts by the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. gentleman said that the time has come for us to put an end to incidents of this kind. I accept that. Let us put an end to incidents of that kind. Will he talk to the Minister of Defence; will he talk to the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions and will he talk to the Minister of Mines? I will assure him that people on my side of the House will show respect for both languages and both language groups as we do at every single one of our congresses where there is infinitely more Afrikaans and English spoken on the basis of nearly 50/50, than ever happens in their congresses. This happens time and time again. One must look to the body of the party. Take the percentage of English speaking in their party and the percentage of Afrikaans speaking in our party. You will then find that Afrikaans- and English-speaking persons in this Party are very nearly fifty-fifty. I give the assurance that since I have been leader of this party there has never been one incident between English speaking and Afrikaans speaking in the ranks of the United Party.

Hear, hear!

We ask only one thing of people : what is their loyalty and their dedication to South Africa. If that is acceptable, they are acceptable as members of our party. Their language rights, traditions and their culture are respected to the full in the ranks of this party. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, how did this debate originate; what gave rise to this afternoon’s debate? Nothing more than the demanding of their primary rights, within and outside this House, by Afrikaners. Nothing more, and nothing less, than the fact that the Afrikaner asks that he be respected and that his rights be respected. The hon. member of the Opposition wants to dismiss the matter with the words “stupid propaganda-making”. He says that it is “stupid propaganda-making” if this side of the House asks that the Afrikaner be respected. I want to associate myself with what the hon. the Prime Minister stated so very effectively here. Sir, every previous leader of the National Party may be quoted on his standpoint in respect of this matter. Every single leader of the National Party has on some occasion or other expressed an opinion on this particular matter. Gen. Hertzog began by doing so when he was still speaking Dutch, in the old days. At the first opportunity he had expressed an opinion on this matter as long ago as 1912, but I am not going to quote his words now. I was present on one occasion in the City Hall of Durban, when Dr. Malan was speaking there. He said on that occasion—

Mr. Chairman, I want to come to what the present Prime Minister said when he was speaking at the Settler Monument. I should like to quote for the record what he said on that occasion. He said—

Over the years we had the express desire from leaders of that side. What do we find on this side of the House? The hon. the Prime Minister said this and it deserves to be emphasized. Because the Afrikaner is insisting on his rights, he is denounced as an inciter of racial hatred by that side of the House. I want to quote from the same source, and the same authority which the hon. the Prime Minister quoted from. I am quoting from Hansard of 5th February, 1953, col. 706. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said—

In col. 707 he goes on to say—

He was referring to the then Minister of Defence. He went on to say—

If you insist on what is your own then you are not accepted by that side of the House; then you are regarded as being a race hater. What did the hon. the Minister of Defence say? He replied in this debate to a point of dispute raised by the hon. member for Durban Point. The hon. the Minister said he wanted to know why these hon. members could not also go and address meetings at Oudtshoorn during the by-election there. Then the hon. member for Durban Point attacked him. What did the hon. the Minister of Defence say? I challenge any hon. member to tell me where he made an attack on English-speaking persons in South Africa and where he insulted them. Where was he inciting racial hatred in what he said here? Sir, we had the problem that we have certain members in this House, such as the member for Zululand—whom I cannot call the “hon. member for Zululand”, but the member for Zululand—who rose in this House in the process of this hatred-inciting campaign, and said, “Mr. Chairman, death by torture is becoming commonplace in South Africa.” That is what the member for Zululand said in this House. On that occasion he implicated South Africa.

Order! The hon. member must refer to the hon. member for Zululand as “the hon. member for Zululand”.

I do so because you order me to, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Zululand said in this House, “Death by torture is becoming commonplace in South Africa”. He said that for world consumption and to stir up hatred against this side of the House. If there is anything which stirs up hatred, then it is that attitude. He said this with reference to the Bultfontein case in which the police were involved. If there was ever a hate-fomenting process, then he is the greatest instigator thereof. Sir, have you ever heard more offensive words in this House than those which the hon. member used on that occasion? But if we on this side react to that and insist on our rights, then we are told that we are stirring up and instigating hatred. [Interjection.] I shall repeat it for the hon. member if he did not hear what I said. I quoted what he had said from Hansard. I stated that he had said : “Death by torture is becoming commonplace in South Africa”. I hope it has penetrated to him now. It seems to me as if he has problems, and cannot hear what I am saying to him. Sir, I maintain that this is the greatest instigation of racial hatred which he has ever made himself guilty of, and which I have ever heard in this House. These are examples of what we have from that side of the House. The hon. member is not reacting to that, Sir.

It is completely untrue.

He went further.

He is a Boer-hater.

There you are, starting all over again!

Would the hon. member be good enough to quote me correctly?

I will do so gladly. I quote from Hansard of the 24th April, 1964, column 4880, where the hon. member said this—

That is followed by a number of dots. I was sitting on that side of the House at the time and I distinctly heard him say “is becoming common-place in South Africa”, but for some interesting reason those words do not appear in Hansard. I am not going to suggest any reasons for the disappearance of those words from Hansard.

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. member entitled to insinuate that an hon. member changed his Hansard improperly?

Order! The hon. member may not insinuate that the hon. member for Zululand deliberately changed his Hansard.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I do not want to insinuate that.

On a point of order, Sir, every member of this House, when he receives his Hansard, has every right to make changes. The hon. member did not say that the hon. member had done so mischievously.

On a point of order, Sir, the deletion which the hon. member alleges I made—and it could only have been done deliberately—is a material deletion, contrary to the rules of this House, and the hon. member may not suggest that such a deletion was made. Furthermore, on a further point of order, Sir, the hon. member must accept my word if I say that those words were not uttered and that no deletion was made from that speech.

The hon. member may not insinuate that the hon. member changed his Hansard.

Mr. Chairman, with great respect to you, I am not in any way insinuating that the hon. member changed his Hansard. But I am saying to you that I heard him use those words, and there are members on my side of the House who also heard it. [Time expired.]

On a point of order, Sir, although his time has expired, must the hon. member not accept the word of the hon. member for Zululand that he did not use those words?

Order!

Let me tell the hon. the Prime Minister immediately that my attitude in this Parliament has always been that what has been said has been said. I do not think that he or any other member will find me running away from anything I have said at any time. What is more, it does not worry me either that quotations are made from speeches that are on record and which reflect one’s considered and honest opinion of the situation at that time. If the hon. the Prime Minister thinks that he is embarrassing me with that, he must simply keep on thinking so. I can assure him that that is not the case. Sir, I was a member of the United Party in the days when fusion took place under Gen. Hertzog, and let me say—I have said it in this House before—that it was the best party which South Africa has ever had; that was probably the happiest time in the political history of South Africa. I am very glad that I already had the opportunity to be interested in politics in those days. We all know that when the war broke out, a very sharp and bitter division occurred. My own feelings were on the side of Gen. Hertzog as a leader and a person; but I was strongly anti-imperialist, and on the grounds of my opposition to Nazi imperialism I supported Gen. Smuts. I was against all forms of imperialism—communist imperialism, British imperialism, Nazi imperialism. I was against all forms of imperialism and I still am today, and if my country is threatened by a form of imperialism, I will fight it.

But Gen. Smuts was the biggest imperialist. He was a British imperialist.

Gen. Smuts fought Nazi imperialism, and in that field I stood by him. One cannot deny that in that time there was terrible bitterness between the different language groups in South Africa, and it could be sensed within the United Party.

The hon. member for Durban Point says it is not so.

It is true. It was my experience. I was chairman of the youth movement of the United Party at that time, and what was quoted here and also what was read out by the hon. member for Stellenbosch, which dealt mainly with the war years and the bitterness there was then, I did not only say later in the House of Assembly; I also said it at congresses of the United Party, of which I still have the records.

But 1952 was eight years after the war.

Even so it was 20 years ago. Sir, there are hon. members sitting on that side who formerly belonged to the United Party. Would I be entitled to get up here and quote what the Minister of Community Development said about Nationalist Party …

But he says he was wrong and you do not say that you were wrong.

Yes, he would say anything … If I should quote what he and Senator Loock and other said, where would it land us? He believed what he wrote at that time and he wrote some flagrant things about the Nationalist Party; but surely it would be ridiculous for me to get up here today and say that he still believed those things today. I would not believe it of him. I would be dishonest if I should get up here today and say that I believed that. The hon. the Prime Minister was a member of the Ossewabrandwag. Sir, let me say that much of the bitterness that was caused among English-speaking people was due to things that were published on the part of the Nationalist Party.

But Jan Moolman was in the Ossewabrandwag as well.

That does not matter. There are members sitting on this side who used to be on that side, and vice versa. Sir, must I now read to the hon. the Prime Minister from the Republikeinse Orde, which was published by the Ossewabrandwag and was taken over by the National Party, and which stood for Afrikaans being the first official language, with English as the second official language? Must I read out here what the Ossewabrandwag wrote, where they even condoned sabotage as the “right of an oppressed nation”? The Prime Minister was not here when I spoke in the Budget debate. I asked then whether we should now read out here everything that was said against the Jews. I could read it out; it is the easiest thing in the world; we can implicate the Prime Minister in it and we can go into all those things that also caused bitterness amongst the English-speaking people. But, Sir, I would be dishonest if I should get up here today and say that the Nationalist Party still thinks so. That would be quite dishonest, and I think it is totally unfair of the Prime Minister to accept that what a man said 20 years ago about a situation in a party, automatically still applies. That was his insinuation.

Incitement.

Sir, parties change. Is there one man on that side who would tell me that the Nationalist Party has not drastically changed its views on national unity, on the language question and on the Jews? They have changed, and the United Party has also undergone changes under different leaders. Sir, I have been sitting as an M.P. on this side under the present leadership for the past ten years. I would definitely not have been sitting here if the situation which applied during the war years still applied in this party today. I would not have been sitting here, and if my word is not taken for it, I could quote anything which any of those members, from the Prime Minister to the Minister of Community Development, in the National Party said 20 or 30 years ago, and then I am entitled to say it still applies to that party. No, I may say that in the years I have been sitting in Parliament on this side of the House, in each case where the interests of the Afrikaans-speaking people were concerned, whether it concerned universities that were to be established or any other matter—there was the fullest co-operation from the English-speaking people in this party; and in many cases, let me say, where, for example, the establishment of an Afrikaans university or the real cultural interests of the Afrikaner were concerned, it was men such as those sitting immediately behind me, men such as the hon. member for Durban North and the hon. member for Musgrave, who often came forward most strongly and joined me in supporting the promotion of these matters. That is all I want to say. I think it is absolutely bad politics and unfair to quote what was said 20 years ago as if it still applied.

You said that in 1960. I just want to ask whether you also said it in 1960.

I want to add this, that I do not know of anybody who is in his right mind and who objects to the principle of bilingualism. There is certainly no such person on this side of the House. As regards the principle of equal treatment of the two languages in the public sector, I may say that it is firmly established in South Africa and I do not know of anybody who is threatening it, except the section that broke away from that party and pretend to be the real Nationalists today. But now a campaign is suddenly started which really has nothing to do with the interests of the two language groups, but which has everything to do with the interests of the party opposite. And now a terrible injustice is suddenly being done to the Afrikaans language. Sir, my point of view has always been that a person who goes into public life must either be bilingual or make himself bilingual and from that point of view I will not diverge …

I am very pleased that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout admitted, after he had been challenged by the hon. the Prime Minister, that he had, in fact, spoken the truth in 1952 when he said that the United Party discriminates against Afrikaners, and I say that the hon. member, in saying that, implied that the hon. member for Durban Point did not speak the truth today when he said that this was not the case in 1952. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout today gave the hon. member for Durban Point the lie in this House. The second point I want to mention is the following. When the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said in 1952 that this was the case in the United Party, it was denied just as vehemently by those hon. members as they are doing today and as it was denied by the hon. member for Durban Point today. I am asking you now, Sir, if they denied it in 1952 and if they are still denying it today, what guarantee do we have for believing that their denial means anything today? I want to quote somebody else who has belonged to several parties in South Africa. Since the Prime Minister said that that member was in the National Party initially and saw the United Party from the outside and that he was subsequently in the United Party and therefore saw both parties from the outside, I just want to say that this member now belongs to the United Party once more, and I wonder whether he is able to see them objectively now. I want to quote Mr. Serfontein’s article which appeared in the Sunday Times on Sunday. He made precisely the same statement the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had made in 1952. He said that this was still the case in South Africa and that it is surprising that there are not 1 000 language incidents in South Africa every day on account of discrimination against the Afrikaner. The hon. member said that he had spoken 20 years ago, but he did not speak 20 years ago and then stopped speaking. In the Cape Argus of 2nd June, 1960, he adopted the same standpoint, and that was eight years later. This question is one of the most important questions in the history of South Africa, and I now want to tell hon. members that the hon. member proved today that the attitude of the United Party is to discriminate against the Afrikaner. Since he adopted that standpoint in 1960 we have had no evidence from the United Party to prove that they have changed their attitude; on the contrary, we have had evidence that this is still their attitude. In order to put this matter in its true perspective I should like to quote briefly to hon. members from two speeches made by two South Africans. The first quotation comes from a speech made by President Steyn at the National Convention. In that speech he said the following—

What about the Great Trek?

No, wait a minute, you are afraid of those things. I want to quote to hon. members the standpoint President Steyn adopted in 1908 and 1909. He said (translation)—

I now want to read to hon. members the standpoint adopted by Sir L. S. Jameson as far as this speech of President Steyn was concerned.

What did Cecil Rhodes say?

No, wait a minute. He said this in the House of Assembly on 25th November, 1910, and I want to read it to hon. members …

When do you come to Slagters Nek?

Wait a minute, this is really going to hurt you. You are going to get something different to what you expected. I quote—

What did Armstrong say when he landed on the moon?

He went further—

I now want to make the point that the difference between the Afrikaners in that party and Afrikaners such as President Steyn is the following : President Steyn delivered a passionate plea for unity to the National Convention but he insisted on his rights as an Afrikaner, and those Afrikaners of that party say that they are relinquishing their Afrikanership. They do not insist on their rights in that respect. [Interjections.] I now want to go further and say that the difference between the English-speaking hon. members on that side and Dr. Jameson is the following: When the Afrikaner in the person of President Steyn rose to plead for his rights, he was magnanimous enough to admit that he did not comprehend the situation and therefore conceded that President Steyn was right. The only policy we have from members of that party and from the leader of that party, is the policy of those Afrikaans-speaking people who say that they have to relinquish their Afrikanership. Not one of them rose to say that that was not the policy of the United Party. I suggest that the United Party are using those Afrikaners. Jameson happened to be a Sir and once again there is a Sir in that party. I want to say that he is using those Afrikaners in his party to do things he is not prepared to do himself. The Afrikaner rose in the person of President Steyn and demanded his rights, and those rights were granted. I will accept that the United Party is honest when it says that its policy is what it is when the leader of that party rises and says that those members who, on behalf of the United Party, say that they have to relinquish their Afrikanership, are wrong and that it is his policy that the Afrikaner has the right to fight for his rights. He must call those people to order when they continue vehemently to attack, smear and insult Afrikaner organizations as much as they can.

The other day when the hon. the Minister of Defence fought for the rights of the Afrikaner in this House, without offending the English-speaking people, and also pleaded for national unity, the hon. member for Maitland …

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?

The hon. member may put his question to me a little later on; allow me to make my point first. That hon. member then rose and said that he is ashamed of being an Afrikaner. In view of what that hon. member said the other day, one has to accept that he is also ashamed of President Steyn and what he did at he National Convention. When one considers the past of this English-speaking person, Sir Jameson, he cannot be regarded as a South African who was inspired by a mighty spirit of South Africa first. But even he had a better understanding of South Africa than these hon. members. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it was quite interesting to hear what the hon. member read to us. It seems to me that it has slipped his mind that the late President Steyn was the first chairman of the old South African Party. [Interjections.] He has also forgotten that President Steyn’s son was a Cabinet Minister under Gen. Smuts and that he remained in that party until his death, and that his grandson is one of the regional chairmen of the United Party. And yet the allegation has been made that the Afrikaner in the United Party is asked to give up something. I want to put it quite clearly that we are asking no one to give up any part of his Afrikanerhood or of his rights as an English-speaking person. The only thing he has to realize is that he gains something additional, and that is to become a real South African under the United Party. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister was still saying that he wanted to test the United Party against its actions. He referred to the Executive Committee in Natal.

Yes.

Yes. Two of those members are fully bilingual. The hon. gentlemen knows that.

Now for the first time.

It is interesting to hear this from the ex-Administrator now. After all, he was the one who got up in that provincial council and said of the Executive Committee, consisting of three English-speaking people and one Afrikaans-speaking person, that it was the best Executive Committee in South Africa.

But tell us about Natal.

Frank Martin and Horace Rail are fully bilingual. Percy Fowle is accepted as bilingual.

Accepted as bilingual?

Yes, that is accepted. He regularly makes speeches in Afrikaans. Last week he delivered a speech in Afrikaans to the Tugela River Development Association. But what is more, he obtained a certificate as a result of a course he had again followed recently, and he was congratulated on the degree of bilingualism he had achieved. Then there is the fourth member of the Executive Committee, Mr. Watterson, who is an immigrant. He was urged to see to it that he becomes bilingual as soon as possible. I am able to tell hon. members that he attends an Afrikaans language laboratory and that the progress he has made in such a short time is quite amazing. I do not have the slightest doubt …

May I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a question?

Sit down!

I do not have the slightest doubt that within a very short space of time he will be able to address Afrikaans-speaking people in their own language.

The hon. the Prime Minister requests further proof. The majority of the United Party supporters in Natal are English-speaking. Does the hon. gentleman know who, inter alia, were elected by them as senators? They elected senators from the Free State such as Wolfie Swart and Herman Oelrich.

It is inevitable that they must elect a United Party man.

They did not elect a United Party man from their own province; they elected these senators from outside their province in order to give representation to the Afrikaans-speaking United Party supporters in the Free State.

The hon. the Prime Minister alleges that he has appealed to me to join him in appealing to the people to respect each other’s language. I know of only one time when the hon. gentleman did this, and I agreed with him. I gladly address such an appeal to both sections to respect each other’s language rights.

Now we are at least making some progress.

It seems to me I am making progress; now the Prime Minister agrees. I do not hang my head in shame to any man for my conduct towards the two language groups in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister quoted here what was said by this man or by that man. Must I quote to him what was said by Mr. Stirton, who joined the Nationalist Party in Natal and was a member of its executive? Must I quote what was said by Mr. Jones, who was a member of the Nationalist Party in Natal? Must I quote what was said by Mr. Ivor Benson, i.e. that there was no warm spot in the ranks of the Nationalist Party for an English-speaking person? We can continue in that vein, but what purpose does it serve to come along with stories of that kind? Does the hon. the Prime Minister want national unity in South Africa, or does he not? Since South Africa is being threatened from outside, has the time arrived when he ought to put national unity above almost all else in South Africa, or has it not? I am asking the hon. the Prime Minister.

Put your questions. I shall answer you.

What has been this party’s whole policy right from the start? It is a party that has stood for national unity and equal treatment for the languages of both groups.

I am accused of controlling the English-language Press in South Africa. [Interjections.] I quote (translation)—

That is what Japie said.

I wish it were true that I did control the English-language Press. The hon. the Minister of Transport is chairman of a large Press group and some other members of the Cabinet are members of the boards of directors of certain Afrikaans-language newspapers in South Africa. It would have been a wonderful thing to me to control the English-language Press in South Africa. I would teach them how to fight the Nationalist Party and how to protect and respect, the rights of both groups in South Africa in the proper way.

Mr. Chairman, I think I must put the record straight immediately. I never for one moment said that the hon. gentleman controlled the English Press. That is what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said.

Yes, I beg your pardon, you are right.

Yes, of course I am right. The hon. gentlemen does not control the English Press; the English Press controls him. Seeing that the hon. member has made that admission, I will not say anything further about this matter but will give him a chance to finish his speech.

Dr. G. F. JACOBS; Mr. Chairman, before I proceed I just want to say something on this issue. The hon. the Prime Minister says that he wants deeds and not words, but I want to ask him just one question. If national unity is so meaningful to him, and I accept his good faith in this regard, why does he not permit us to have bilingual schools? Why has that party artificially separated all our children at school? How can we ever acquire the measure of bilingualism we are seeking to get if our children are artificially separated at school?

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, you can reply later. Earlier in the day I raised the question of the wage gap with the hon. the Prime Minister. I pointed out to him that the policy of his party as stated by him specifically was that the wage gap must be closed. I gave him facts and figures; in fact, I quoted his own words to show that that gap is in fact widening. The hon. the Prime Minister today spoke for an hour and a half, but he has not yet given us an answer to that particular issue. We would like to think that he will do so tomorrow.

The second issue I tried to raise is that the hon. the Prime Minister, in addressing the Sakekamer earlier this year, indicated that fair-weather Afrikaners and other South Africans were propagating something that would lead to the creation of a social welfare state in South Africa. What I am trying to suggest is that it is not these gentlemen who want Socialism in South Africa, but that it is established fact. We have galloping socialism; all the insidious aspects of Socialism are there. The trouble is we have not got the welfare side of it. This has a long history. In 1942 certain gentlemen drew up a so-called draft Republican Constitution, and in that particular document, and I gather that certain hon. gentlemen who sit here played a leading role in its drafting, it was said that ultimately the State would have all economic power in its hands. That is precisely our charge; the Government is usurping more and more economic power, and this manifests itself in 101 different ways. There are the giant State enterprises, which operate virtually outside the parameters of jurisdiction of this House, which are not answerable to shareholders and which are getting a bigger and bigger slice of the national economic cake. We have more and more controls. The availability of labour is controlled; the use you can make of labour is controlled; credit is controlled, interest rates are controlled; also where you site your industry. That kind of control to anybody else in the world would suggest Socialism. That is why some of our industrialists and top businessmen are throwing up their arms in despair and are saying, “Let us return to the free market mechanism in South Africa”. Dr. Hupkes is on record, and I can quote dozens of others who have taken exactly the same line. So we have Socialism in this country; it is an established fact.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I am not interested in questions asked by that hon. member.

†I mention only that in 1970 the public sector’s share of total investments in South Africa came to 46 per cent. Now, if nearly half the national investment in a country is controlled by the Government, then you have Socialism. From 1960 to 1970 expenditure in the public sector on both capital and loan account grew at the annual rate of 12 per cent. This is three times more than the growth of our GDP. Right at the moment, a quarter of our GDP. is taken up by public spending. If ever you want an example of Socialism, there you have it. As I have indicated we have all the elements of Socialism. There is bureaucratic control. We have more control boards per head of population in South Africa than in any free enterprise system anywhere in the world. We have excessively high taxes. All these factors are indicative of a very considerable degree of Socialism in South Africa. But as I indicated earlier on, the unfortunate part is that in South Africa we do not have the welfare side. We talk about Britain very often as a social welfare state. There a pensioner, irrespective of the colour of his skin and irrespective of a means test, receives R60 per month, which is appreciably more than a pensioner receives in this country. When we talk about White pensioners, that is one thing; but the Black pensioner in this country gets one-seventh of that amount. I think in a country which claims that it is one of the most affluent societies in the world, that is a national disgrace. My charge is that the Prime Minister is wrong. It is not the people who are seeking the establishment of a social welfare state here. We have Socialism, foisted upon us by the Government; but we do not have the compensatory welfare services to go with it.

I want to return to one other issue.

*This concerns the independent Bantu homelands which are now going to come into being; but this is no longer an academic question; this has now become actual. The Government has made promises that they are going to become independent, and now we see Chief Kaizer Matanzima taking up all these promises. Recently, when the hon. Prime Minister had an interview with the periodical To the Point, he indicated very clearly that, as far as he was concerned, “if they want to go the way of Moscow or Peking”, they could do so.

† He said—

We all know what that means to the hon. the Prime Minister—

This is very explicit what the hon. the Prime Minister had in mind. Obviously they could find there are no limitations. They could establish treaties with communist states. I want to know whether this is Cabinet policy. I wonder whether that has been condoned and approved by the hon. the Prime Minister’s caucus. The hon. the Minister of Defence who is, after all, responsible for the defence of South Africa, when talking at Newcastle, as was reported in the Cape Times of the 14th March, 1970, said—

Mr. Chairman, who is right? The hon. the Prime Minister has now repudiated his Minister of Defence on a most serious issue. How could he conceivably keep him in his Cabinet if there is this clash of views on a fundamental question of this kind? The hon. the Prime Minister said they could form alliances with communist states; he would virtually wash his hands; he would be unhappy about it, but there was nothing he could do about it. Yet, his Minister of Defence takes a diametrically opposite line. I think the country wants an explanation on this issue too.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.