Mr. Chairman, I rise to raise three matters with the hon. the Prime Minister, firstly the Agliotti scandal, in the second place, the investigation into the investigator of that scandal, Gen. Bester, and in the third place, the payment by the State of the costs of the hon. the Minister of Community Development. I had occasion to raise this Agliotti scandal during the Second Reading of the Budget debate and the hon. the Minister …

The scandal?

Yes, this certainly is a scandal. This is the biggest scandal in the history of this Government. Is that not so? [Interjections.] I do not know whether I am wrong; I say: “Up to the present this is the biggest scandal.” Hon. members must tell me whether I am wrong.

† Mr. Chairman, when I raised this matter, the hon. the Prime Minister invited me to raise the matter during his Vote, and I do so now. I accept his invitation. I want to say that this has been the concern of the hon. the Prime Minister ever since this matter first began. He was the person who in fact appointed the commission of inquiry into this matter. This he did as a result, inter alia, of the “skinderstories” and the gossip which were going around in the Boksburg constituency, on his own evidence. According to the Minister of Police, it was he, the Prime Minister, who set up the Police inquiry about September of 1970. That inquiry is still going on. Now, 18 months later, it is not expected to be concluded until June. In the course of his investigation this ugly scandal has suddenly become “a delicate matter”, in fact a “very delicate matter”, according to the hon. the Minister of Police. Perhaps the hon. the Prime Minister can tell us why it has become delicate.

It is not the Agliotti affair, but the investigation which is delicate.

Oh, the investigation has become delicate? Why has it become delicate? It is “very delicate” according to the hon. the Minister, and “delicate” according to the Commissioner of Police. Now we are told that the investigations are not going to be completed until June of this year. The hon. the Minister cannot tell us; perhaps the hon. the Prime Minister can tell us which Minister is in fact in charge of the Agliotti inquiry. Sir, I think we are entitled to ask this question, not only because the hon. the Prime Minister first initiated the Police inquiry—he ordered it, according to the Minister of Police—but also because of the strange events which have occurred since then.

The strangest event is that event where Gen. Danie Bester, the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the investigator into the Agliotti matter, was investigated behind his back by the Police in respect of a statement he is alleged to have made, that there was interference by the Government in his investigation into the Agliotti scandal. The Commissioner himself conducted this investigation. He even asked a witness for a sworn statement himself. One can only believe that this investigation into Gen. Bester took place either as a result of a sworn statement being placed before him, or on the instruction of someone else. The only people, as I have said before, who could have done this can be the hon. the Prime Minister or the Minister of Police. It was not the Minister of Police; that much we know, because he knew nothing about it.

There are three very unusual things which strike one immediately. In the first place, when this is investigated, Gen. Bester is not told; in the second place, the Commissioner wanted sworn statements. This was not a departmental inquiry; there is provision for that. It was also not a criminal charge. As I have said, even a common thief is confronted with a charge, and the matter is then investigated. The most unusual thing of all is that that Minister of Police did not know that this was going on. It was as a result of my raising this matter that the hon. the Prime Minister invited me to raise it on his Vote. The question I put to him then he did not answer. I now ask him again: Would it be possible that he, as the Minister of Police, would not know that an investigation was being conducted into the Deputy Commissioner of Police by the Commissioner himself, requiring sworn statements about what he said? The only explanation is either that this Minister of Police should be sacked for allowing this to happen without his knowing anything about it, or that he did not know anything about it because the hon. the Prime Minister himself ordered that inquiry.

Why are you so excited?

I am not excited. What I want to say is this: When we want to talk about this matter and when we raise the matter in the Budget debate, what happens? The hon. the Minister of Police does not answer; he puts in the hon. member for Prinshof. Why the hon. member for Prinshof? It seems that the hon. member for Prinshof knows a lot more about this than the hon. the Minister of Police, because in the Transvaler on Monday, 20th March, this year, a report appeared of a speech made by the hon. member for Prinshof. He was asked a question about the Agliotti matter, and he said it was a “pluimpie in die hoed”, a feather in the cap of the Government, and so on. This sort of thing, he said, happens in other countries and it is not always followed up; here it is being followed up. Then he said the most significant thing—

Then he says—

That must mean the “polisie-ondersoek”. What does that mean, and what does he know about it? And why should this “eintlik” have happened? Surely that is enough to make people wonder. Sir, what is going on in this Agliotti case? Having regard to the nature of the allegation which was being investigated, can one wonder that Hoofstad in a leading article on Friday, 25th February, 1972, after the Brakpan disaster for the Nationalist Party, wrote what they wrote? I have not got time to read it all out, but I will pass it along to the hon. the Prime Minister if he wants it.

The Minister of Transport has got it.

Apparently the hon. the Minister of Transport has got it. What they say, Sir, is that there are people within the Nationalist Party who are helping themselves to grow bigger and richer through their positions. Surely, Sir, that is going to be investigated, too. But do not say that these are “skinderstories van die Sappe”. This appeared in Hoofstad.

I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister what it is that causes this investigation to be so delayed. Surely it is very important, on the Prime Minister’s own statement of his attitude towards this sort of thing. Is this no more important than whether Albert Hertzog said that R50 million was going to be spent on BOSS? Is it not more important to the country and the integrity of the Government? But what does he do about this? Nothing, Sir, It has been going on for 18 months and he is going to allow it to go on until June. Why until June? Why cannot this matter be brought to a head? What is involved; who is involved?

Sir, I raise those questions in regard to these two matters because they warrant answers which we have not had, and I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister is the only one who can give us the answers.

Then there is the question of the payment by the State of the costs of the hon. the Minister of Community Development. This was obviously a Cabinet decision. According to the hon. the Minister of Justice, these costs were paid by the State because the Cabinet accepts that when the Minister of Community Development uttered this defamation he acted in the course and scope of his position as a Cabinet Minister, and on that basis the State decided to pay his costs. But that is not the case of the hon. the Minister of Community Development. In the offending article which gave rise to this action the hon. the Minister of Community Development said—

Meaning the Government and the City Council of Pretoria—

[Time expired.]

Sir, if the hon. member for Durban North stands up we see an Agliotti standing up. We are tired of Agliotti and of him. The hon. the Minister of Police gave an explanation of the matter here, and the hon. member and I both listened to it. I was satisfied by the hon. the Minister, and I think that hon. member is again just sinking to the usual level the Opposition sinks to when they cannot get any further with their case.

Sir, I want to come back briefly to the speech of the hon. member for Hillbrow yesterday afternoon. I want to point out that the idiom and the content of the speech of the hon. member for Hillbrow was as close to that of the Progressive Party as it could possibly get. What the hon. member had to say about the “wage gap”, about the gap between the pensions of Whites and non-Whites, appears almost verbatim in a letter I received this week from the Young Progressives here in Cape Town. There is virtually no difference between what he said here last night and what the Young Progressives said.

What does the Minister of the Interior say?

The hon. member for Hillbrow is the last person to accuse the State, as he did last night in his speech, of playing an ever greater part in the commercial sector. As an intimate authority on the Anglo-American Corporation, such as that hon. member is, he ought to know better than to say the kind of thing he said yesterday afternoon in his speech here. Sir, he speaks of growing socialism. Surely that is what he and his party are continually asking for—a welfare state. He is the last hon. member to speak about that. The hon. member speaks in disparaging terms of control boards. Sir, what control boards did he mean? What was the hon. member referring to so scornfully? A characteristic of the hon. member’s speech yesterday was that it was simply a lumping together of a lot of generalizations, a kind of emotional defence. Sir, this is not the hon. member we know. We ask ourselves whether the slaps he got from the Sunday Times about his “White backlash” speech so unnerved him that he has not yet regained his self-confidence. As former crown prince of the United Party and former political prophet, the fact that his own newspaper and his own party—both his parties—discredited him must have been a bitter pill for him to swallow. I really advise the hon. member for Hillbrow to stand up and walk across to his rightful bench—the seat next to the hon. member for Houghton. [Interjections.]

I should very much like to come back to the Vote under discussion and to a matter very dear to my heart, i.e. State security and our Prime Minister’s role in it. Sir, when the circle round the old Transvaal Republic was closed by Rhodes and Jameson, the spiritual forefathers of the United Party and of the hon. member for Houghton’s party … [Interjections.] …

President Paul Kruger did not come along with lamentations, dirges and federation plans. He saw through them. He said at the time that the foreigners did not want the right to vote, they wanted his country. When he saw his country was being threatened, what did President Paul Kruger do? In good time he prepared his country militarily to defend it against whatever odds; he steeled his people to resist. Sir, what is the position in this country today? The communists—the yellow communists from the East and the red communists from the Kremlin—have their eyes mercilessly fixed on Africa, particularly Southern Africa, and specifically South Africa. What is more, the communists are not concerned about any Whites in this country, whether United Party, National Party of Progressive Party men, whether English, Afrikaans or German-speaking. The communists are not concerned about integration or non-integration. So, Sir, they want this country, its riches and its open spaces for their masses which they cannot accommodate. International Communism wants this strategic sea-route around the Cape, because in the coming conflict between themselves and the West control of this strategic sea-route is going to be of decisive importance. For what other reason do we ever so often have reports of Russian submarines and warships sailing here round the Cape of Good Hope? That, Sir, is the harsh reality facing the Republic, and the United Party men are too blind to see that they are continually playing into the hands of those powers. [Interjections.] Sir, my Afrikaner people, who have now for a long time walked the path of prosperity, who have begun to yield before the economic onslaught so that they are building up a grievance vote for the United Party, have begun to forget how to notice how this communist octopus is curling its tentacles round Southern Africa; how to notice that within the foreseeable future the communists, upon completion of the Tanzam railway line, would bring heavy weapons, i.e. artillery and tanks, up to the banks of the Zambezi, close to Katima Mulilo; but then, dramatically and suddenly under our very noses, near Potgietersrus, on a quiet Good Friday just the other day, a passenger train was hurled off a railway bridge and dozens of innocent Bantu were flung to their deaths. Sir, further attempts at sabotage are taking place in our midst, directly and indirectly. There are terrorist trials in progress in our country in which the Police are bringing diabolical aspects to light. [Interjections.] Sir, all at once my people dug in their heels and were joined by every responsible person in this country, including the law-abiding Bantu. The red warning lights are flashing everywhere. This is not merely a case of more shock reports about our brave policemen who died in the Caprivi in a dastardly fashion. Everyone on a train or in an aircraft is now continually anxious, wondering whether it is not going to happen again. Everyone realizes that the red saboteur is now in our midst; he is no longer far away. Now the urgent warnings of our hon. Prime Minister and our hon. Minister of Police have come strongly to the fore in recent months and years. All at once this whole picture is fully and clearly before our people. What is the picture? This Government is prepared for what is now happening. State security and the safety of the country are at this moment the Republic’s top priority. All at once, while that hon. member, the prophet who was silenced, was sitting and mumbling, it was brought home to the people that the red saboteurs are here, and the time for cheap political games by anti-National elements, such as those of that party, is past, because this people is tired of it. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. members for Florida and Durban Point must please stop making those interjections.

All at once the perspective of the hon. the Prime Minister’s words does in fact become clear to us. His purposeful work, not only for the past six years since becoming Prime Minister, but since he became Minister of Justice, is becoming clear. [Time expired.]

Were it not for the serious aspect of what the hon. member for Pretoria District has just said, I would have treated him and what he has said with complete contempt. His attempts to smear this side of the House and this party in regard to their loyalty towards the security of South Africa is a disgrace which we reject with the contempt which it deserves. But what is important is that this hon. member raised this afternoon the dangers facing South Africa, dangers which we on this side of the House recognize, and in the combating of which we play our full part, and towards the fighting of which we are dedicated, and in the physical combating of which our sons are playing their part. These dangers are dangers facing all of South Africa and in fighting them, all South Africans are taking part—all South Africans, and not just Nationalists as that hon. member implied. I repeat—not just Nationalists, but all loyal and patriotic South Africans. And the man under whom they have to fight, the man who is responsible for our security, is the hon. the Minister of Defence.

May I ask a question?

I am not prepared to answer any questions in a ten-minute speech. The hon. the Minister of Defence is the Minister responsible for maintaining the dedication of our youth in the fight against Communism. He is the Minister responsible for the esprit de corps, the morale and the loyalty of our troops, in the defence of our fatherland against assault from outside. Yet how does he maintain that morale and that dedication of spirit? By getting up in this House last week and accusing anyone who does not speak the one language of being an “Afrikaner-hater” and not a good South African? What was the test he applied? He said that any person who did not speak Afrikaans in this House was an “Afrikaner-hater”. But he went further and he said that any person who could speak Afrikaans and did not, was an even worse “Afrikaner-hater”. In other words, he places as the test of patriotism and of South Africanism the language which you speak.

Sir, I am not prepared to let the hon. the Prime Minister get away with his pious appeal yesterday for unity. He is the Prime Minister of South Africa and his Minister responsible for our security has, I believe, done South Africa a grave disservice. We have the Prime Minister’s pious word : “I am pure.” He challenges us on this, that and the other, and then he goes back twenty years to find a speech to prove that this side of the House has “Afrikanerhaters” and is not truly South African. We can all do that. I have a speech here, signed, a message which says—

That is by a member of the Cabinet, Mr. Blaar Coetzee, and was signed by him— and this was after the speech which the hon. the Prime Minister quoted. We can also prove anything this way. But what I believe is significant in this debate on unity, is the fact that whilst this side of the House has reacted strongly to the allegations, we have not retaliated in kind. That is the test of South Africanism. We have been angered, and I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that many of us have been embittered and we have been hurt not only in this House, but throughout South Africa. We have been hurt by what has been said. We remember broken meetings, broken up when Nationalist Party organizers have screamed : “Praat Afrikaans; ons wil nie die rooitaal hier hê nie.” Under this Prime Minister we know of circulars that have gone out to public servants, instructions to them, that they may not write an internal letter in English in their departments. The hon. the Minister of Finance, when I raised the matter, said that he had gone into it and it was correct and he has instructed that it be withdrawn. [Interjections.] It was in the Department of Customs and Excise, and I have the actual instruction, written by the Secretary of the department, and it stands in Hansard. The Minister had to have that instruction withdrawn. Where do we get with this sort of accusation?

I want to say that the Nationalist Party has no monopoly on feelings. It is not only their feelings that can be hurt. They are not the only people who are sensitive, neither has any language group a monopoly of being hurt or not being hurt. When things are said in this House as they have been said by the Government recently, then I want the hon. the Prime Minister to know that people are deeply and bitterly hurt. I want to say to him that it is the United Party and not the Nationalist Party which has fought jingoism in South Africa. It was the United Party which fought the Dominion Party. It was the United Party which fought that Dominion Party, a party which later supported the Government on race policies. It was the United Party which fought the Federal Party in Natal, the party which wanted to secede from South Africa. Where is there any member on that side of the House that fought against it? [Interjections.] No, the hon. the Chief Whip can get up and make a speech later; I will then reply to it. Mr. Chairman, it is this side of the House, this party, the United Party, who in the past taught people who were jingoes. Admittedly there were racialists on both sides—but it was the United Party which has taken that out of our national life, and out of our politics. We had jingoes, of course we did; and what caused it? The bitterness, the extremism of the Nationalist Party. Mr. Chairman, steadily and responsibly we have fought against extremism. We have fought in the United Party, Mr. Chairman, until there was no iota left.

*We were the ones, Mr. Chairman, we in this party, who had to fight English-speaking people in order to make good South Africans of them. [Interiections.] What makes us feel bitter, Mr. Chairman, and I want to conclude with this, is that the years of work, of persuasion, to destroy jingoism and racism between White and White, are undone here within a few hours, a few hours of acrimonious, short-sighted and vindictive speeches. I demand, and we demand, that the Prime Minister repudiate the Minister of Defence as well as the other Ministers who spoke in that vein, in the interests of South Africa. It is not enough to make appeals … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point is understandably angry. I can understand it very well indeed. I have known the hon. member for Durban Point for many years. I know him as a very jovial, pleasant person who sometimes pretends to be angry, but who very seldom gets really angry.

Here I am very angry. [Interjections.]

Yesterday afternoon was the first time I saw him being really angry. But the hon. member was not angry with me; nor was he angry with my hon. friend here; he was angry with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

Hear, hear!

I have never seen a person getting as furious as did the hon. member for Durban Point yesterday with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Let me say this to the credit of the hon. member for Durban Point: He is the only one on that side who reacted in respect of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who is not here at the moment. I wonder whether he did not perhaps leave the Chamber for fear that the hon. member for Durban Point would attack him. [Interjections.] I do not mean that he would attack him physically.

Jolly Johnny!

You can’t take it.

Order!

It is strange that he is not in his seat in the House at the moment, whereas a little while ago he was here.

But the hon. member is merely throwing up a smokescreen. We have already debated this matter across the floor of this House. If he thinks that I should speak to my colleague here because he said things which that hon. member says he said, then he is making a mistake. I listened to what the hon. the Minister was saying, and by way of interjection I indicated my point of view on it in no uncertain terms. If the hon. member for Durban Point—and this he must understand very clearly now— thinks that we are to be content with listening from Monday to Saturday to how things which are sacred and dear to us are disparaged and despised, then he is making a mistake.

Give the proof. [Interjections.]

Order!

I am giving him this general statement now, and I am also addressing it to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, to whom I said this yesterday as well: the sooner we on both sides of this House realise that people are very sensitive about these matters and that, because of historical factors, the Afrikaners pre-eminently have reason to be sensitive about these matters, the better it will be. What was it that my friend the hon. the Minister of Defence condemned? My friend condemned the attitude of people who have the chance, who have the opportunity and who have the intelligence to know or speak the other person’s language, but who, in his opinion, have so much contempt for it that they do not consider it worthwhile to do so. That is what my friend’s case was. However, since the hon. member for Durban Point raised this matter once again, and since the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is back now …

May I put a question to the hon. the Prime Minister? Did the hon. the Prime Minister say in my absence, when I was called out to take a telephone call, that I had intentionally left the Chamber and run away?

The hon. member need not be so excited about it. By no means did I say that he had been called away intentionally. I told the hon. member for Durban Point that I wondered, since he was actually angry with you and now wanted to take it out on me, whether you did not perhaps think that he wanted to attack you. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout need not be so sensitive, for I have not yet finished with him. There is still a good deal we have to discuss in this regard. But since the hon. member for Durban Point has once again raised this matter and has again made insinuations against this side of the House, I want to ask what we actually have before us now. We have a statement of fact to the effect that what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says is true.

He did not say it was true.

That was my opinion, I said.

This is getting to be very interesting. The hon. member’s Hansard reads as follows—

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

It is true.

But just read the next sentence.

I shall read on—

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said not only that it was true, but also that he had felt it, that he had experienced it. That makes it doubly true. He went on to say—

Then the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education made the following interjection—

Mr. J. D. du P. Basson then said—

In other words, in 1952.

No; even so, it was 20 years ago.

It was 20 years ago.

What I meant was: even so, it was 20 years ago.

You can tell us later on what you meant. I am dealing with your Hansard now. That was so 20

years ago; in other words, in 1952. We also have it on record here that it was so—we can make that deduction—in 1960 too, according to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

That was his opinion. [Interjections.]

No, he does not say that it was his opinion.

That is not true.

Order! The hon. member for Bezuidenhout must contain himself.

Not one single word is said here about opinion. He says it was so and he says that was his experience. Now the hon. member for Durban Point will just have to settle it with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. What I find interesting now, is that whereas, on the strength of the evidence I have before me, I now have to accept that the United Party, hon. members who are sitting over there, set themselves the task of inciting English-speaking people against Afrikaans-speaking people and that it was the spirit and the atmosphere within that party to do so …

Never.

This is what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says.

What does Blaar say?

Oh, I talked such a lot of nonsense then!

Order!

This is what the hon. member says. He says it very clearly. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout does not say it is his opinion; according to the Hansard of 22nd April, 1952, he said (Volume 78, column 4165)—

That is the day on which he spoke, i.e. 22nd April, 1952—

It is not an opinion; he said “today the U.P. makes itself guilty of those extravagances … "

Now I should like to know from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who so piously dictated to us in the Sunday Times what the relations should be and who levelled accusations at the National Party in that pious article of his, whilst we have it on record now that this was the spirit and atmosphere of the United Party up to 1960, whether this is still the case.

I deny it.

Yes, but this is a matter which you should settle with him in the caucus. I am not interested in that.

Just do not assault him.

Order!

If this is no longer the case today, I think that in fairness to his party the hon. member owes us a reply on when it changed, as a result of what it changed and who was responsible for it.

Just read that article you have there. I have already said it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban North has put this question to me. The hon. member has not only been a member of this House for many years, but is also a senior member of the Bar. To my surprise, referring to the Bester incident firstly, on Sunday before last I had to read the big black headlines: “Mitchell names Vorster” on the front page of the Sunday Times. The hon. member did not, as one would have expected from a senior member of this House, ask me across the floor of this House by way of a question or otherwise whether I knew anything of this matter at all. Without any iota of evidence, the hon. member ran along to the Sunday Times and made this accusation against me.

What was the accusation?

The accusation was that “Mitchell names Vorster”, meaning that Vorster had something to do with this.

Those were the headlines.

The hon. member cannot run away from that; he is responsible for it.

For the headlines?

The headlines were taken out of the statement of the hon. member and is there for all members to see. It can be seen in the Library at this very moment. Without a shadow of evidence at his disposal, the hon. member, in his bid to seek publicity and to get publicity on the front page of the Sunday Times, dragged me into this. Now he comes along and he repeats that accusation, in spite of the statement by the Commissioner of Police that I had nothing to do with this whatsoever. Does the hon. member want to tell me across the floor of this House that he does not accept the statement made by the Commissioner of Police?

Come on, Mike—tell us!

Order!

Is this the treatment the Commissioner of Police is getting from the shadow Minister of Justice and the shadow Minister of Police?

Then why did Bester get the treatment he got?

We will be coming to that, but that is no excuse whatsoever for a senior member on that side of the House and a senior member of the Bar not to accept the word of the Commissioner of Police. Here we have a shadow Minister who, in his attempt to make despicable propaganda out of it, levels the accusation against me that I was responsible for it in spite of what the Commissioner of Police has said before.

I asked a question.

No, you did not ask a question; you made this accusation across the floor of the House. You made it in the Sunday Times and later on you also made it across the floor of the House. What was the position as I gathered from the explanation of the hon. the Minister of Justice? A certain rumour came to the ears of the Commissioner of Police. It was not only a rumour about Gen. Bester, but also a rumour about the Government in regard to the investigations into the Agliotti affair. The Commissioner of Police has told us that he saw it as his duty to have it investigated immediately. I, for one, am very pleased that the Commissioner of Police did see it as his duty. I would have been disappointed if he did not see it as his duty to have it investigated immediately. What is there then to say further about the matter?

What a strange way of investigating !

But, Mr. Chairman, the Commissioner of Police has told us that he would have investigated the matter himself. He was seized of the matter himself. He deputed a brigadier to go and investigate this matter, because, as I have already said, I can readily understand it. It is not only a question of General Bester, but it is an imputation against the Government.

But he thought the allegation was ridiculous and a lot of nonsense.

But there were so many rumours flying about, and the hon. member may well ask himself for how many he himself was responsible. I am not surprised that the Commissioner of Police took up that attitude.

Why did he not confront Bester?

Sir, surely he gave the explanation that at the same time, when Prinsloo was down there, he discussed it with Bester. After all, we do have this on record now. Why should we now rehash it over and over?

Not from the beginning.

Sir, it was a question of the same day and the same morning. What more does the hon. member want in this regard now? I would not know. What is more, I do not care whether or not he is satisfied with the explanation; but what does matter to me, is that I shall be glad if in his search for publicity the hon. member would not drag me into this matter.

The hon. member now wants to make propaganda out of the Agliotti affair once again. In that case we may as well restate the facts in that regard across the floor of this House for the umpteenth time. The facts of the matter were that that land had been purchased through the instrumentality of an official on the valuation of two geologists and what could be deduced from the surrounding circumstances. I think it is fair to have been able to deduce that the land was in fact worth much more than that price. Furthermore, there was evidence by people who held that view. The moment it became known that that price had been paid for the land—and I reported that here to this House—the hon. member for Boksburg brought certain matters to my notice.

Gossip.

No, Sir, they were not gossip. They were of such a nature that I took notice of them, and I most certainly do not take any notice of the hon. member for Durban North. I took the necessary steps in that regard. I did not merely speak about it, but hon. members will remember very well that I said I would have this matter investigated and that I did go further than that. Because a contract had been drawn up, I said that even if it would be necessary to annul that contract by way of an Act of Parliament, I would do so, immediately. What more does the hon. member want from me now? But I did not merely leave it at that either. I appointed a commissioner to investigate that matter. I even stepped in by having advocates with specialised knowledge appointed while the investigations were in progress already, because I wanted the best evidence to be put forward in regard to this matter. I want to tell hon. members now that if I had not appointed those advocates, the possibility would by no means have been ruled out that the commissioner would have found that the price paid for that land was a fair one. That would not have been ruled out. Because I wanted to make absolutely sure that nothing would go wrong in this regard, I had senior as well as junior advocates appointed, persons with a knowledge of the expropriation of land, and they entered the case. I know I am quite justified in saying that it was as a result of their intervention that the case took the course it did, and that R5 million came back to the State. But what further steps did I take? If there are people who want to make propaganda out of this, they are free to do so; if that is the case, there is nothing I can do about it. All I know is that this Government and I personally did the correct thing at all times.

What further steps did I as the responsible Prime Minister take? I immediately gave instructions that the report of that commissioner be sent to the Attorney-General. Because it was fair to deduce that an offence had been committed somewhere, I instructed the Police to look into this matter. What more can I do? I want to know this now. The Police did not merely leave the matter at that. Who decides on prosecutions in this country? Every now and then I gain the impression that if that hon. member had to become Minister of Justice, he would interfere with prosecutions. I gained this impression as a result of certain statements made by him to the effect that he would interfere. It has always been the practice in South Africa—and may it always remain the practice—that the prerogative to decide whether there should be prosecutions rests with the Attorney-General.

But you changed the Act; that is no longer the case.

That has always been the position.

What did Blackie Swart do? He changed it.

Does the hon. member realize on what dangerous ground he has embarked now? Does the hon. member not realize that in their time it happened that a magistrate was removed from the Bench in the middle of a case and was replaced by another magistrate by order of the Minister of Justice, because that Minister was not satisfied that that magistrate would give the verdict he wanted? [Interjections.]

You do not know what you are talking about.

I know what I am talking about; the magistrate’s name was Mr. Johannes, and the person who replaced him was Mr. Swart. The hon. member need therefore not tell me anything about that case; I know much more about it than he does. I can give him all the particulars, if he wants them. That is what happened in the United Party’s time, but I am leaving it at that. I say: The Attorney-General decides what prosecutions are to take place and what prosecutions are not to take place. I brought the records of the case to the notice of the Attorney-General. The Police have been instructed to investigate the matter from beginning to end. It is not merely the Police on the one side and the Attorney-General on the other side; after all, I told the hon. member that two officials from the office of the Attorney-General are cooperating with the Police in this regard. What more do hon. members want now? After all, it is the Attorney-General who has all the information at his disposal, to whom information is made available by those two officials from time to time, and who has to decide whether or not a prosecution is to be instituted. It is he who has to say: “I have enough evidence now,” or: “I do not have enough evidence yet to charge a person.” [Interjections.] The Heller case went on for years.

Mr. Heller was released on bail …

His case took years. [Interjections.]

Whom do you want to arrest?

The hon. member is a senior advocate; surely he knows just as well as I do that no Attorney-General would charge a person simply because he wants to do so. He knows that if one charges a person prematurely, before one has all the evidence, and he is acquitted, one cannot charge him again, even if one obtains the evidence later on. Surely the hon. member knows this. Does he now expect the Attorney-General simply to charge people without having the evidence which he may bring against them? Now I want to know this from the hon. member: I tell him now that the Police have been instructed to investigate the case as far as it is possible to do so, and that the case is in the hands of the Attorney-General. Is the hon. member making an insinuation, not only against the Minister and against me, but also against the Attorney-General and the Police who are investigating the case, that the Minister, the Attorney-General, the Police and I have laid a plot to the effect that this case should not be brought to finality? I now ask the hon. member, since he dragged me into this matter, not to leave it at insinuations.

He does not have the courage to say it.

Order!

He should display the courage to level an accusation to this effect against me or the Minister across the floor of this House. If he had a grain of courage, he would level that accusation across the floor of this House, he would not leave it at insinuations and gossip-mongering, he would tell me directly, and I would know what to do about it.

In the third instance, the hon. member asked me about the costs of the case of the hon. the Minister of Community Development. Surely he got the statement from the hon. the Minister of Justice. We examined the legal position in this regard very thoroughly; it was not an arbitrary decision we took to act as we did. From the submission we received in that regard, it became apparent that the Minister would not have landed in that trouble if he had not been a Minister, and that it resulted from the fact that he had held the office of Minister at that moment. Whether or not the hon. member likes it, this is the legal rule in respect of officials and in respect of Ministers who …

But what about the capital amount? Why were only his costs paid?

Sir, surely the hon. member, as an attorney, ought to understand that very well. It is because one cannot judge whether it is libellous before the court has given its judgment.

But why was it not done after the court had given its judgment?

Surely, at that stage it was clear what the position was, and that is why we took that decision. Whether or not hon. members like it, we shall stand by that decision. That will be the decision as long as this side of the House is in power. I see no single reason why it should be changed. I repeat : The full explanation of it was given to the hon. member by the hon. the Minister of Justice, and I have no more to add to it.

Mr. Chairman,

Boer-hater.

The Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Police have only themselves to blame for the various adverse inferences which have been drawn not only by this side of the House but by the hon. the Minister’s own Press organs arising out of the Agliotti affair. What has the hon. gentleman told us today? What precisely has he told us? Absolutely nothing that we did not know before he stood up—nothing at all. What has he said? He said that there was an unpleasant rumour; that the Head of the Police acted on that rumour, and that that is all there is to the matter. Let me ask the hon. gentleman a few questions, seeing that he was not prepared to tell us the facts of the matter when he had the opportunity to do so a few moments ago. I would like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he was aware of this rumour before the Commissioner of Police took action?

But I have told you that I read it in the paper on Sunday.

So the hon. gentleman was not aware of that rumour. Was the hon. the Minister of Police aware of that rumour before the Commissioner of Police took action?

He has already told you.

He has not told us. What did he tell us? What was his answer? Did he, or did he not, know it? You see the sort of thing that we are up against here, Sir. The hon. the Prime Minister did not know of this rumour. What was the rumour? Let us forget for a moment that nobody on this side of the House had ever heard of the rumour; no Pressman in the country had heard of this rumour; nobody that I know of had ever heard of this rumour, but it existed apparently. Sir, can you imagine a more serious rumour than the one that is alleged to have been spread; can you imagine a more serious rumour than the allegation that the Government was placing restrictions upon the investigation of this case? We asked the hon. the Minister of Police the other day, but he declined to say anything about it. We now ask the hon. the Prime Minister: What were the restrictions alleged to have been placed on the investigation? You see, Sir, the hon. gentleman is very good at putting questions to us, but when he is in a corner he gazes at the ceiling. He will not answer that question either. That is question No. 2. Let us deal with questions instead of jokes for a change. The hon. gentleman will not tell us what the alleged restrictions were.

Sir, let us deal with the hon. the Prime Minister a stage further. I do not believe that you could find a more serious allegation than the allegation that the Government placed some hindrance or other upon the investigating officers in this case. That is the allegation that the hon. the Minister of Police says was being bandied about. What steps have been taken against the source of that rumour? We have asked the Minister of Police on a number of occasions whether the investigation was based upon a sworn statement and, if so, who made it; and we have asked him further, in view of the seriousness—and I emphasize this—of the rumour which is alleged to have been spread, what steps have been taken against the persons who brought that information now that we know it was false. It is difficult to conceive of a more serious allegation against any Government, and yet we are to understand apparently, on the facts as known to us at the present time, that nothing whatever has been done in that regard. The hon. the Prime Minister cannot complain, if we are to continue with the present situation where he refuses point-blank to give either this House or the country the facts—and the same applies to the hon. the Minister of Police—if people begin to draw their own conclusions.

You can draw what conclusions you like.

… the sort of conclusions that the hon. the Minister’s own Press has begun to draw already and which were referred to by the hon. member for Durban North. Sir, this is not an everyday occurrence. It is one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated in this country, if the facts as established by the commission of inquiry are subsequently proved to be correct. Having been left in the dark as to the facts, as we have been once again, let us come to the question of the investigation, that is to say, the investigation which we hope will lead to a prosecution. The hon. the Prime Minister has given us no reason for the delay in this matter. We hear that it is delicate. I cannot imagine why it is delicate, but we are not told; we are just told that it is delicate. The hon. the Prime Minister stands up proudly and says that he should take great credit because he appointed advocates on the commission of inquiry who knew what they were doing. I should have thought that that would be the most elementary precaution to take. Sir, where else do you have a Police investigation into a set of facts where most of the facts are already in black and white as the result of a lengthy inquiry by a commission? You know, Sir, one has only to read the evidence which was given before that commission of inquiry to come to the conclusion that there is already a prima facie case of fraud established on the facts of that inquiry alone. What additional facts are needed to found a prosecution? If there are additional facts, why are they not available?

After all, that is not a court.

After all, Sir, who are the persons involved? They are either civil servants or members of statutory boards appointed by this Government. Those, principally, are the persons concerned. Is the hon. the Prime Minister saying to me and to the House that from those sources no information is available upon which a prosecution can be brought? Sir, this matter has been left by the hon. the Prime Minister in a thoroughly unsatisfactory state, and since the hon. gentleman is constantly exhorting us to have some deeds and not just to be satisfied with words, this is something which the hon. the Prime Minister ought to reply to himself.

Then there is another point. In regard to the investigation into Gen. Bester, the hon. the Minister of Police told us the other day that that investigation was not yet concluded and that he was not yet satisfied with the findings in that regard. Why has that investigation not been concluded? We are led to understand that it is now accepted by everybody—indeed, it was accepted by Gen. Joubert from the beginning—that the allegations against Gen. Bester were unfounded and a lot of nonsense. Having got two sworn statements, both from the suspect, Gen. Bester, and from the newspaperman concerned that this was a lot of nonsense, why is the hon. the Minister of Police now prepared to say that that investigation is not yet complete? What still remains to be investigated?

I said it in the first instance that evening when I replied to the hon. member for Durban North.

And the hon. the Minister said it last week.

And I said it again last week.

The hon. the Minister said that the investigations were not yet complete. Sir, this reveals a most interesting state of affairs. Will the hon. the Prime Minister tell us why this is not yet complete? Will he tell us what the nature is of the investigation which still has to take place into the allegations against Gen. Bester? Because we have been told by the hon. member for Prinshof that his name has been completely cleared. If so, what is this remaining investigation which still has to take place?

You can wait; you will get it in due course.

Sir, this is the very thing that we suspect and that the country suspects: Keep it quiet long enough and the people will forget about it. That is the attitude, Sir. This is the attitude of the Minister of Police towards one of the greatest scandals that this country has ever known, involving not private funds, but over R5 million of public money. Sir, this is not good enough, and we want from the hon. the Prime Minister a full disclosure of the facts in that regard.

Let me come to some of the other matters which have been raised. I want to deal in the few moments that are left to me with this question of national unity. Sir, one of the most tragic things, when one thinks about the debate that has taken place in the last week, is that that debate did not arise out of a heated atmosphere in this Chamber. It was deliberately introduced by a member of the Cabinet, which means that prior to that happening the Prime Minister and his Cabinet solemnly sat round a table in cold blood and decided …

Nonsense!

I am very glad to hear that. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister of Transport was not a party to this decision. They decided in cold blood to bring about this race-hate argument in this House.

He is not a Breeder.

Can you imagine a more disgraceful state of affairs than that from people who purport to be the leaders of a united nation in this country? [Time expired.]

It is not true. Are you not prepared to accept my word?

I do not want to follow the same path that hon. member followed. In connection with the Agliotti matter I want to content myself with what the hon. the Minister said, i.e. that he must wait a little; he will get his reply. I do not know what more the hon. member wants. That is surely enough. But I want to come back to what the hon. member for Hillbrow said yesterday and partly to what the hon. member for Parktown said in his Little Budget speech. What these two members had to say in successive debates is in my estimation, very dangerous because this matter has the very closest bearing on South Africa’s economic development and the confidence the outside world has in capital investment in South Africa, and the closest bearing on our Bantustan policy.

The hon. member for Parktown said in his Little Budget speech that the Government must come back to earth, and he mentioned a whole string of aspects we must put a stop to. For example, the Government must stop interfering in private initiative. But yesterday the hon. member for Hillbrow came along and stated—

And then he states—“So we have Socialism in this country. It is an established fact.” I cannot imagine anything more dangerous and more irresponsible at this juncture, particularly at this juncture, than what the hon. member for Hillbrow had to say. Let me point out to the hon. member that at the moment there are two big economic super states in the world, Soviet Russia and the U.S.A. According to projections, from the year 1980 to the year 2000 Japan will become the international super-economic state. Let us look at what is happening in Japan. There they state—

That is after the humiliation of Japan by the bomb attack on Hiroshima toward the end of the Second World War.

Let us look at what they say in Time. I have it here. This is the “Time Essay” of 14th February, 1972. What does Time have to say? It states—

Now, Mr. Chairman, these members come along one after another—and we must pay attention to that—and they gradually drag it in. Every year they come along here and make just a slight allegation that this country is on the road towards Socialism, that here in South Africa free initiative is taboo. They allege that with a series of control measures this Government is killing private initiative in South Africa. I want to allege that to make such a statement is irresponsible.

They are hurting South Africa.

What we must take into account is that this is going to reflect on our relations with the Bantu areas, which are on the threshold of gaining independence. If I were to analyse those statements further I would be able to prove this to hon. members, but the time at my disposal does not permit me to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say this …

They are injuring South Africa.

I shall continue with the above quotation—

Firstly—

Secondly—

Thirdly—

Unlike other countries of the world, any entrepreneur, any man having the capital, knowledge and experience can come to South Africa, and here he is free to exploit his knowledge, experience and capital. Those hon. members have never said that. I blame them, Mr. Chairman, for dragging in elements such as the Agliotti mess in a debate of this calibre. I am so sick and tired of Agliotti that the less I hear about it the better.

Hear, hear!

But, Mr. Chairman, one expects an Opposition to make responsible comments. That hon. member for Parktown must look to his words: we are listening carefully to him. It is an irresponsible utterance and does our country no good in the economic sphere, and he knows it.

But that is what he wants.

Mr. Chairman, here in South Africa, from a total expenditure of R3 604 million on local fixed investment in 1971, our public corporations had a meagre amount of R320 million in capital. Contrary to what the hon. member said yesterday, i.e. that only 46 per cent of investment belongs to the private sector, my findings in this connection are that the private sector’s share amounts to R1 986 million.

Do not make excuses.

I spoke of …

Mr. Chairman, my time does not permit me to argue. But I hope I shall have a second ten minutes, or otherwise next year. Mr. Chairman. I want to reiterate: From a total of R3 604 million on local fixed investment only R320 million belongs to our public corporations.

Every year hon. members come along here and want to know what the public corporations are receiving. Year after year they sit here and say that the Railways must be handed over to public initiative. They have advocated this year after year; now for the first time they have stopped doing so. This is not the way an Opposition acts. Two super states, the one totally communist controlled, and the other one, America, where the Government, as I have quoted, is gaining ever greater control. Japan is a co-operative State in which one cannot separate the parts played by the Government and private initiative. Here is South Africa with its remarkable and unique circumstances, a country where any man can come and invest capital. We are the complete and perfect blend of the concept of Capitalism and Socialism. This is in consequence of the National Party because it is manned by the Afrikaner, who is completely attuned to the blending of Capitalism and Socialism.

Mr. Chairman, I can’t reply to the hon. member for Carletonville in detail as I have other matters to raise, but I do want to say that it is a very extraordinary capitalistic country where over 40 per cent of the gainfully employed White people are in direct or indirect State employment. Not even in Mr. Wilson’s socialist England was the number of people in State employ anything as high. I leave the hon. member at that. I must say I am grateful to him for one thing, namely that he has diverted the debate from what was going to be a repeat performance of previous days of this “rassehaat” and “boerehaat” business we have had over the last few days. I want to say that I have seldom witnessed a more unappetizing spectacle. I wonder if any single member in this House on either side, has given a thought to what the 17 million citizens of this country who are not White are thinking about this very unappetizing spectacle. Quite clearly this is old ganging-up business, the national unity of the White people for the purpose, of course, of coping with the Black, Coloured and Brown majority in this country. Because of Oudtshoorn, and thank Heaven it is nearly over now—so that with a little luck we won’t have any more of this—the Government has gone back to beating the old tribal drum in order to try to get a few more votes. I do not think it is going to work. I am sure it is not going to work amongst the younger voters, and I am not even sure that it is going to work among the older voters. Only today I received in the post a letter containing two torn-up National Party membership cards. The accompanying card read: “We hope that many thousands will take the same step.” Torn-up cards, this is what these people think about the debate that has taken place in this House.

I want to raise other matters with the hon. the Prime Minister. First of all, it was a pleasant change to hear him protesting about people making accusations against him without a shred of evidence, because when that gentleman was Minister of Justice and of Police he did not have the slightest compunction in locking up hundreds of people without any evidence and keeping them in detention without trial for months on end. It is therefore a pleasant change to know that he believes that there should really be evidence against people before accusations are made. I would say that it is time, for example, that he told the country and this House something about what is going on in Owambo. I raised this matter during the no-confidence debate and have had nothing at all from the hon. the Prime Minister We have had statements made by Dr. Waldheim but nothing from the hon. the Prime Minister. Does he not think it is time that he took the country into his confidence and gave us some information about what is happening in Owambo? What we do know is that many people have been locked up without trial in Owambo as well and that at the present time something like 83 people are locked up under Proclamation R17 and that, in all, over 200 people have been taken and put in detention without trial in Owambo. I think he owes some explanation to this country as to what is happening in Owambo.

Then I would like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister when this vendetta against Nusas is likely to cease. At the present stage practically every single member of the executive of Nusas over the past two years has either had his passport snatched from him without good reason or had his or her application for a passport refused. I believe this is blatant intimidation of young students in South Africa, and not only of young English-speaking students, but also of Afrikaans-speaking students at Afrikaans-medium universities who are now beginning to show an interest in contact across the colour line with the students at other universities. I would like to know whether the hon. the Prime Minister does not think that this is holding in contempt the Select Committee that he called to be set up to investigate the affairs of Nusas. Even before that Committee has completed its investigations, even before it has reported, punitive measures have been taken against executive members of Nusas. I do not believe that you can divorce the individual members who are running Nusas, those who are in the leadership category, from the organization itself.

The third question on which, I hope, we will get some answers from the hon. the Prime Minister, is whether he would like to tell us what is happening to his famous outward policy about which we have heard so much over the last two or three years Has he made any progress at all? We heard a great deal about what the hon. the Prime Minister was going to do as far as the other African states are concerned.

Tell us about yours and Colin’s.

I will tell you about that in a moment. The hon. members and the hon. the Prime Minister have sneered at our little trip, the little trip that Colin Eglin and I did through the African States. Let me tell the hon. member for Waterkloof that neither he nor the Prime Minister, I might say, would be able to set foot in the countries that we managed to get into.

Exactly. They won’t allow us.

Order! The hon. member for Waterkloof! I am not allowing interjections here.

Hon. members opposite would be too scared to try. Not only would they not get visas, but they would also be too scared to try. Never mind about my visit to Kaunda which is always being hissed at. Never mind about my visit to Tanzania, which is always being hissed about; let us talk about our visit to Senegal, where President Senghor is in favour of dialogue and continues to be in favour of dialogue.

Tell us why you did not visit Zanzibar.

I have mentioned Tanzania. It is one State, in case the hon. member does not know. They do not talk about Senegal and they do not talk about Gambia, which is in favour of dialogue. They do not talk about Ghana, which, under President Busia, whom we saw, was and would have been in favour of dialogue if Busia had not been overthrown. They do not talk about our visit to Malawi. They do not talk about our visit to Botswana. They certainly do not say anything about my visit to Lesotho only last month, although I understand there were plenty of machinations behind the scene to try and persuade the Lesotho government not to have me there. Anyway, the point is that whether hon. members like it or not, we got there and we met the Heads of State. That is more than any other member in this House has done. That is particularly more than the hon. the Prime Minister has managed to do.

What poison did you sow there?

Order! The hon. member for Waterkloof must contain himself.

It is more than the hon. the Prime Minister has managed to do, despite all his big talk. We in fact were admitted for one reason only and that is because our record for fighting against race discrimination is wellknown. Let me tell hon. members that every one of those states and indeed, every one of the 40-odd independent Black states in Africa are dead against apartheid, even those countries which economically are bound to us, our immediate neighbours. They are against apartheid. Unless this country is prepared to make some concessions in the racial field, dialogue will begin and end at square one. We will not get any further at all. I also think it is time that hon. members realize that Black African states do not demand the hand over of White South Africa to Blacks. What they do demand is the removal of race discrimination and they demand equal opportunities for their own brethren. This is a question of human value. That is all it is. Whether we like it or not, they do identify themselves with the fate of the Black people in this country and their lack of opportunity. I think it is a scandalous situation that in the year 1972, when there are something like 43 independent states in Africa including ourselves, we have exactly four diplomatic missions: In Rhodesia, in Malawi, in Angola and in Portuguese East Africa. In the others we have not so much as a consul-general, not so much as a chargé d’affaires. I think this is an unbelievable situation that South Africa, the most Westernized, the most industrialized and by far the most important country in the whole of the continent of Africa does not have any connections. Hon. members should start asking themselves why. It is not what I say, it is what the Government does. That is what the young hon. member for Waterkloof does not realize. What I say does not mean anything, does not carry any weight. I have no power and I am well aware of that. My views are wellknown and those are acceptable, but I have no power. But the Government does have the power. Dialogue will not mean a thing—I can tell the hon. the Prime Minister this right now. There are many who would like dialogue.

You do not.

I do and I, in fact, try to press for dialogue. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton revealed an obvious irritability in respect of the discussion in this House …

Yes, think of the national unity …

… on national unity and the relations between the two language groups in South Africa I think I can understand very well that the hon. member is not interested in this discussion, because in actual fact, if I may link this up with the idea I touched upon in my maiden speech, she falls outside both these two circles and does not really belong to either of them or feels that with either of them …

What do you mean by that? Why do you not spell it out?

Order! The hon. member for Houghton must contain herself.

I may tell her here out of the back bench that as long as there is an Afrikaner people in South Africa and as long as it will have a voice in this House and as long as she will have the privilege of sitting in this House, she will have to listen to this language, because it is a living reality and because it is linked up with the fundamental interests of people. Those interests will be discussed in this House whether she likes it or not.

I get the impression that the United Party tries to make great play of the question of national unity and that they are actually trying to outbid the National Party in the emphasis they place on national unity. I may say at the outset that there are a few aspects about which we do not argue at all. We do not argue at all about the question of loyalty to South Africa and a common patriotism. I accept the patriotism of my English-speaking fellow-citizen in South Africa who is loyal to the Republic of South Africa. We do not differ on the question that if South Africa were attacked by aggressors and if it became necessary to defend South Africa—there is no difference of opinion on that—the young Afrikaner boy and the young English-speaking boy will stand side by side in the Caprivi Strip or wherever the interests of South Africa.

Hear, hear!

Neither do we argue about the cultural and national plurality in South Africa. I take it that the Opposition accepts this plurality in South Africa, but I am not so sure that they are able to follow through all its implications to the end. Neither do we argue about the necessity of bilingualism. We do not argue about that necessity, but we differ in our view on what national unity means in practice. That is where the difference of opinion comes in, and I shall try to indicate it in a few words.

Even though it may be familiar ground, I want to start off by nevertheless referring to the standpoint as it was put on the part of the National Party by my Leader, Adv. Vorster, our Prime Minister. He explained this matter from various angles, various angles which are fundamentally part of the same view. Then may I refer to a facet of this matter which is of the utmost importance to us. I want to point out to hon. members the emphasis he placed on a matter which in actual fact is an irritation to many people, and that is the question of Afrikaner unity. The hon. the Prime Minister did not hesitate to speak about Afrikaner unity, because he knows its significance in our set-up in South Africa. On 6th July, 1968, he stated this matter very clearly at Upington when he said (translation)—

He went on to say that he would not allow anyone to upset that unity within the ranks of Afrikanerdom again. He said—

This is clear, unequivocal language and we do not hide it under chairs or tables. We believe that Afrikaner unity is important …

Does that include unity with the H.N.P?

We are speaking about the Afrikaner. If the H.N.P. agree with us in respect of the policy and principles of the National Party, and under its leadership, they are welcome.

Albert Hertzog too?

I do not think you are able to prescribe to me on Afrikanership I say it is the standpoint of the National Party that it does not have eyes for Afrikaner unity only but that it realizes how important Afrikaner unity is to South Africa and to our Afrikaner people. That is not all that the Prime Minister said. He also spoke about the question of co-operation. He said—

And then I can prove, furthermore, that he gave a practical demonstration of it when he spoke in Grahamstown at the laying of the foundation stone of the 1820 Settlers Monument. Then he gave living, concrete proof of the respect in which he holds his English-speaking fellow-citizen in South Africa, while at the same time declaring where he personally belonged culturally, i.e. as an Afrikaner. He thinks and speaks from that basis. But in that capacity he can also show respect to those who speak a different language in South Africa. Now, in contrast to the Leader of the Opposition, who says that on the National Party side we are seeking national unity only because of a motive of fear—this was said in his speech last Thursday—the Prime Minister said the following—

That is our view, Sir. May I just mention the following little incident? When I was fighting an election in Waterberg, I had the Herstigtes opposing me. Opposing me I had Mr. Jaap Marais, with his party’s demand that there should eventually be only one official language in South Africa. At a meeting someone asked me in English—apparently one of his supporters, however strange this may be—

In this way he mentioned quite a number of examples. Then he asked—

†He asked me why the Afrikaner does not have the guts to claim this right and to demand one official language, and that is Afrikaans. I told the gentleman, “Don’t you teach me something about Afrikanerdom. Don’t you try to be a better Afrikaner than I am.” I told him this party, the Nationalist Party, promised to the English-speaking person to safeguard and guarantee his cultural and language rights in South Africa. We are going to do that, and we are doing it.

*Sir, this is because the Afrikaner knows —he knows this from his history—what it means when the rights of others are interfered with. After all, he has personal experience of this. That is what the previous Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, called to mind when he said the following on 18th September, 1958 (Hansard, column 4152)—

Sir, if I have the time, I want to ask something. I do not want to be presumptuous from the back bench, but I do want to ask with the necessary humility what the Leader of the Opposition understands by his “one nation”. I read in Die Burger of 6th March, 1970, that when the Leader of the Opposition spoke at Keetmanshoop, he said that the South African nation could not continue to be half Boer, half British. He said (translation)—

But now we ask, what is the meaning of that concept of “national unity”? Now listen what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says—

And it is not always clear to me what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition understands by that, because sometimes he says it is the Whites, and then again he speaks of 21 million. He is not very certain. He says—

This is now a very simple question: If we are not to be half Boer and half British, what must we be in this South African set-up? [Time expired.]

A hotch-potch!

Mr. Chairman, it was very interesting to hear from that hon. member who, we understand, holds a very important position in Afrikanerdom, that he has no doubts about the loyalty of the English-speaking section or the United Party towards South Africa. I hope that that will satisfy all the members on the other side as to what their attitude should be towards us, and that we will stop hearing this nonsense about the United Party not being loyal and patriotic. Very interesting in his address was also the part where he dealt with “Afrikaner-eenheid”. We must deduce from what he said that an Afrikaner is only regarded as an Afrikaner if he belongs to the Nationalist Party. [Interjections.] Yes, that is what he said. He said that unless you were a member of the Nationalist Party, you could not be an Afrikaner.

Who says so?

He just said so. Then he went on to say that the Nationalist Party guarantees the cultural and language rights of the English-speaking section. It was very interesting to hear him use those words, because those were the very words over which Gen. Hertzog left the Nationalist Party in Bloemfontein, in November, 1940. He insisted that they write into their Constitution a guarantee for the political rights of the English-speaking section too, and that side of the House refused to do so; that is why Gen. Hertzog left. The hon. member also referred to the attitude of the hon. the Prime Minister towards the English-speaking section. This debate has revolved around the hatred of the English-speaking people and the United Party for the Nationalists. That is the debate that was started here. If we are to talk about national unity, I appeal to everybody in this House to look at this side of the House and see the composition of the United Party, and then look at that side of the House and see the composition of that party. Then they can say which party seems more likely to have national unity as its policy. I should like to remind the hon. member who has just spoken that the Minister of Defence complained that there were haters of the Afrikaner in this party. He named them, and what was the basis of his judgment? It was that they did not speak Afrikaans in this House. Then he went further and said that if they can speak Afrikaans and do not do so, their crime is a bigger one and their hatred is the greater. The hon. the Minister is unfortunately not here at the moment; I wanted to put a question to him. I do not remember him ever having made a speech in English in this House until he became a Minister, whereas I and other members, in the second session after we came to Parliament, made speeches in Afrikaans. I see the Minister of Sport looking at me in surprise. Has he made a speech in Afrikaans in this House?

[Inaudible.]

He is the best example of an Afrikaner-hater, if you must use the definition of the Minister of Defence. In any case, Sir, I should like to get back to the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister’s troubles do not come singly; they are falling upon him fast. The latest is a demand for independence from the Transkei. The Prime Minister should welcome a request of this nature because he invited the leaders of the Africans in the reserves to approach him and discuss independence with him. He said his door was open at all times. But I do not think he welcomed the present request, in the form in which it was put to him. Sir, he seemed to be on a pretty good wicket before, because the only homeland which could aspire to independence was the Transkei, and the Chief Minister of the Transkei had made it quite clear to his own party that he would not ask for independence because, he said, you could not have meaningful independence until the state was viable. The Prime Minister was able to assure his critics here and abroad of his bona fides, by truly stating that he was prepared to negotiate and to carry out his promise to give independence to the reserves, but that the Bantu preferred to stay as they were.

But now, Sir, the climate has changed and there seems to be a chilly wind blowing over the Nationalist Party. No longer are the non-White supporters of the Government speaking about separate development as they used to do, in the pretence that it satisfied their ideals and their wants. Now that they are installed as leaders of their separate groups they are more outspoken, without fear of intimidation or of being accused of being Leftists or instigators.

The Government has long had difficulties with Chief Buthelezi, and it is no secret that they would have preferred another leader for the Zulus. Recently we have read of criticism from other sources, for instance, from Chief Mangope of the Tswanas, last month when the Minister of Police was in his area. Still later, the Shangaan head, Chief Ntsanwise, at the opening of his Assembly, spoke in similar vein.

*By the way, I want to say that I was surprised to see that the Government had sent the hon. the Minister of Health to open that Assembly. They would not dare to send him as their representative to a White Assembly : why should he be forced upon the poor Shangaans?

That is a base insinuation.

It is not a base insinuation.

†The complaint of the Chief was that separate development “is generating in security, uncertainty and frustration”. That criticism is, I think, an excellent reflection of what all communities are now thinking of this policy. There is uncertainty amongst the Coloureds, including Coloured supporters of self-determination. We saw the statement of Mr. Swartz after his congress at Port Elizabeth, that his people were not satisfied. We saw the correction this morning, a statement from the Minister of Coloured Affairs, that Mr. Swartz says that he and his party still agree with the Government’s policy and that they accept it. The Ministers are going to try to satisfy him with statements before the next sitting of his council. I should like to see what the Minister of Labour is going to say in reply to his request for the abolition of job reservation.

I can give you the answer now; it will not be.

It will not be? Then why did they not tell him straight away? Why did they not tell Mr. Swartz immediately that as far as job reservation was concerned, it would stay?

I am telling you now.

But why did the Minister not tell Mr. Swartz when they had the meeting with him? Why must they wait until …

He knows that that is the position.

Well, at any rate, they certainly will not be satisfied. There has been trouble on the borders of the reserves; the White people are not certain as to their future. I see that a meeting of farmers was held at Franklin in East Griqualand. They called upon the Prime Minister again to give an assurance that that area will remain White. The Prime Minister will probably get up and say that he has given them the assurance before. The trouble is that every time Chief Kaizer Matanzima makes a speech demanding that land, there is more uncertainty because people from outside are not interested …

I have told them time and time again …

But when Chief Kaizer Matanzima was down here to discuss the matter with the Prime Minister a few months ago, why did the Prime Minister not say to him definitely: “It is final; it is out”?

I told him.

No, according to the Press reports, the Prime Minister said: “I shall refer it back to the Cabinet”.

I told him.

That you would refer it back to the Cabinet?

Yes.

What sort of answer is that?

I gave him the answer.

But why refer it back to the Cabinet if it was final?

I shall tell you now.

You can tell me after I have sat down. There is uncertainty amongst the White industrialists in the city and on the part of the Black man, not only in the cities, but also in the reserves. Last week the gauntlet was thrown down by Chief Kaizer, for so long the champion of separate development, and also of the Afrikaner against the Hugheses and the Mitchells whose ancestors, he claims, were the land grabbers. What is this complaint now against the Government? It concerns land. When the Transkei Constitution was passed in 1963 and when the Bantu Homelands Constitution was passed last year in this House, we, the United Party, warned that it was folly to set the homelands on an independent course before finalizing their boundaries. Those constitutional measures allow for alteration of the boundaries by the State President, and it was obvious, before the Transkei Constitution was discussed in this House, that there were going to be squabbles about land, because the year before, in 1962, two resolutions were introduced in the Transkei Territorial Authority, calling upon the Government to transfer the neighbouring White-owned districts to the Transkei. [Time expired.]

I do not want to respond to the speech the hon. member has just made. I leave him in the hands of the hon. the Prime Minister. However, I just want to refer to one reference he made in connection with national unity when he mentioned the name of the late Gen. Hertzog. In 1933, when coalition took place, the late Gen. Hertzog was under the impression that together with the late Gen. Smuts he had probably brought about the greatest national unity in South Africa that any leader ever could. In 1939 —and that the hon. member forgot to mention—when the break came between the late Gen. Hertzog and the late Gen. Smuts, it was Gen. Hertzog who said: “There sit the traitors, the people who stabbed me in the back.” [Interjections.] Sir, what happened in 1940? The thoughts I want to express here also have a bearing on national unity, but they also have a bearing on race relations in South Africa, because race relations in South Africa again have an effect on White relations in South Africa. During the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill an hon. member of this side gave the United Party well-intentioned advice. That advice was that the United Party should think again about its non-White policy. Sir, that is not the United Party’s problem. The United Party’s problem is specifically that it thinks too often, because every time it thinks, there is a new policy on the way. However, I want to say something to the United Party’s credit, i.e. that every time they come to light with a new policy, it contains one principle which is unassailable; it is a principle they carry through in every policy they present to the people, and that principle is one of giving the non-Whites of South Africa a bigger share in the administration of the country. I say that I am stating this to the United Party’s credit. They remain consistent as far as this particular principle is concerned; they just wrap it up in new wool every time in order to hide it or for a reason I cannot fathom. But what happened as far back as 1954? The United Party does not like the past, but I am now going to quote what they said in 1954, not to the detriment of the United Party, but for its benefit. I am quoting it for its benefit to illustrate the statement I made, i.e. that as far back as 1954 this was a continuous thread in the United Partys’ trend of thought with each policy declaration. After their central congress, where they discussed their non-White policy, a policy document was issued by the United Party in connection with the decision taken at that congress. Section 1 (b) of their Native policy read as follows (translation)—

In other words, the United Party proceeds from the standpoint that its policy determines the harmony of the races. Now, with its present policy—we must now simply make a projection on the basis of what the policy is at present—the United Party gave effect to this principle by their non-White representation in Parliament—Coloureds by Coloureds, and Bantu and Indians by Whites. I say they are giving effect to this decision they took in 1954, and I think hon. members will be grateful if I give them the credit for remaining faithful to this principle. That representation, given to the non-Whites in Parliament, is not all the administration of the country entails. The Public Service is a very important aspect of the country’s administration, the administration in which they want to give the non-Whites a greater share together with the Whites in Parliament. This also accords with the United Party’s policy, which they have already announced here, and I want to mention two aspects of that. Firstly: the United Party is not opposed to the fact of a White person working in the same job situation under a non-White person. The United Party has not yet expressed itself as being opposed to that; on the contrary, it accepts the fact that non-Whites can achieve promotion posts where Whites will work under their authority.

Where do you get that from?

If that is not the case, they need not interrupt me. In that case they may stand up and say it is not so. The second aspect is that it is the United Party’s policy that the non-Whites may sell their labour on the markets that are the best for them. Is that so, or is it not?

It is not.

With this share in the country’s administration which the United Party wants to give to the non-Whites, this part they want to hide, they cannot stop the non-Whites if they decide for themselves and say the Public Service is the best market in which they want to sell their labour. This accords with the policy of the United Party. [Interjections.] The other day the hon. member waxed lyrical here about the policy of the United Party, but that was when he was still under the impression that he is an angel. I want to tell him that the other day the hon. Leader of the House was making a joke; he did not really mean that he is an angel. I say the other leg of the United Party’s policy—i.e. that they want to bring non-Whites into the House of Assembly—seen in the light of their policy in respect of national administration, will be the first step, the interim period, the starting point, as far as it affects Parliament. From that starting point there will subsequently be negotiations. This present number of non-White representatives is the proposal the United Party makes, but from that point they are going to negotiate with the non-Whites, and when they have negotiated and completed their consultations, at the level they have created here for consultations, they will hold a referendum in which they will say either that there are enough of these representatives or that their numbers must be increased. And now I ask the United Party this: If the White electorate has expressed its opinion, and the White electorate does not agree to the non-White representation being augmented, or that the Bantu should be represented by Bantu, are they so naïve as to think that in the Public Service, where by that time non-Whites will already be occupying influential positions and numerically be in the majority, the non-Whites will come along and say: Thank you very much for this referendum you have held; we are satisfied and we acquiesce? No less a person than the leader of the United Party said in 1959 that numbers would decide South Africa’s future; leadership will be determined by numbers. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down, has made certain statements in regard to our labour policy. I have no hesitation, Sir, in saying that every allegation he made with regard to our labour policy is wrong. [Interjections.] There were other things as well. I say that he was doing this mischievously, because no member on that side, no member of this House, can be so ignorant as to what our policy is. I say he did this on purpose. Why he is doing this now, I do not know, for it is too late to get it to Oudtshoorn. [Interjections.] He is quite right when he says that we are consistent in our acceptance of the principle of representation in this House for all groups. In that respect he is quite correct. We stand by that; we do not jump about as the Nationalist Party has done over the years. Who have altered their policy more with regard to representation in this House than the Nationalist Party? I want to say something about this a little later on when I am talking to the Prime Minister.

Sir, when I was dealing with the request for independence which we see has now come from the Transkei, I pointed out that it should be obvious—it was obvious—to this House that the land matter would be come a squabble because of the two resolutions passed the year before by the Territorial Authority of the Transkei asking for certain land and districts adjoining the Transkei to be added to the Transkei.

Then, Sir, when the Constitution was submitted to that Authority for approval first, before it was submitted to us, they raised this matter and asked that the whole district of Matatiele be included in the area which was to come under the jurisdiction of the Transkei. They were advised by senior officials—and that was confirmed by Mr. De Wet Nel, who was then a Minister in this House—that this was a matter for negotiation. They accepted the Constitution on that understanding. They should have been told then—and the Constitution should have made it quite clear—where the boundaries of the Transkei were to be. Sir, it is no use being wise after the event; we warned the Government beforehand that this would happen.

Chief Kaiser Matanzima has made several claims for more land, and has stated what areas he wants. We remember well the clash which occurred with the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration at Umtata on this very issue. Subsequently Chief Matanzima said that he would not ask for independence until the land claim had been settled. He made this claim on purpose, I feel, in order to put the Government on the spot. For, Sir, the moral justification for it’s policy—the deprivation of fundamental rights of citizenship in the Republic in exchange for those rights in the reserves, in the independent homelands—disappears and is no longer valid if the homelands do not become independent.

The Chief Minister knows this only too well. I say that he is now holding this Government to ransom. The Leader of the Opposition in the Transkei, Mr. Guzana, has disclosed the terms of a resolution which the Chief has put to this Government. The Chief has not denied it; all he said was, according to the newspaper reports, that it was confidential. But the fact is that if we have it now it must have come to the Government. The Prime Minister can tell us whether he received this request or not. This is what he is supposed to have said, and this is what is called the “ultimatum” by Chief Kaiser Matanzima:

There are two points of interest in this so-called ultimatum. The one is that they will join forces with their brethren in the cities in championing a reversal of the policy of separate development. It is a clear statement that the Bantu, the Transkeians in the cities do not accept this policy, although we have been led to believe before that they did. The second is that they would then want representation in this House, and meaningful representation. Quite clearly, he intended to put the Prime Minister on the spot. He said that unless the Prime Minister meets him on this question of land good relations will deteriorate. He has now put the ball right in the court of the Prime Minister by submitting a resolution in his Assembly for the Transkeian Government to consider the advisability of requesting the Republican Government to grant independence to the Transkei including the districts of Elliot, Maclear, Mount Gurrie, Matatiele, Umzimkulu and Port St. Johns.

The Prime Minister has frequently stated that his policy is one of self-determination. If the Bantu now decide not to take independence on the terms offered by the Prime Minister, what happens then? Does self-determination only mean the determination of the Whites or does it include Blacks as well? This is becoming important now that the leaders of these people are more articulate and outspoken as to what they think self-determination means.

Generally, the problems raised by them are land matters. Chief Buthelezi said that he has a nowhere country and he too wants to know where the boundaries of his land are to be. Chief Ntsanwise tells us of the unsatisfactory boundary dispute he is having with the Government.

The Prime Minister is reported to have said last year that some of the Reserves would become independent within four years, that is before 1975. There is not much time left for that and instead of relations between the governments in the Reserves and our Government becoming better they are becoming more strained. As they become more strained we become more worried about something else, namely what the future relations will be with other Stales. In an interview with To the Point, the hon. the Prime Minister said that the separate Bantu states can align themselves with Moscow or Peking, that he cannot stop them. He would advise them against it, but he could not stop them if they were to go that way. But we know that the hon. the Minister of Defence has said something different. In addressing a meeting before the election in April. 1970, at Newcastle, he said that the United Party candidate was telling voters that independent Bantustans would negotiate with communist countries and form alliances with hem. He then said: “This will never he allowed to happen.” This question was raised last night by the hon. member for Hillbrow. The Prime Minister has spoken since then and I am surprised that he did not reply to the request from the hon. member for Hillbrow and explain what exactly the position is. We cannot have a Cabinet divided on this issue, especially if we have on record that the hon. the Minister of Defence admitted in this House that he was a party to a deception by the late Dr. Verwoerd in regard to the Coloured people, when he promised them that they would keep their Coloured vote, that they would never lose their representation in this House. Yet he knew, he was Minister of Coloured Affairs at that time, that Dr. Verwoerd intended all the time to take away that vote. There is a difference of opinion in the Cabinet. The Prime Minister has told us one thing and the Minister of Defence has told the electorate another thing. Who is right, and what is the position? Will they be allowed to go their way? No one can claim at the moment that the relations between this Government and the Transkeian Government are good. It is quite possible, in the fit of pique, that one of these Governments could, to show its hostility towards this Government and its resentment of the policies of the Government of the Republic, form some alliance with a foreign State. We want to know now before we go any further, what the position is and what the hon. the Prime Minister’s attitude is in respect of the question of independence. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before I reply to the important matters raised here by the hon. member for Transkei, I want, just in passing, to reply to two matters, the one to which the hon. member for Hillbrow referred and the other to which I was unable to reply last night because the hon. member for Parktown asked to be excused, and I did not want to reply to him in his absence.

It is interesting to note, since this matter of a welfare state has now been raised and since a reproach has from time to time been levelled in regard to the taxes taken by the Government in proportion to the national income, what the position in South Africa is in comparison with the position in comparable countries. We find that in South Africa the Government takes 24 per cent of the net national income. In France it is 49 per cent, as against the 24 per cent in South Africa. In Germany it is 45 per cent; in Sweden 48 per cent; in the Netherlands 47 per cent and in Italy 38 per cent of the net national income. In other words, if it is argued, as the hon. member for Hillbrow wanted to argue indirectly, that we are a welfare state, the actual state of affairs is of course not being taken into account at all. We would then have to take almost twice as much from the population as we are in fact taking from them at the moment. This is also my reply to hon. members who make the statement that we are now falling behind European and other countries. Just recently a survey was made of the standard of living in South Africa and that in comparable European countries. South Africa ranked very highly in that survey.

Among the Whites.

Yes, and as the White standard of living rose, so did that of the non-Whites. The Government, in spite of the propaganda which, when it suits hon. members, is made against the Government, is doing its duty in respect of the non-Whites.

The second question put to me by the hon. member for Parktown is whether we are prepared to make an estimate of the future growth rate. Because of his profession the hon. member for Parktown—I readily concede this—probably knows far more about these matters than I do, because of my profession. However, I think that the hon. member for Parktown will concede to me that one can visualize the growth rate approximating 5 per cent, and that it may even exceed 5 per cent. But the hon. member for Parktown will also agree with me that one has to be careful that it does not rise too much because, on the other hand, we have to watch inflation as well. But one can be optimistic about the future growth rate, because we have far better agricultural prospects now than we had last year and there is every reason to hope that the mineral market will in future be better than it has been in the recent past, and particularly if one takes into account that there is a greater upsurge in the offing in the industrial sector. One sees all the signs in this regard. Let me add that we, particularly if one takes into account that we have a very responsible labour force in South Africa —for that I want to express my gratitude and appreciation—a labour force which realizes that it must proceed very circumspectly in regard to wage demands else we will find ourselves in that spiral again which we have all heard of so frequently, may, if these circumstances are taken into account, look to the future with confidence. If, in the immediate future, we proceed with the greatest circumspection in respect of wage matters, in the interests of South Africa, and if we make a point of utilising the labour which we have to better effect and stimulating productivity, then I think I am right in the view I have just expressed to the hon. member for Parktown. I think the hon. member for Parktown will to a large extent agree with me in that connection.

I come now to the hon. member for Transkei. The hon. member put certain questions to me in that regard. I want to say to hon. members that I think I have in the past two to three years held more talks with the Bantu leaders of South Africa than all my predecessors put together. This was brought about by circumstances, and I therefore do not want to claim the credit for this for myself. I can say this. I can say that I am as fully conversant with their aspirations and their wishes as any other person. I also want to say to hon. members, and to the country in general, that those talks were held as candidly as any talks could possibly be held. Then I want to say to hon. members that I held talks with Bantu leaders, Coloured leaders and Indian leaders, for let us make no mistake about this—any man who holds the position that I hold, and any man who succeeds me in this position, must be prepared to meet with those leaders at a round table conference and to thrash matters out with them.

Hear, hear!

You are not talking to the H.N.P., so we all accept that.

That hon. member is not included in the present company; I am not talking to her. I am not talking to her at all.

Why not?

I am talking to reasonable people now; I am talking to people who want to serve the interests of South Africa.

Now you are getting personal.

I am talking to those people and I do not include the hon. member in their company. She need not feel in the least bit concerned about that. I am talking to my hon. friends on the opposite side of the House.

We can all get personal.

I think the hon. member feels a great need for conversation. She may perhaps run across someone in the Lobby who may want to talk to her. We are dealing with serious matters now, matters which the hon. member for Transkei raised in this regard.

Helen, let us go and have a cup of tea.

I say it must be accepted as axiomatic that a man who is in this position must be well-informed and must hold talks with those people. I told the Bantu leaders, each and every one of them, that I know enough about human nature to know that we would not always agree. I said to all those leaders: “There will be times when we differ with one another, but one thing you will always get from me: I shall at all times give you my standpoint candidly and openly, whether you like it or not.”

One of the matters which keeps on cropping up during the talks—this applies not only to the Chief of the Transkei, but to the others as well—is land, land and land again. Land is always a point of discussion, and one can understand very well why this should be the case. I have stated unequivocally to all the leaders, and I want to repeat in this Parliament now, that the National Party Government stands by the 1936 Act. The National Party Government deems itself committed to keep the promise given by Gen. Smuts and Gen. Hertzog to the non-Whites. I have told them that we shall give them the land which the 1936 Act states they should have. Beyond the 1936 Act I am not prepared to go. I hope we understand that. That is also what I said to Chief Matanzima. He said to me : “Sir, my people feel very strongly about those districts.” I told him that I am not prepared to give him those districts for the historical reasons he advanced. That was my full and final answer. He said to me: “Sir, my people feel very strongly about this matter; will you again submit it to your colleagues that I have made this request?” In all fairness I said to him : “Yes, I shall again submit it to my colleagues, coming from the leader of the Transkei.” I went further and I said to him: “I am not holding out any hope to you, but it is my duty. You as leader are asking me to submit it to my colleagues, and I shall do so.” And I submitted it to my colleagues, and I sent him the reply of my colleagues: “I am sorry, but we cannot do so.”

Is that the final answer now?

Sir, I am speaking to the hon. member for Transkei now, who argued this matter with me.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question? As regards this discussion on land, was any indication given to the Transkeian leader that other land would be added to the Transkei in terms of the 1936 law?

I am coming to that now. I pointed out to him, inter alia, and the hon. member for Transkei is aware of this, that there are still small areas of commonage and other land in the Transkei, plus-minus 50 000 ha in extent. I said to him: “That land you shall have; it will be added to the Transkei.” But to complete the picture: The hon. member is aware that the 1936 Act stated that we must give the Bantu 7¼ million morgen of White land. We must purchase this for them.

The Act said a maximum …

No, Sir, 7¼ million morgen of land. I do not know now whether the hon. member wants to get out of this or whether he wants to give them less; I am going to give them 7¼ million morgen. I think that is the spirit of the promise that was made, and I shall keep that promise; I shall keep the promise of the White man, the promise given by Smuts and Hertzog, to the Black man. I go further, Sir, Some of that land has been purchased over the years. The total extent still outstanding is 590 954 ha in the Transvaal, 235 798 ha in the Cape, and 63 359 ha in Natal. The position in regard to the Free State has been finalized. Now hon. members must understand that, as far as the Transvaal is concerned, the land still outstanding has to be subdivided. Let me rather put it like this: Various Bantu peoples have a claim to that land. There are the Venda, Prof. Ntsanwise’s people, the North Sotho, and so on. In the Cape Province it is not only the Transkei that has a claim. The Ciskei has a claim, and the Tswanas as well in the Mafeking area. In other words, in the Cape Province there are three peoples whose circumstances have to be taken into account. In the Transvaal there are various peoples and in Natal it is the Zulus who have to be taken into account. Because this is all the land that is left, it is the aim of the department and the Minister in particular and of the Government to achieve maximum consolidation with the land still remaining. The hon. the Minister has given notice of certain proposals in regard to the Ciskei. I say there is still land which may fall to the Transkei and there is still land which may fall to the Tswanas out of this quota which still has to be purchased. Now the hon. member for Transkei has asked a question which has already been put frequently : When will the boundaries of these areas be finalized? My reply is: The boundaries of these areas cannot be finalized before the last land has been purchased. Surely that goes without saving. When you have purchased the land or when you have come to a definite decision, you can say approximately where the boundaries are going to be and how the areas will be demarcated. I want to make one thing very clear in this connection: This land is being purchased and the Bantu are being consulted in regard to the matter. Naturally they have to be consulted, but the final say rests with the Government, for it is the Government that has to provide the money; it is the Government that has to keep the promise given by Smuts and Hertzog to give White land to the Black man, and the final word in that connection therefore rests with the Government. I spoke candidly along these lines to all the Black people. I said to them, and I want to repeat it here in Parliament, that there will always be people who want more land: there is no nation in the world that would not like to have more land, but I said to the Black leaders that their present problem was not so much that they should receive more land, but the better utilization of the land they have. I am not only saying this here in Parliament now. I said this to them, and I was very serious when I did so. They must utilize the land they have to better effect. This is the general view of the Minister, the department and the officials, and all our planning is geared to this. I went further and said to them : The position is the same in regard to the Whites. I have no land. There are many hon. members in this House who have no land. I mentioned the examples to them and said that we cannot all have land on which we can farm. Some of us have to be satisfied with a small plot in town.

Or a flat.

Yes, or a flat; we cannot all have land on which to farm. There is simply not enough land for all of us, and the Bantu must realize this as well. The Bantu must adapt themselves as well to the demands made on us as Whites. The point I want to make now, is that I discuss matters openly and straightforwardly with these people around a conference table, without beating about the bush in any way. We understand one another and we respect one another. I do not want to say that we will always agree, but I do want to say that all the talks we have held up to now took place in a spirit of the greatest candour and goodwill, and I do not foresee it being any different in future. I want to make it very clear to hon. members today that in my discussions with the Bantu leaders I have found up to now that they are highly responsible people. As long as we discuss our problems at a round table conference as we have done in the past, we will have differences of opinion, but I believe that we will discuss our problems and we will simply have to agree to differ on certain matters. This we have already made very clear to one another.

I stated my standpoint here in the House. I said: If there is a Bantu people that believes the time has arrived for it to become independent, it can come and discuss the matter with me, and then my door stands open to it. I repeat that today. To hon. members who speak disparagingly about this and who want to raise matters in this regard, I say that when I speak of independence, I mean independence in the normal sense of the word, the independence which Botswana or any other country has. In regard to my interview with To the Point, I want to say that it would have been extremely easy for me to have evaded the question.

Hon. members know me well enough; I can talk around a point if I wish to! But I deliberately did not want to evade it, because I wanted to illustrate for all the world to see that when we say “independence”, we mean just that. As far as I am concerned--and I am saying this to hon. members now across the floor of the House—if any of our Black peoples become independent, they will become independent in the same way as Lesotho or Ghana or Gabon or any other country in the world.

What about the promise given by the Minister of Defence during the election?

The Minister of Defence was discussing another aspect of the matter. I want to tell the hon. member what aspect the Minister of Defence was discussing. It was the aspect in respect of which hon. members on the opposite side are always wanting to stampede the electorate of South Africa, namely the dangers that will threaten us from within those Bantu areas. Then the Minister gave the reply which I have also given before : If there should be a threat to South Africa from any area—it does not matter which area—we shall take steps to counter that threat.

That is not what he said.

I am saying this to you now and you can accept it or not accept it as you wish. The hon. member put a question to me, to which I want to make a very clear reply. I want to make the position very clear :If any Black nation should say that it refuses to become independent unless it receives land outside the quota land, then I say to it, directly, that it is wasting its time; I am sorry, but then it will have to think again.

There was no quota for the Transkei.

No, there was a quota for the Cape Province; I have explained it to hon. members. That quota must be divided amongst the Transkei, the Ciskei and the Tswana.

How is it going to be calculated how much the Transkei must eventually get?

It is being worked out by the department at present. They have been given additional land; I have told the hon. member what land they will receive, and the allocation will be made from this remaining land.

Is it possible that they may still get those districts?

That will be far more than the quota that is being visualized for the Transkei. The Chief Minister says that he must be given these districts in any case because they belong to the Transkei historically. I reject that.

But you did not tell him how much land he is still going to get.

This has not yet been finalized, as I told the hon. member a moment ago. Sir, a Black people can do one of two things—and this is not something impossible. They can say: “Look, we are not going to become independent until such time as we have received all our land”—that is a fair attitude to adopt and it is their affair—or they can say: “We are going to become independent, for we have reason to trust that the Government will subsequently give us the other land that we have to receive,” and the Government will give it to them. That it can do very easily. It is a question of transferring the land, for this land is owing to them. All that stands in the way of your being able to give it to them immediately is the fact that you do not have the money to purchase the land immediately, for there is a tremendous amount of money involved.

Does that mean that the 1936 Act does not fix the boundaries within which the land will be bought?

The hon. member knows the 1936 Act as well as I do. The Act only states so much land for the Cape Province, so much for Natal, and so much for the Transvaal. [Interjection.] Sir, there are long schedules to the 1936 Act. The hon. member knows the Act as well as I do. I therefore do not know why we have to argue about it now. That is my reply to the question put by the hon. member.

Is the hon. the Prime Minister aware that in Natal there is more than enough State-owned land to fulfil the quota requirements? That being so, why is it necessary to buy private White-owned land?

It is necessary to purchase land in some cases because with the land that is still outstanding, one wants to achieve the maximum consolidation one is capable of achieving, and for that reason this is necessary.

But, Sir, since I am speaking now, I want to say a few words in that connection to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I want to discuss with him his policy in respect of Black representation and Coloured representation in this House. I think we must give this matter very serious thought. I want to begin by saying this to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and this is my heartfelt conviction : Nothing which one can do in this country is going to stir up so much emotion and unleash so many forces which my hon. friend will not be able to bring under control again as bringing Coloured representation into this House of Assembly again. My hon. friend must understand this very clearly. Against this background I want to debate this matter with him this afternoon, and if it is possible, I want to make an urgent appeal to him to abandon this plan on which he is engaged. I do not think it is in the interests of anyone. It is not in the interests of the Whites; it is not in the interests of the non-Whites. This plan on which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is engaged is a dangerous one, and I shall tell him why. Sir, if one accepts the principle that the Black man, the Indians and the Coloureds have the right to be represented in this House—and there is no doubt whatsoever that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition adopts the standpoint that they do have the right to be here—then I really cannot see how one can refuse to concede that they should be represented here by their own people. That is the only moral thing to do. If one has accepted that they have the right to be here, then one must do what is the moral thing to do by saying that they should be represented here by their own people. But, Sir, I also want to submit this to the hon. Leader for his consideration : I know these people, all of them, probably better than any hon. member on the opposite side, and I am absolutely convinced that those people are not going to accept the insult which it implies. Not only is one going to cause frustration among these people, but one is also going to engender a terrible hate among them if one accepts the principle that they should be represented here but tells them that they cannot exercise such representation here themselves. But I want to go further.

If one concedes the principle to them that they may be represented here, the demand is bound to be made that they should be represented here according to their numbers, and one is going to have a perpetual gnawing at one; one is going to have perpetual frustration; one is going to have perpetual demands, for then one is responsible for their having come here. They will not have come here of their own accord; they will not be here only by invitation, but one says to them that they have the right to be represented here, and one will have to pay for that, and that account which one will have to pay will grow by the day.

But you have the same account in respect of the land.

No, in respect of the land I stand on a very different basis. In respect of the land Gen. Smuts and Gen. Hertzog said on behalf of the Whites in 1936: “Land which has up to now been Black land remains Black land, but the Whites will give million morgen of their land.” I have a basis and a foundation on which I stand. I made no casual promise to them that I would give them land. I am anchored to the promise made by Gen. Hertzog and Gen. Smuts in 1936.

Is the hon. the Prime Minister not also anchored to the promise of his party that these areas will be the fatherland, and the only fatherland, of the Natives, in which they will ultimately have to find their political and cultural home? It is their country.

Sir, surely that goes without saying. I do not know why the hon. member is putting that question to me. But Sir, I want to go further. I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that this plan is nowhere near implementation, and I cannot see how it will ever be implemented either, but let us, for the sake of argument, accept that it can be done, then the Leader of the Opposition is not even going to have unanimity within his own party in regard to these matters. After all, there are people within his party who do not subscribe to that standpoint that these representatives should be Whites. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said in his characteristic way that it is a fool’s paradise to accept that, and I want to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition where he stands, for he has not yet told us where he stands in this connection. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must tell us whether he agrees with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that it is a fool’s paradise. But let us take a look now at all that it entails. I put this question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I asked him: How long does he visualize this second stage, which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says is a fool’s paradise, will last?

He never said it was a fool’s paradise.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that if anyone thinks that Black people can be represented by White people in any body, they are living in a fool’s paradise.

That is not the right quotation.

But it appears in Hansard. We need not even argue about it now. However, if the hon. member disputes it, let him then tell me what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said. I maintain that he did say it.

You are making a mistake.

I should like to know now. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went even further when he said here, in his presence, that that was only the opinion of the hon. member, and that also appears in Hansard. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is pretending not to know, but surely the Leader of the Opposition was himself for a long time in favour of these representatives being Black representatives. He himself conceded to this, and he told us that he had done so because he had been under pressure at the time. I was even kind to him; he will remember it. I asked him whether the pressure had come from this side, and he said no, his own people had exerted such pressure on him that he had had to concede that these representatives should be Black people. But I want to debate the perniciousness of this matter further with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition along these lines. Suppose he were to win the election, with a majority of five. One of the first things he would do, I take it, would be to pass, with that small majority, that legislation to bring those 16 representatives into the House of Assembly in order to increase his majority to 21. And when they are here … [Interjections.] But he is bringing them in here. The hon. members must not interrupt me now. They can debate this matter. It is their policy, and I can reply to them one by one, but I cannot reply to an entire chorus. But I want to go further. The hon. the Minister of Information quoted to him what Gen. Smuts had said about bringing in non-Whites to be the arbiters of White interests.

But he voted for the legislation of 1936. Surely that is a ridiculous remark of yours.

I do not say Gen. Smuts was being ridiculous when he said that. I think he was being very serious. I was also serious, but this is the policy of the Leader of the Opposition, and he can do what he wishes with it. But I want to mention to him the various possibilities in regard to it. Once they are here, surely any party which is in power is at liberty to manipulate the matter as it wishes. After all, there is nothing in the Constitution which says that it may not be changed.

What may be changed?

The number of these representatives. After all, one can change this with an ordinary majority and with an ordinary Act and increase the number of representatives from 16 to 32, and from 32 to 64. [Interjections.] I am just mentioning that there is no legal impediment whatsoever to this being changed.

You are judging us according to your own standards.

I am not censuring anyone, but it seems to me the hon. member for Yeoville has a guilty conscience. All I have been doing so far is to deal with the legal aspect, and I have levelled no reproach or accusation. But now that the hon. member for Yeoville so suddenly wants to argue the matter in this regard, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can say that he will give his word to the people that he will not change this representation, and if he gives his word across the floor of the House, I must accept it, but I am not prepared to give South Africa’s interests to a second person in this regard. I am not prepared to out this awesome power into the hands of any person, and I am saving here today that the Opposition is asking for only one chance to come into power.

That is a scandalous remark.

They are asking for only one chance to come into power. And I want to go further. I want to couple this to another fact. We have always adopted the attitude, hon. members on the opposite side and hon. members on this side, that there should be loading and deloading in the Electoral Act, and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has, to my knowledge, said this on three occasions already. He again said it here last week in the presence of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and I have asked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition umpteen times in the past whether he agrees with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

And I have furnished the reply umpteen times.

What is the reply?

I have stated repeatedly that this is something which we are trying to do on a joint party system, in co-operation with …

To me that is not the answer. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout says his standpoint is that each man’s vote should be of equal value. This is a matter of principle to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, and he has said it again now. I want to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he agrees with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in that regard. Can the hon. members understand that now? Here is a senior member, and he can go out with his hands free, for if he should do this one day, he can say that he proclaimed it as his standpoint on innumerable occasions, and he would be quite entitled to come to this House and to say that it should be changed, because he did say it. He would go out with his hands free, but I want to know where the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stands in this connection. Can you understand now, Sir, why it cannot be taken amiss of me if I take into consideration that they can abolish the loading and the deloading, and that a front-bencher adopts this standpoint without being repudiated? Can you understand, Sir, since I have stated the legal position and the consequences thereof, why I on my part have the right to warn the electorate and the people of South Africa by saying to them that the United Party is asking for only one chance, and after that they will see to the matter themselves?

May I ask for the privilege of the second half-hour? I am not surprised to find the hon. the Prime Minister running away from certain of the important questions that have been nut to him, and attempting to draw red herrings across the trail of the dead-end policies of his own party, in respect of certain sections of the population; I must admit he was rather good at it.

Firstly I want to deal with certain matters raised by the hon. the Prime Minister, and then I will go on to the matters raised in my own way and in my own time and, I think, against the right background.

The Prime Minister has told us that it is possible that independence will be granted without the final boundaries of the territories concerned having been determined. He says that this can of course be settled after independence, as of course it can. But, Sir, does toe hon. gentleman remember his history? Does he remember what happened over Danzig, in Poland? Does he remember what happened over the Sudetenland in Germany? Does he remember what happened between Pakistan and India?

Those are not comparable examples.

Has he any idea of the cause of the trouble in Ulster at the present time? Do you know, Sir, there is no more dangerous a policy than to give a territory independence before boundaries have been settled?

Hear, hear!

I hope, Sir, that the situation will be reconsidered by the hon. gentleman, because he is embarking on an extremely dangerous course.

His course is dangerous in many other directions. He must try to attack the proposals of this side of the House in respect of non-European policy because his own policy is so indefensible in so many respects. You see, Sir, there are two aspects of his policy in particular which he cannot defend, and in respect of which it appears that he cannot see the end of the road. The first concerns the Cape Coloured people. The hon. gentleman knows that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst those people at the present time. He knows that there have been warnings— even by those nominated by him to the Coloured Persons Council. He knows that there have been warnings from the Police. He knows that many social workers in the country have already indicated what the dangers are in respect of that group of the population.

I say, Sir, that I have some sympathy for the hon. the Prime Minister; he is in a dilemma. He and his party have always said that there were only two alternatives in respect of non-European policy in South Africa. The first alternative is complete integration. The second alternative is separate development, and complete separation.

Now, Sir, which alternative is he following in respect of the Cape Coloured people? He tells us that there is going to be no Colouredstan; and I agree with him. I think that that is a very wise decision, even if the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare is not always with him on that subject, even if we do not have his word as a member of the Cabinet that he believes a Colouredstan is impossible, and even if, until the day before yesterday, he was perhaps the alternative Prime Minister designate. People do not know what the policy of the party is.

Well, Sir, if it is not a Colouredstan, is it integration? Is that the policy of the hon. gentleman in respect of the Cape Coloured people? Some of the people in his party talk about a Colouredstan; some talk about moving further apart, and some talk about “voller vennote met die Blankes”. Of course this leads to a great deal more confusion, upset and unhappiness. By contrast, we have always accepted that there could be a third alternative. Our federal solution applies to that third alternative, which is neither integration nor a Colouredstan; it is a federal arrangement based on a common understanding and a common loyalty to one State. The trouble with this hon. Prime Minister is that he is making the same mistake as the hon. member for Houghton. They are trying to develop ultimate blueprints, but they are neglecting the present problems and are squabbling over things that may happen in the future, without having proper regard to the hurts and the problems of the present time.

Let us, in the light of the Prime Minister’s remarks this afternoon, compare his plan and our plan for the Cape Coloured people. Obviously, if there is not going to be a Colouredstan, there must be representation for those Coloured people in this House at some time or other. Or does the hon. the Prime Minister say no, they won’t? Does the hon. the Prime Minister rule out for all time the representation of the Cape Coloured people in this House? Then it is the most immoral and the most dangerous policy that could be followed by any party in South Africa. He talks about the dangers of my policy, about the danger of six representatives for the Coloured people in this House. But what of the dangers of never giving those people representation in this House or in any central Parliament? Does he think that they are going to be satisfied with that? The hon. the Prime Minister asked me whether they would be satisfied with six. But I want to ask him if they would be satisfied with none. His reply to me will be that he has never conceded the principle. What does that matter? Does that make them any less unhappy? How can they say that they have never conceded the principle? Was it not they who took the Coloureds off the common roll and put them on a separate roll? Was it not they who had separate representation in this House?

You are the last one to talk about changing your policy.

I am not arguing about the hon. gentleman having changed his policy. I am sure he is going to change it again. I am sure he is going to find that his policy is a dead end, and that he cannot get any further with it. If ever there was a policy to lead to unhappiness, rebellion, revolution and trouble in South Africa, it is the policy of that hon. gentleman in respect of the Cape Coloured people. Let us look at what is happening already in respect of the Cape Coloured people. When he established the Coloured Representative Council, we told him to make it wholly elected, but he would not listen. We told him to give it responsibility by way of taxing powers. We also told him to arrange for a liaison body with this House and not to liaise from the Cabinet to the appointed representatives that he has in that Coloured Representative Council. We told him that there were going to be frustrations, and we told him that it was going to lead to more and more difficulties. What is happening? What have we had from just one Coloured leader in the last year? That very Coloured leader nominated by the hon. the Prime Minister was dissatisfied with us because we did not give him “one man, one vote”. Our policy was a great disappointment to him. Only a week or so ago he was talking about the necessity for representation in the central Parliament for his people, but this morning we see a statement in the Press that he stands by separate development. Can this lead to any sort of continuity and certainty? What will happen in time? Is the hon. the Prime Minister going to give that Coloured Representative Council greater powers? He is being urged on every side to go further “om die einddoel van sy beleid te bereik”. His own newspapers are writing about that sort of thing. There has never been more unhappiness amongst the Coloured people than at the present time. The frustration is building up to a degree that it is becoming quite explosive. The provincial council here in the Cape has deprived the Coloureds of a municipal franchise before ensuring that they have a proper alternative. I can go on with the various things that are irritating these people. What irritates them more than the sharp contrast between the treatment given a non-White from overseas and the treatment handed out to local non-Whites? They talk about it. I do not know whether the hon. the Prime Minister knows. This raises the whole question of petty apartheid that is being applied at the present time. I do not like the phrase; I talk about public amenities. I believe that we have to reach a stage where there will have to be more local option and more freedom to the individual and less dictation from Pretoria as to what the situation should be in that regard. We have the situation again where the hon. the Prime Minister talks about their opportunities, but we still sit with the difficulties of job reservation in so far as it applies to them. We hear from the hon. the Minister that it is the Government’s policy to limit the wage gap between Coloureds and Whites. We have had it from the hon. the Minister last session and yet no Government has ever done more to increase the disparity between the salaries paid to Coloureds and Whites in South Africa than the present Government.

I want to take the matter a little further with the hon. gentleman, because he knows as well as I do that one of the very big problems that arise with these people is the question of adequate training and adequate education. Is it his policy to assist to make funds available for compulsory education to be phased in for the Coloured people? What steps is he prepared to take in that regard? I can tell him that this is one of the big grievances, and he knows it. He has had discussions with them. I want to know whether he will allow the hon. the Minister of Community Development to go on moving Coloured people in terms of the Group Areas Act when there is still a vast shortage of housing for them and when the disparity in the numbers of Coloureds moved as opposed to Whites moved is so great that they feel that they have a legitimate grievance. They are talking about it to the hon. the Prime Minister. How does he think he will get these grievances settled? How does he think he will get a situation in South Africa where he keeps the loyalty of those people, keeps them with us against the communists and against the terrorists?

[Inaudible.]

My friend says they are there already.

I say that we have done more for them in respect of housing than you have ever done.

And you have done more to create housing problems than any other Government has done because of the number of Coloured families you have had to move. Sir. I do not want to go into detail on these things.

I want to know from the hon. gentleman where this dead-end policy is leading us. He talks about the dangers and the limits of representation in this House. What is the danger involved in the policy of the hon. the Prime Minister? Does he really think he can go on getting away with this sort of thing over the years? Look at the tragedy of the Cape Coloured people at the present time. Their leadership class, their professional class, is becoming frustrated. It is becoming more and more anti-White; more and more of them are wanting to emigrate. There is an appalling brain drain amongst these people as they go overseas in search of opportunities for themselves and for their children. Tragically, they are not accepting responsibility towards their own people. What about the middle-class Coloureds at the present time? They are having a vast lack of economic opportunities, because they cannot get their children apprenticed even though they are qualified. What artisans on the whole will not accept Coloured apprentices. They are limited to the few non-White artisans who are trained. If they are paid the rate for the job, they are certain that they are paid the minimum; they do not get the same wage for the same work. They resent very much the sitting of various commercial ventures near their areas. Then, tragically, there is a very big section of them, a section which I call the lower class or the less fortunate amongst the Coloured people. Unfortunately I think this group must represent round about 30 per cent or more of the Coloured population. There you have all the symptoms of the poverty syndrome in South Africa. You have degradation, alcoholism, illegitimacy, a high birth-rate, and you are heading for trouble unless something is done, and done quickly. What is the situation in which they find themselves? They sit with the Coloured Representative Council, which does not have the power to take the necessary action; they sit with the Government which is frustrating them at virtually every turn and around every corner, and yet there are members on that side of the House who sit back and think of the days when Dr. Dönges spoke of “five million hearts beating as one— Coloured and White”. This is one group in respect of which the hon. the Prime Minister is upon a dead-end road. However, it is not the only one.

There is yet another group, and that is the urban Bantu. Here again the hon. gentleman is on a dead-end road. I want to challenge him on this. Yesterday I said to him that the widening gap between the incomes of the different races might well be the gap through which Communism will breach the defenses of South Africa. I want to put to the hon. the Prime Minister the question of the policy of his party in this regard. I regard the urban Bantu as the flash-point of race relations in South Africa. Hon. members know what the situation is amongst them. They have seen this gap developing, but it is amongst them that the result of this gap is seen at its worst in South Africa at the present time. It exists with them more than with anyone else because of the policies of this Government which force them to work and to live under conditions which make it difficult for employers, either individually or collectively, to improve their situation, and in which the Bantu gets the worst of two worlds. He gets the worst of the world of being a labourer in a modern industrial society, and he gets the worst of the world of an unsophisticated citizen of an embryo homeland-state working in a foreign country. The experiences in both these worlds lead to resentment, resentment which is building up and of which the hon. the Prime Minister must be informed if he does not have knowledge of it yet. It is a very dangerous matter and I do not believe that we have ever had a satisfactory reply from either of his Ministers on the question of the urban Bantu in South Africa. I know why we have not had a reply. It is because it is the area in which his policy is falling down the worst, and they do not have an answer for it.

They have no policy.

There are three types of people involved, and I want to deal with them very briefly in the time at my disposal. Firstly, there is the Bantu living permanently in the White areas in townships where they have the right to stay for one reason or another. What does the policy mean to that Bantu? It means to him that in most cases he has insecurity in his job. He may be allowed to do one of the better jobs while there is no White man available to do it, but the moment the White man turns up he may lose that job. He has no home ownership and in an overwhelming number of cases he has no real stake in the maintenance of law and order. He has no executive or administrative involvement in respect of the wellbeing of his own people in these areas. He has no adequate training for his jobs because there are no adequate training facilities available in the urban areas. The Government gives training of a kind in the homelands, but not in the urban areas. There is seldom adequate schooling for his children, and certainly not secondary schooling for his children. What is his position at the end of his working life? He has no security that he can stay in that area where he has spent his whole life, because all sorts of pressures are being brought on him to force him to go back to the homeland, some of which he has probably never seen. His experiences mean that while he has been here, this wage gap has increased and he feels it is because of the restrictions which have been placed upon him. What are we offering that man to make him proof against communist propaganda and the sort of stories the agitators are telling him? You are telling him he is going to get the vote in the homeland! That is the say he has in what is happening to him today —a vote in the homeland. Does the hon. the Prime Minister really think he is going to keep those people satisfied with that sort of promise and that sort of political power? Then he talks about the dangers of my policy in this House. The only dangers he really sees in my policy in this House are to the Nationalist Party, not to the White man in South Africa.

But there is a second type of man in the Bantu townships. That man is the contract labourer, the migratory labourer. That is not the man we are using on the frontier at the moment. The man we are using on the frontier at the moment is the permanent resident in the township. This is another type of man. He is here on contract; he is a migratory labourer. What does this policy mean to him? No security, because he is here for his contract; that is all. No proper training, because there is none available. He is never sure whether at the end of the contract period he is going to be able to come back to the same boss. I know it is supposed to be guaranteed to him, but we know how often it does not happen. All the evil results of the migratory labour system are known to every church in South Africa and historically, have been the focus of all the trouble we have had in South Africa. There is a lack of mobility in offering his labour; his wages are low because nearly always employers have to employ more than they actually need because of the difficulties of getting replacements in times of pressure. There is little or no possibility of advancement. That could damn this policy right away.

But now, what does this policy mean to the employers of labour in South Africa and to South Africa itself? First of all, the employer is faced with uncertainty and inefficiency in his labour force. That means low productivity and the inhibiting of wage increases. It means, as I have said before, having to employ more than he really wants to employ; it means a higher cost of production and cost of living to everybody in South Africa. Why is this security being denied them? It is being denied them because the Government wants to try to push industries into border areas, where they really cannot protect these industries from overseas competition, except by giving them advantages, enabling them to compete unfairly, very often, with established industries in other parts of South Africa. What is the result—check on the rate of development in South Africa; check on the growth of standards of living in South Africa; lower standards of living for everybody in South Africa and the prevention of that rapid economic development, which is so vital to South Africa to build up its strength to be able to stand up against the outside world that is threatening it at the present time. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that the greatest bulwark against Communism in South Africa is a satisfied community. I relate that to his political plans in respect of these people. The hon. the Prime Minister seems to think that he has more chance of keeping these people satisfied with no representation in this House, as opposed to the limited representation which I am offering as the second stage to create machinery for consultation. Sir, what is the worry of the hon. the Prime Minister? Sixteen representatives will come into this House, he says, who will all vote against the Nationalist Party.

Who has become afraid now?

Is that his faith in the policies that he has applied to the Bantu, Coloured and Indian people in South Africa in the 24 years that this Government has been in power? Does he really want to tell me that that is all the confidence he has in the success of his policies? We know, of course, that the real reason for putting the Coloureds on to the separate roll was that they did not vote for the Nationalist Party, and we know, of course, that the real reason for removing the four Coloured Representatives in this House, was that the Nationalist candicates who stood in those seats almost always lost their deposits. But, Sir, it is not necessary that it should always be so. There was a time when the Coloured people divided their political allegiance. Why should it not happen again if we can only get that party on the other side to adopt decent policies in respect of those people instead of keeping them on a dead-end road? The hon. the Prime Minister has such tremendous confidence in the success of his policy in respect of the Bantu people; he has set them on the road to independence. He is going to offer them self-determination. I have told him that if they have reached the stage where, having been promised independence and having been prepared for it, they want it, we on this side of the House will not stand in their way. Does the hon. the Prime Minister despair of any Bantu representative coming to this House supporting his Government? Is that the admission that I had from the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon? Is it not a shocking state of affairs?

As far as this side of the House is concerned, we have said that we want to apply our policy in three stages. In the first stage we are going to deal with discriminatory legislation and legislation involving the rule of law and other matters, and we will try to raise the standard of living of all sections of the community. At the same time we will set about creating the machinery for consultation as to a federal constitution for South Africa. That will be done chiefly through the communal councils which we propose to create for each of the various groups. The Coloureds will have one; the detribalized urban Bantu who have lost their tribal affiliations will have another, and the various so-called homelands will have councils as well. We will have a proper machinery for consultation between them and this House, in which they can sit round a table to hammer out a future federal constitution for South Africa. Sir, there is no question of making any changes here, apart from what I have set out and guaranteed to the hon. gentleman, without a referendum of the White voters in which there is a substantial majority for the changes concerned.

What is “substantial”?

The hon. gentleman asks me what “substantial” means. That, as you will remember, was the phrase used by Dr. Verwoerd at the time of the Republican Referendum. He later changed it to one. I do not regard that as substantial.

Give us a figure.

I would like to have the sort of majority that is unlikely to be reversed.

And you will be the judge.

Of course I will be the judge; you were the judge in the referendum. I will be the judge; why not? Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister is back where he was, playing petty polititics …

Tell us something about your federal Parliament.

The hon. the Prime Minister is back where he was, playing petty politics, as he did earlier on in the sesstion, about what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said or did not say, and a few other things. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout attended our national Congress, where this policy was put, and he accepted it wholeheartedly in all its aspects. He has said it publicly and he says it again. I say it, if he has not said it, loudly enough for the hon. gentleman to hear. The hon. the Prime Minister says that if the United Party were to win an election, they would promptly add representation to this House to strengthen their position. Sir, I wonder why the hon. gentleman always Judges others by himself. It was the Nationalist Party that came to this Parliament and promptly took steps to strengthen its position by depriving people of political rights. He knows it.

Such as?

Such as putting the Coloureds on to a separate roll; such as taking their representation away altogether; such as enlarging the Senate to try to manipulate the Constitution.

And the High Court of Parliament.

We have said that as far as we are concerned we will make this change when we come into power, but there will be no further change otherwise than as the result of a referendum of the White voters in South Africa.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke mainly about the Coloureds and the urban Bantu. We shall speak about these matters again in due course, but I would at least like to ask this question : When has so much ever been done for a people as the National Party has done for the Coloureds during its period of rule? More has been done for them by this Government than under any other political dispensation in South Africa. Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister asked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a few very important, fundamental questions, to which he gave no reply whatsoever. But the Prime Minister will deal with him again at a later stage. A party which presents itself as an alternative government must, of course, be able to pass the test, and therefore, in the first instance, we expect the United Party to pass the test of having the necessary responsibility and honesty, just as the hon. the Prime Minister has, with great honour, passed this test throughout the years. There are only two ways one can test an alternative government, and that is by asking what plan they have for exercising authority in South Africa if they should ever come into power. What do they believe? What is their philisophy of life? The second question we can ask here in South Africa is how they rule in Natal. If we asked these two questions we shall quickly find that their plan would have disastrous consequences in South Africa, as very clearly indicated here this afternoon by the hon. the Prime Minister. A few days ago the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that race relations and racial separation would be left to the public to a large extent. Sir, let us ask this question : How does that party rule in Natal? It is very clear why hon members on that side are so sensitive about this language question. The United Party’s record in Natal in respect of relations between the language groups and the neglect of Afrikaans, is not a pretty story.

A tragic story.

The serious neglect of the Afrikaans language and of Afrikaans-speaking people in Natal, I myself have experienced. It took me five years of fighting and of threats on a city council before I could even bring them to acknowledge my language, and that in a United Party-controlled city council in Natal. Sir, uniligual documents of the Natal Provincial Administration are still legion today. We must take note of the fact that on statutory boards appointed by the provincial administration, Afrikaans is neglected to a serious degree; that only a few Afrikaans-speaking people serve on statutory boards, and usually we find that they only have Afrikaans names and cannot speak Afrikaans properly.

That is what we call a renegade.

With only a few exceptions, there are quite a number of statutory boards in Natal which are exclusively uniligual; there is not a single Afrikaans-speaking person on those boards.

But let us look at Natal’s poor financial position Natal has been in throughout the years. For 60 years the Natalians have been paying the highest taxes in South Africa. Before this new dispensation came into operation, the provincial taxes were in the region of 40 per cent. In the other provinces they were more or less 30 per cent. In spite of the fact that Natal’s revenue increased by 44 per cent, before the advent of the new dispensation, in no way did they succeed in establishing any capital throughout the years. If we look at the other provinces we shall find that the Cape could establish 8 per cent of its own capital, the Free State 16 per cent and the Transvaal up to 30 per cent. We hear so frequently from that side of the House that this Government now wants to adopt autocratic powers for itself. Are they aware of the fact that in no other province is there a system of committees of inquiry existing where evidence is taken in secret and no legal representation is allowed?

But let us look for a moment at how that party handles education in Natal. It is their declared policy to have dual medium or parallel medium education. In the first place, if one were to look at the White population ratio between the Transvaal and Natal, one would find that it is four to one as far as the training of teachers is concerned. But as far as the training of teachers is concerned, the Transvaal trains ten teachers for every one teacher trained in Natal. In other words, throughout the years Natal has been living off the other provinces as far as the training of teachers is concerned.

But that is a disgrace.

This so-called dual medium education policy of theirs, which they have wanted to implement throughout the years, has never come into its own. The fact remains that 74 per cent of all English-speaking children in Natal attend single medium private schools. This shows how sincere that side of the house is in respect of their declared policy. In the five years up to 1970 they built 19 single medium schools in Natal and only one parallel medium school. How does this compare with the rest of the country? In the Free State 84 per cent of the schools are parallel medium schools and in the Cape the figure is 46 percent. As far as the planning of schools is concerned, the story is a tragic one. The whole province is crowded with prefabricated classrooms. With Newcastle now on the threshhold of this tremendous development, there was recently the tragic situation of the provincial administration having to go to Iscor to negotiate for the building of their schools. This is a situation we can no longer tolerate in Natal. That party comes along with a flourish and speaks of the voice of the parent. Parents have no say whatsoever in education in Natal. The parent advisory bodies cannot act in any executive capacity. [Time expired.]

It seems to me the hon. the Prime Minister cannot make a new speech without dragging in a few old speeches of mine, but seeing that he has done so now, I merely want to rectify a few matters. Firstly, there is the question of loading and deloading. I just want to put the record right by saying that I never referred to the question of loading or deloading; that is not what it was about. My objection is not to loading or deloading. I stated a standpoint based on principle—I shall come to the standpoint of the party in a moment—namely that a parliament (and this applies to our Parliament) should be a real reflection of the wishes of the electorate which sends the people to Parliament. In other words, it should be truly representative of the wishes of the people who vote. I think this is the essense of a democratic parliament, and I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister: Does he not accept that? Does he not believe that this Parliament should be a true reflection of the votes of the electorate? I would be glad if he would say whether he rejected it. There was a time when he rejected democracy.

I believe in the loading and deloading …

That is another matter. The loading is a way, a method, of dealing with the matter I want to put it like this to the hon. the Prime Minister; I admit we have a problem with large constituencies; but you have it in a country such as Germany as well, and although I do not want to suggest now that we must necessarily follow other countries, Germany, for example, has a system whereby, in an election, one votes on a constituency basis—they also have large and small constituencies—but in addition to this there is a panel, so that when voting has taken place for the constituencies with their loading and deloading, there is a way of compensating the parties if necessary; the various parties have a panel of candidates so that, if a party has gained a greater proportion of votes than seats in terms of the system of constituencies (with loading and deloading), it is compensated from the panel.

But they have the proportional system.

My argument has never concerned loading or deloading as such. You may retain loading and deloading, and there are methods in other countries where you have this, but over and above this you have is a supplementary system of voting which makes Parliament a true reflection of the wishes of the electorate. This is the principle I support, namely that this Parliament should be a true reflection of what the electorate wants. And I think it is a very legitimate standpoint. I was prepared to give the Prime Minister a frank reply, but I should like him to be so kind as to give me a frank reply to my question. Does he agree that this Parliament should be representative of the true wishes of the electorate?

In terms of our present Electoral Act.

But this is not the position at present. It is my standpoint that we may retain loading and deloading, but we should find a supplementary system so that this Parliament may be truly representative of the electorate.

What system? The system in Germany is a proportional one. We have the same system as in Britain, which has even larger constituencies.

I understand all that, but I want the hon. Leader just to accept this point of mine, i.e. that in other countries there are various models according to which one may ensure that one’s parliament is truly representative of the wishes of the electorate. Germany, for example, has the most modern constitution, because it got a completely new constitution after the last war.

Other countries have old constitutions and we also inherited the old British Constitution. But I do not want to quarrel about that. As the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said here, the two sides of Parliament can get together and work out a system. I only want to put one question. I have pleaded that this Parliament should at all times be a true reflection of the wishes of the electorate. And I would be suspicious of a person who told me he rejected this.

I want to go further now and say to the hon. the Prime Minister that he should reply to us in this regard. It is a matter we are discussing in the United Party, and at the moment it is the standpoint of the party that it supports the present system, and I accept that. But I still believe that, without abolishing the loading and the deloading because of the geographical circumstances of the country, we should devise a system which would make this Parliament a true reflection of the wishes of the electorate. [Interjections.] I simply cannot see how a person who calls himself a democrat can really oppose this standpoint of mine.

And what about the non-Whites whom you want to give representation in this Parliament?

Order!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Prime Minister came forward with the whole question of the representation of non-Whites, and told us of the terrible transformation which would take place if the Coloureds, the Indians and the Bantu were to have representation in this Parliament. It would be the end of civilization, and if one listened to him, one would think there would be a revolution.

In addition, he brought in the matter of the “fool’s paradise”. I just want to say for the record that what I said about a fool’s paradise reads as follows—

Now you are running away from …

No, wait; I am not running away from anything, but it cannot be linked to everything now. I put the standpoint. I do not want to deny it because it has already been …

And then you went further in the no-confidence debate.

That is what I want to tell you now. I put the standpoint that no matter what sort of representation one gives—without associating myself with any particular one—it must include direct consultation and contact with the non-Whites. But the point I want to make to the hon. the Prime Minister now, is this: He knows that he heard from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition today that the policy, the direction of the United Party and the goal it sets itself, is a federal system and that the others are all stages on the road to that. I am a strong supporter of the federal idea. But one thing I cannot endorse is the Prime Minister’s artificial campaign in regard to Bantu representation, as is the present policy of the party. From 1910 to 1936 we had the Bantu on a common voters’ roll. There was no revolution.

Oh, come on!

Subsequently Gen. Hertzog and Gen. Smuts placed them on a separate roll, where they stayed from 1936 to 1961, and the Bantu had three representatives here and four in the Senate. But what is so interesting, Mr. Chairman, is that all the hon. members sitting there who supported the 1948 manifesto of the National Party—the apartheid manifesto—know that it provided for seven representatives in the Senate …

Yes.

… plus a liaison committee. There was no revolution then; the Whites would not have split then [Interjections.] But that was the policy on which they and I were elected at that time. I was not a candidate in 1948, but I was in 1953 and until 1958. Under Adv. Strydom it was the policy of the National Party that the Bantu should be given seven representatives in Parliament. [Interjections.] But it is stated in the apartheid manifesto. But, Mr. Chairman, the most extraordinary thing is that in the time of …

There was never anything like that.

But wait now. We are back in the past every time. Why would it suddenly cause a revolution today? In Dr. Malan’s time, he who was the creator of the apartheid system, as well as in Mr. Strydom’s time, not a word was ever said to the effect that the three Bantu representatives were going to be abolished; it was Dr. Verwoerd, and then there was a dissension about the matter. He only came forward with it rightly or wrongly; we are not going to ague about that now; when he introduced the Bantustans as compensation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to react much to what was said by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. His argument concerning the fool’s paradise was not very convincing; it was rather vague and I believe the Prime Minister, in his competent way, will in fact react to that. As regards the hon. member’s story of loading and deloading, I can merely say that I think the deloading which is going to take place, as going to be the deloading of the United Party in Oudtshoorn.

Listening to this debate, classic as it was, I was reminded of a recent leading article in the Sunday Times which dealt with “the U.P. Shake-up”. It stated that “this shake-up marked a clear shift in the policy of the United Party”. After this “shake-up” had taken place, there was, according to the Sunday Times, a dramatic “far-reaching statesman-like decision” by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He “dramatically” accepted the independence of the homelands as an accomplished fact. I think we have come to a second political “shake-up”, and in my opinion the Prime Minister and other speakers have shaken the United Party in an extremely competent way and successfully. I think it has been shown here indisputably in the interests of national unity that the United Party is the one who incites and is responsible for racial hatred between party and party in this country. It is not only the National Party and its speakers who say this, but none other than the Sunday Times and the writer Serfontein also endorse and confirm that Boere-haters are undoubtedly sitting on that side of this House. It is said that one cannot get rid of a member of the United Party in the Free State, that one can never convert him; he must die out. I believe that a Serfontein with the Sunday Times is possibly something worse than a member of the United Party in the Free State. I do not know how much Afrikaner blood Serfontein still has in his veins, but the little he has, perhaps 0,015 per cent, made him talkative and evoked a reaction from him on this occasion. What did he say? He said the following—

We know it is true. Mr. Chairman, we remember. It is true. We remember how the Afrikaner had to go about with his hat in his hand during the war years. To whom did we have to go? We had to go to collect the alms handed out by the high and mighty leaders of the United Party. The United Party should remember that it lays claim to serving as the alternative Government of this country. It should remember that it in fact represents the majority of the English-speaking people in this country. It should remember that what it says as well as the example it sets, manifests itself outside. That is what the people outside see of it; that is what they believe and that is where the example comes from. As a result of that example set by the United Party, we already have the phenomenon in South Africa that there is a type of arrogant jingo for whom the National Party has been governing this country too well for too long. This type makes his appearance and talks continually, in season and out of season, in derogatory terms of the Afrikaner in this country. We have an example of that in the most recent edition of Commercial Opinion. Here we have an article by Dr. R. Jordan, chairman of the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce.

What is his name?

Dr. R. Jordan. This is what he said—

That is a disgraceful reflection on the Public Service. But he said more than this. He also said—

Mr. Chairman, the only thing that is insinuated here by Dr. Jordan, is that the Afrikaner is a “backvelder” and that he does not fit in. He said this because he knows that the composition of the Public Service is mainly Afrikaans. That is why he made this statement. I say that this is the statement of an Afrikaner-hater and that it is nothing but a deliberate, purposeful dig at the Afrikaner in this country. The National Party has learnt one thing. That is that as a result of the United Party’s incapacity and sterility, its political conviction is situated just below its gullet, and that it no longer has any conscience. I am referring to the 1970 election in the constituency of Ermelo, when the United Party fought that election in very close alliance with the H.N.P. and in which Dr. Hertzog, a political weakling with whom they made common cause, was exploited. Some traditional U.P. supporters of whom there are many in the Eastern Transvaal and who have not yet heard that Jan Smuts is dead, joined the organization of the H.N.P. in an active capacity. In a systematic and impudent way they went from house to house to visit Nationalists and they said that they had resigned from the United Party and had joined the organization of the H.N.P. The one and only idea was to sow dissension in the National Party. In a shameless way they used the slogan from house to house that the National Party was the party which was doing too much for the kaffir and that for that reason they had left the United Party and joined the H.N.P. When people say now “Vorster faces a new challenge to leadership”, I want to say I think it is precisely the other way round. After listening to the debate conducted in this House, I must say that if there is a leadership which is in question, it is that of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I think the question we are asking ourselves is only how long it will still take. I believe that the entire United Party will go to the Progressive Party without a bequest or a will.

Mr. Chairman, I find great difficulty in reacting to the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down because it was inaudible. However, I got the impression that he was trying to revive the debate on “Afrikanerhater” so eloquently introduced into this House by the Minister of Defence. That gives me the opportunity of making an appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister. I want to make this appeal very seriously. He has given us an assurance on more than one occasion that he wants unity and better understanding, less bitterness and less vilification, I take it, between the Afrikaans and English-speaking people of this country. I take it that he will condemn ex-parte accusations, accusations without any foundation, by the one race group against the other. I want to appeal to him to have a look at the speech of the hon. Minister of Defence, who started this whole unhappy argument.

What is wrong with that?

I shall tell you that. I want to refer to p. D. 2 of the Minister’s typed Hansard. He wanted to know whether “die koningseun van Musgrave” could speak Afrikaans. I quote—

*Is it a principle which the Prime Minister accepts, i.e. that if members of this House are able to speak another language and do not do so, they are doing it out of contempt? Let us have clarity about that, because Hansard shows that the majority of the members opposite have never spoken English in this House. When I speak of members, I am referring to the members outside the Cabinet. Are they doing so out of contempt for English? Is this the principle, the basis on which we build race relations in South Africa, or do we respect each other’s rights to use ones’ own language or the other language as one thinks fit? The hon. the Minister went further. On p. D.3 he said the following of the English-speaking members of this House—

I deny it. I know my colleagues in the United Party in this House better than any Nationalist does. There is not one whose attitude in respect of the Afrikaner is not sound and good. Then the hon. member for Musgrave rose on a point of order. He felt hurt by the insult and asked Mr. Speaker whether it was permissible. There was a long discussion on that, after which Mr. Speaker ruled that it was not a point of order. It was his right, but then the Minister said—

This is the hon. member for Musgrave—

It is untrue, because the hon. member for Musgrave can speak Afrikaans. Perhaps he cannot do it as well as the hon. members opposite, but it is perfectly passable. Therefore it is untrue. Why should that accusation be levelled against an English-speaking member on this side without any justification except that he does not address this House in Afrikaans? Then followed what was the culmination. Another discussion took place between the hon. member and Mr. Speaker. When it was over, the hon. the Minister of Defence said—

This is on record, and goes into the world like that. The only justification for it is that the hon. member for Durban Musgrave does not address this House in Afrikaans, while the same thing applies to hon. members opposite as far as English is concerned. Now I want to ask something of the Prime Minister, something which may help us a great deal. He is the man who said he wanted deeds. Here is an opportunity for him to prove that he is willing to do deeds. I do not want the hon. the Prime Minister to repudiate the Minister; all I am asking of him is to rise and to say whether he agrees that if a person addresses this House in his language and does so often or regularly, then he hates the other language. Let him tell us that he does not agree with what was said, i.e. that the hon. member for Musgrave, to be specific, is an Afrikaner-hater for the reasons advanced. If he does not do so. I would have to say to my regret that all his protestations and fine sounding words of yesterday mean nothing to me, and I am sure to the people of South Africa. He has the opportunity now.

As far as you are concerned, they mean nothing in any event.

That is not true. I am pleased and delighted that the Prime Minister wants to act as a conciliator between the races in South Africa, but he cannot do so while he allows such things to remain unrepudiated or unreprimanded on the record of the South African Parliament.

We come now to the second question I want to put to the Prime Minister. Last year, in the third or fourth quarter, a prominent public servant was relieved of his post. It was Mr. Gouws, who was in charge of the Third Party Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund. We would be very glad if we could get information on the present situation there. I do not want to talk about it; it is a matter which was pending for a long time; as yet we have never spoken about it. But in view of the idea raised by the Prime Minister, namely that there is gossip, I think it would be a good idea if we …

It is a matter which you can raise on the Transport Vote.

But I should like to raise it on the Prime Minister’s Vote as well …

From where am I to get the information now?

Will you just give me a chance, please? I should like to raise it on the Prime Minister’s Vote only in regard to one point. It is said in insurance circles in Johannesburg that the matter was brought to the attention of the Prime Minister in 1969 and in 1970. Steps were taken only in 1971. I merely want to know now whether the people who maintain that they brought it to the attention of the Prime Minister, are telling the truth or whether the facts they brought to his attention, were not important enough for the Prime Minister to react to them. I merely want him to tell us why, if the matter was raised with him, it took two years before any steps were taken. That is all. I want to raise this on the Prime Minister’s Vote.

Thirdly I should like to register a protest because the Prime Minister neglects to reply to questions of fundamental importance to the people of South Africa, and because he is doing what he did last year as well, and that is to try to avoid pointed, responsible questions put to him by introducing into the debate new matters, usually of a highly controversial nature, which, because he holds the office he does, will enjoy attention from the public and distract attention from the actual matters we raise.

I am referring specifically to the question of labour and the use of South Africa’s manpower which was raised by the hon. member for Hillbrow and myself—who happen to be the chairman and the secretary of the labour group of the United Party. I want to complain particularly about the fact that the Prime Minister did not reply to the questions of my friend, the hon. member for Hillbrow, concerning the wage gap existing between White and non-White. In my opinion, and in the opinion of the United Party and of the businessmen of South Africa belonging to both parties and of all race groups, this is one of the bottlenecks, one of the danger points in South African life.

And of the Minister of the Interior as well.

Of course, the hon. the Minister of the Interior, to his credit, drew attention to this problem in an extremely dramatic way. I had hoped the Prime Minister would let us have his reaction. What are we going to do to narrow this wage gap, this income gap, because it is becoming explosive, and the hon. the Minister of the Interior is a witness to that. The Prime Minister dealt with this matter at the International Press Conference he held last year. He gave his reply. I take it that he believed what he said; and what he said, is true, as far as it goes. But he also showed that he did not understand the position fully. I am not saying this to be derogatory, because I am seeking clarity for him, for myself and for all of us.

I understand you perfectly.

He understands me well. He does not pretend to be a specialist in the sphere of labour, and the question probably came unexpectedly. But because of the replies he gave, I want to put certain questions to him now and I believe he will give us replies to them. [Time expired.]

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I want to commence by stating that South Africa and the South African, electorate make great demands on their leaders and expect a great deal from them; not only from the leaders of the governing party, but also from the leaders on the Opposition side. Both sides have responsibilities to the country and the South African electorate. It is a great pleasure for me to say that I think the hon. the Prime Minister meets with those expectations; in fact, he did more than is expected of him in the handling of this Vote. [Interjections.] I particularly want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that in South Africa we are grateful for the very explicit way in which he put the National Party and the Government’s case this afternoon in connection with the purchase of land for the Bantu homelands.

Did you understand it?

I understood it all; apparently that hon. member did not understand it. In a moment I should like to ask a few questions about that.

The hon. the Prime Minister said very lucidly that he had clearly told those Bantu leaders, with whom he held negotiations, what the Government’s standpoint is and that we advocate the 1936 legislation in connection with the purchase of land for the Bantu homelands.

Where are the borders?

I should like to put a few questions to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and to hon. members of the Opposition sitting there. Where do they stand in respect of the 1936 legislation?

Where are the borders?

No, where does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party stand in respect of the 1936 legislation? We are often blamed for the fact that we only want to give 13 per cent of South Africa’s territory to the Bantu and take 87 per cent for ourselves. We are blamed for that when they are fighting by-elections in Brakpan and elsewhere.

Brakpan?

I want to ask the hon. member for King William’s Town, who is unfortunately not present at the moment, where he stands in respect of the 1936 legislation. He made an interjection here while the hon. the Prime Minister was speaking, and we could draw only one conclusion, i.e. that the 1936 legislation determines a maximum. May I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, if he would be kind enough to listen, whether he advocates the 1936 legislation, or is his party prepared to purchase more land than the 1936 legislation provides? The hon. the Leader need only say “yes” or “no”.

Make your speech. [Interjections.]

Order!

Must we conclude that the United Party is not prepared to purchase this 7¼ million morgen, as undertaken in the 1936 legislation.

Ask Marais Steyn.

We must have those answers. I hope the hon. member for Yeoville will have the courage to reply to that. There are elements in his party that blame us for wanting to purchase all this land. I therefore hope we shall obtain a reply to these questions. However, what have we had from the Opposition since this debate began yesterday? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was the first to speak, and he spoke for half an hour. He set the pace in this debate, and the country was expecting a policy declaration from a man who regards himself as a future Prime Minister of South Africa and who, according to them, is almost ready to take over. What do we get from him?

You will get a better Prime Minister.

Order!

He does not present South Africa with a positive or alternative policy about the things the country is waiting for and the expectations the hon. the Leader of the Opposition cherishes.

What things?

I shall come to that in a moment.

List them.

What does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition do? He rehashes the cold facts that were finished with in the Second Reading debate. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition sits here. The hon. the Minister of Finance replied to the Second Reading debate, but now the Leader of the Opposition asks the Minister questions he replied to the previous day. Subsequently one U.P. speaker after another shies away from these burning questions in South Africa. They speak about everything else under the sun. They had very obvious instructions to keep off the subject of relations policy and relations politics in South Africa. They speak about Agliotti and they speak about this and that.

But the country is interested in Agliotti.

That is their privilege, and they may speak about that if they choose to; but why do we not obtain clarity from the Leader of the Opposition about their relations politics in South Africa, about their federation plan? The hon. the Prime Minister today accused the Leader of the Opposition of the fact that if he were to continue with this plan —the Prime Minister appealed to him to relinquish the plan and pointed to the door of the Council Chamber—and allow non-White representatives to enter the White man’s Parliament again, he would create a bitterness in South Africa that we shall not outlive.

You will create it.

The hon. the Prime Minister then told him that he does not even have unanimity in his party, because the hon. member for Bezuidenhout does not feel the same way about this matter as he does. Then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that he does in fact feel the same way. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke at the Transvaal congress of the United Party, and he may tell me whether he did in fact say the words I am going to quote or not. On the occasion of that congress he said (translation)—

That is what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said on the occasion of the Transvaal congress. He continued—

He continues by saying—

Such as you.

Hon. members are free to make interjections. However, the hon. member also said the following—

He says the time is past for telling the Black man: “I shall talk to you; I shall hold discussions with you” and then conducting that discussion with him via a White representative. On 4th February of this year the Prime Minister referred to that in his speech. I quote as follows from the Prime Minister’s speech (Hansard, 1972, column 406)—

What are you reading now? Die Kruithoring?

I am quoting from Hansard. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout then intimated that the Bantu must be represented by Bantu wherever the place may be. Then he came along with his story that it is for an interim period. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition how they are going to implement this federation plan which they propose. Are they going to draw up voters’ rolls? What are the voters’ rolls going to consist of? Who is going to be registered on those voters’ rolls? Are they going to delimit constituencies to elect these eight people who must represent these 18 million Bantu in this Parliament? They must tell us how the policy is going to be carried out in practice. Who is going to elect these people? Because the United Party is opposed to our giving individual citizenship to the Bantu; to our giving am individual identity to the Bantu. Who are they going to register, and who is going to vote for these eight Bantu? We are waiting for their replies to these questions.

I cannot understand why the hon. member for Wolmaransstad is getting so excited. He wants to quarrel with us about things on which we are agreed. He put quite a number of questions here. I cannot reply to all of them, and I do not want to do so either, because they were not important questions. He evaded the important question. But his last question was : Who would be able to vote for the Natives? We are in complete agreement on that matter.

Will you reply to me in regard to the 1936 legislation?

Under the policy of the Nationalist Party all the Natives may vote for their Bantustan Governments. Under the policy of the United Party all the Natives may, if necessary, vote for their representatives in Parliament, who will be limited and defined. We are agreed on that. But the hon. member wants to quarrel with me now about matters in respect of which we are agreed. The hon. member spoke so fast, and he was so excited, that I could not understand what his problem was in regard to the Transkei. But the one question which remains unanswered and to which neither he nor the hon. the Prime Minister replied, is where the borders of the independent Bantustans are going to be.

He did.

No, he did not. He said they would become independent and that subsequently negotiations would take place in respect of their final extent and their final borders, and by those means the hon. the Prime Minister wants to cast a bone of contention between independent Bantu countries and an independent South Africa, something for which the people will perhaps have to suffer for their next 10 generations. It was the most irresponsible statement I have ever heard. But I do not want to go into it. With reference to the speech made by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, the hon. the Prime Minister should tell us something more than he did when he spoke recently, after my hon. friend next to me had put a question to him about the borders of the Bantustans and the land which would be allocated to them, and referred to the schedules of the 1936 Act.

But, surely, you want to wipe out all borders?

No, I am seeking information. Would the Prime Minister, when he speaks again, tell us in what respect the Schedules to the Act help us to determine the borders of the Bantustans, because as far as I remember, the Schedules to the Act—I must admit that it has been a very long time since I studied them— deal with the released and scheduled areas, but do not define any borders. They define territories and areas, but not borders. The hon. the Prime Minister must admit that in terms of the Schedules to the 1936 Act, the districts of Maclear or Elliot may become part of the Bantustan. The uncertainty of the Whites in these districts has by no means been resolved by the Prime Minister’s statement. Sir, unfortunately I cannot pursue this matter, because I was engaged in a discussion with the Prime Minister which I should like to finish.

None so blind.

In one sentence the hon. the Minister of Planning has now described the biography of the Nationalist Party. Sir, I want to speak to the hon. the Prime Minister again about the question of the wage gap, the income gap, between Whites and non-Whites in South Africa, which in my opinion and in that of every economic student in South Africa, is the greatest danger-point of all in South Africa. At his International Press Conference on 22nd November of last year, he replied to a question. I have already said that the Prime Minister had to reply off the cuff, therefore I am making many allowances for that. He said, for example—I am reading from the official report—

He was referring to the provisions of the Industrial Conciliation Act and the Wage Act. He said that in terms of those Acts no discrimination was allowed—

I assume he was referring to the provisions of the legislation; that it was not a general statement—

It is perfectly true. This is the principle of equal pay for equal work (the rate for the job), which was written into the Act by the old South African Party when the Act was passed in 1924, and it still forms part of the Act. The Prime Minister was perfectly correct. Then the Prime Minister said there was no ceiling as far as the wages of non-Whites were concerned, and that he wanted to grant that thousands of non-Whites were earning more than Whites. That may be true. He said—

Sir, what the Prime Minister said there is perfectly true, it would be perfectly true if it were the whole story. But did he want to suggest that in real life there was not in fact a tremendous gap between the wages of Whites and non-Whites in South Africa?

Whose fault is that?

He made it clear to these representatives of the Press that in the definition of “employee” the Industrial Conciliation Act specifically excluded Natives.

Not as far as wage determinations are concerned; you ought to know that.

The Prime Minister referred to the Industrial Conciliation Act.

You are talking nonsense.

I am talking about what the Prime Minister said. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister should please keep quiet now.

What you are saying, is not correct.

I quoted what the Prime Minister had said. I did not quote my own words, but those of the Prime Minister. I referred to the Industrial Conciliation Act.

That is correct.

Yes, I said it was correct, but that is not the whole story. Is it not a fact that in terms of job classification in South Africa, there is a tremendous difference between the spheres of employment of Whites and those of non-Whites? That is the cardinal question. In the negotiations taking place today in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act, some of the White trade unions are negotiating for the non-Whites, but this is being done on a basis of re-classifying spheres of employment.

You are talking nonsense now.

No, this is true. What is happening in practice, is that the spheres of employment of the non-Whites are paid much less than those of the Whites and this is correct; I can understand it, because their standard of living is lower and their needs are fewer. One must be practical. I am not one of those who say that in all respects and in all spheres we should pay equal wages to Whites and non-Whites, for if that were done, one would cause a distortion and an imbalance in the social structure of the community.

But these are provisions of the Industrial Conciliation Act.

Sir, the point I want to make is this, and I wish the hon. the Minister of Transport would be quiet; I only have 10 minutes.

But, in that case, just tell the truth; present your facts correctly.

The point I want to make is that in practice, as a result of the reclassification of jobs and the awards that are made under the Wage Act and under the Industrial Conciliation Act, the non-Whites are paid much, much less than the Whites. The hon. the Prime Minister himself recently—I think in this debate— said that their had been an increase in the wages of Whites over the past few years of 400 per cent and, in the case of non-Whites, an increase of 300 per cent, so the gap must be widening. That is my point. I want to concede that if we can make proper use of our labour force in this country, of all our resources, we cannot immediately pay everybody the rate for the job, except where there is a danger of immediate competition between White and non-White for the same job; then you must pay the rate for the job. But under the system of job classification or job determination, you can have discrimination.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Chairman, I appeal to you. It is impossible for two people to make a speech at the same time.

I invite the hon. the Minister of Transport to get up after I have spoken and specifically to deny that the gap between the incomes of the Whites and the non-Whites is widening, and specifically to deny that in spite of the provisions of the Industrial Conciliation Act and the Wage Act, that gap is widening; and specifically to deny that because of the type of job done by Whites and the type of job done by non-Whites there is a great differentiation in wages; and specifically to deny that on the South African Railways he is changing his job policy to create new jobs for non-Whites who are paid much less than the Whites who do similar jobs. If he will get up and deny those five specific statements, I will respect his interjections, but in the meantime all he is doing is to try to waste my 10 minutes, and I resent it. [Interjections.] I am dealing with the Prime Minister and not with the Minister of Transport, who has been repudiated by his own Minister of Labour … [Time expired.]

The hon. member, who is so excited there now, asked why the hon. member for Wolmaransstad was so excited. Sir, do you know why they are so excited? He is so excited because within half an hour the Oudtshoorn electorate will be sealing the political fate of that party. That is why they are excited. And why will the political fate of the United Party be sealed at Oudtshoorn this evening? Because today in this House the Prime Minister stated, with perfect clarity, the implications of the relations policy of the United Party. [Interjections.] The hon. member specifically said he is arguing about things he agreed with. The Oudtshoorn result is going to be a crushing blow for you and for the United Party.

May I ask a question?

No. That hon. member, who carries round the most weight in this House, always has an argument that carries the least weight. [Laughter.]

Do you want a small bet on Oudtshoorn?

Today the hon. the Prime Minister dwelt on the crux of the relations policy in South Africa, and this evening I want to allege that one of the most powerful factors in the preservation of a nation is that the political power position must be secured in the hands of that nation. But I want to make a second allegation, i.e. that after the hon. the Prime Minister stated the matter with such perfect clarity, I am convinced that the relations policy of the United Party contributes towards the undermining and the destruction of the political power position of the White man in this country.

Racialism.

You are so stupid that you do not even know …

On a point of order, Sir, may I ask whether it is parliamentary to abuse opponents in this House by calling them “stupid”?

The hon. member may proceed.

I just want to say that in the year 1972 it is the height of political stupidity for a party to come along here and advocate the political participation of non-Whites in this White Parliament, because participation will lead eventually to equal authority and equal authority to sole authority, but then they are on the sliding track to “one man, one vote”. Then it will not longer mean the sole authority of the White man, it will mean the supremacy of the Bantu over the White man in South Africa. Tonight I want to accuse the Opposition of carrying in their breasts the deadliest political recipe for the downfall of the White man in South Africa. The hon. member for Yeoville must now listen to me. He must hear me well, and I hope he understands what he hears. In this House he said to me the other day that integration is a fact: “integration is a fact”.

Economic integration.

There the hon. member now runs away, as he is now going to run away at the polling booth in Oudtshoorn.

Oh, oh!

The hon. member must keep quiet. I am still coming to the hon. member for Maitland with his Voortrekker nonsense. The hon. member said “integration is a fact”; his face was aglow with political excitement, and I now challenge him. Integration is not a fact, because this party and this Prime Minister not only converted this Parliament into a White Parliament, but also into a pure White Parliament. Where is the political integration now? [Interjections.] Sir, he accuses me of excitement, with a member now speaking who is the calmest member on earth. I am a Whip; I never whip up feelings. I remain calm. But let us come to the point, man against man. He says “integration is a fact”. He flung it at my head across the floor and said “biological integration”. Did you not? Yes. You probably think I am stupid.

Order! A moment ago the question was asked whether the word “stupid” is unparliamentary. I have now had an opportunity of looking it up. In the past it was ruled to be unparliamentary, and I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw the word.

Sir, I specifically created the opportunity for you to give your ruling by repeating it!

Order! Hon. members must listen when I call for order, otherwise I am going to take stricter action. Poking fun at the Chair is something I do not expect from the Chief Whip. I ask him to withdraw the word “stupid”.

I withdraw that word. I now want to tell the United Party that I have been in this House of Assembly for more than 29 years. I came here as the youngest member. One day I heard great men from that side and from this side using these words. It was a Minister in the Cabinet of that party when they ruled, and that is far back in South Africa’s history. And do you know who it was? It was Col. Deneys Reitz. He sayd “We shall plough Afrikanerdom under with immigrants.”

That is not true.

I shall prove it.

Order! I appeal to hon. members to obey the Chair. If not, I shall take stricter action.

I shall fling that back at you. I am not worried about that. We said welcome to all immigrants, because we ourselves are the products of immigration. There were Hollanders in 1652, the Huguenots in 1688 and the British Settlers in 1820. We welcome immigrants, but do you know what I now see on the political horison? Not a party that wants to plough us under with White immigrants, but a party that wants to create an Indian/Coloured/Bantu parliament under the clarion call of White leadership to plough the White man under in this country. You speak of racialism, but the Nationalist loves what is his own. I am even fond of the hon. member for Yeoville. I am a student of physiognomy. Our policy as a whole is devoid of hate; our policy is one of love. Love binds together, hate tears asunder. Hate wastes the heart away, and what was said about the Minister of Defence? It was a lopsided idea to say that the Minister of Defence is a Minister who hates. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Transkei! When I appeal to hon. members to obey the ruling of the Chair, it also applies to the hon. member.

Let them interrupt.

I shall maintain order. The hon. member may proceed.

Sir, I want to thank you sincerely for maintaining order, because I suffer from a speech defect, a typical femine characteristic of quick talk, but now he keeps interrupting me and spoils my speech! I want to state this very clearly. Before I go further, I want to refer to the hon. member for Maitland. He has already said two or three times across the floor of this House that I said the National Party is the cause of the Great Trek. Is that not so?

No.

Look at how afraid he is becoming! What he did not say is where he read this.

Wennie du Plessis said so.

But does the hon. member know who Wennie du Plessis is?

Yes, I know.

Tell that to Dr. Jacobs, who has a witch-hunt on against the Broederbond in South Africa. Let him leave it alone. They also kicked Wennie du Plessis out and then Wennie du Plessis kicked out Fieldmarshall Smuts at Standerton. [Interjections.] Yes, I am going to show hon. members. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I hope you will not take it amiss of me if I try to be calm after that tirade. I would rather come back to my argument with the hon. the Prime Minister. But what roused my interest in the speech made by the hon. member for Brits, as well as in the previous speech made by the Prime Minister, is the sudden fear which has developed, i.e. that if representatives of the non-Whites were to enter Parliament, it would mean the end of the Nationalist Party.

Oh no!

Oh yes! I cannot understand how hon. members opposite can repudiate their Prime Minister so soon. Before dinner tonight the hon. the Prime Minister said that if the United Party got one chance, it would be the end of the Nationalist Party and this Government. We may conduct debates in this Parliament, but we may not disregard the records, and we may not repudiate the hon. the Prime Minister half an hour after he has spoken; at least, not if we belong to his party. Now I want to put a question specifically to the Nationalist Party. When they hurled the reproach at the United Party in the past—also in the recent past— that no non-White of any significance supported our policy, did they do so knowing they were telling an untruth?

Prove it to us.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom asks me to prove it. I shall prove it.

Order! The hon. member made a statement there which he must withdraw, namely “knowing they were telling an untruth”.

No, Mr. Chairman, I asked the question whether, when it happened …

You made a statement.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw. The hon. member for Potchefstroom asked me to prove whether they had ever said that the United Party did not have the support of the non-Whites. I want to quote from a speech which the hon. member concerned, that same hon. member, the hon. member for Potchefstroom, made in Parliament the other day, namely on 1st February, 1972. I shall quote from the Hansard of 1st February, column 165. According to the Hansard, the hon. member for Potchefstroom, Mr. Le Grange, asked whether we could mention the names of non-Whites who accepted the policy as far as representation in this House was concerned. He said we could not mention any such names. Then he went on to say—

Not “responsible Bantu”, but “no” Bantu—

A little later in his speech he said—

The hon. member said there, in the first place, that no Bantu supported our policy because we were politically dishonest. From that we are entitled to conclude that the Bantu support the policy of the hon. members opposite, because they are supposed to be politically honest. In that case, what are they scared of? Surely the test is whether they have confidence that their policy will receive the support of the people. The hon. the Prime Minister said that if we were to carry out our policy and there were representatives of the non-Whites on our side, the United Party would be in power for ever.

But prove to us that …

I have just proved it. The hon. member said there were only two ways, namely the policy of the Nationalist Party and …

May I ask the hon. member a question? Mention the name of one Bantu leader who accepts your policy.

Very well, let us say for the sake of argument that I cannot mention the name of any Bantu leader. In that case, what does it mean when the Prime Minister says that that bloc of 16 representatives would keep the Nationalist Party out of power for the rest of the existence of this Parliament? No, one must be consistent. The Bantu either support the United Party, or they do not support the United Party. The Prime Minister’s argument is that they would support the United Party. At least, they would not support the Nationalist Party. That is the point. The hon. member for Potchefstroom is my witness, because it is recorded here in Hansard. It is also recorded in Hansard that he said there were only two alternatives. If that is the case, I want to ask him now what we are debating this evening. What is the significance of the major speech the Prime Minister made before dinner this evening? At that stage the subject was the third choice, namely the alternative of the United Party.

That is the dangerous one.

The hon. member says now it is a dangerous one, but it cannot be dangerous if it does not exist. After all, he said in January that there were no alternatives except his and that of the hon. member for Houghton. Now I have to hear that our policy is dangerous, but it is supposed to be something that does not exist. What is one to think of the Nationalist Party which is scared out of its wits by something that does not exist? I want to come back now to the Prime Minister, because this is a very serious matter. At the International Press Conference he said the rate for the job applied in South Africa. That is true. He said there was no ceiling on what the non-Whites could achieve in South Africa. That is true. However, earlier in this debate he said, if one analyses the figures he gave, that White wages had increased fourfold and non-White wages threefold. Therefore the gap is becoming wider. Up to now he has evaded the question put to him by my Leader and the hon. member for Hillbrow. He ran away from it and spoke about 16 Bantu representatives, and now he should tell me and the people frankly whether he regards it as a sound or an unsound situation that this tremendous gap should exist and should be getting wider and wider under the Nationalist Party?

But he says his policy is to narrow it.

He says his policy is to narrow it, and he should tell us now what he is going to do in order to narrow it. The Industrial Conciliation Act and the Wage Act do not narrow it. The Industrial Conciliation Act was passed by the United Party in 1924, and the old S.A. Party placed the Wage Act on the Statute Book prior to the passing of the Industrial Conciliation Act. These are United Party Acts, and we know them. They are doing splendid work, but it is not their function to narrow the gap. No provisions are contained in those Acts for narrowing this gap. What is the Prime Minister’s policy for narrowing that gap? There is only one way of narrowing the gap. We cannot decrease the wages of the Whites; we must increase the wages of the non-Whites. We should make them more productive so that they may earn higher wages. We should train them, educate them and coach them. What is his policy in that respect? He must not tell me it is his policy to achieve those things in the reserves or on the borders of the reserves. As long as the Prime Minister and I and our children are alive, the reserves and the border areas will not be able to make the contribution to the employment of non-Whites which the White areas of South Africa are able to make. I want to come back to the question I put to the Prime Minister in my previous speech ?.nd which was not replied to, namely what use is it to us if, according to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, the Bantu are trained as artisans in the reserves …

In the Bantu homelands.

According to the Constitution they are the reserves, and I confine myself to the Acts of South Africa, and not to the visions and fantasies of the hon. the Deputy Minister. According to him they will be trained to become full-fledged artisans under more favourable conditions than those that apply in the case of White apprentices. I want to know where they are going to work. If they are to work in the reserves or on the borders of the reserves, it would possibly be a contribution towards solving the race problem in South Africa, but this would be useless and meaningless for solving the problems which arise from the wage gap. In my lifetime and in our lifetime there will be no real change in the pattern of industrial development in South Africa so that the reserves and the border areas may make a significant contribution towards eliminating the wage gap in South Africa. We are not dealing with what is going to happen in a 100 years’ time. What are we going to do in our lifetime, and the Prime Minister is as old as I am? These are the questions from which the hon. the Prime Minister is running away from, and instead of facing them, he came forward with an emotional speech to the effect that he was afraid that the non-White representatives in this Parliament would not support him. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville is one of the persons who make the most interjections during any debate but when an interjection is made from this side of the House he behaves in an ill-mannered way.

But you did not make an interjection; you made a speech at the same time I was making mine.

Order!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member behaved in a completely ill-mannered way. He ought to know how to behave himself.

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

I do not know whether there is a more appropriate word.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw the word.

Yes, I shall withdraw it, but then I say the hon. member behaves in an impolite and discourteous way. I think he ought to be taught a lesson on how to behave himself decently in this House. He is the man who constantly makes interjections.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I object …

Order!

Yes, let him object.

I object.

It is the truth.

Mr. Chairman, if I do not behave decently in this House, you must call me to order.

Order!

I say he does not behave decently and he ought to know how to behave himself decently. The hon. member is very fond of making interjections. When he has made interjections while I was speaking, I have always shown him the courtesy to reply to his interjections, and I expect him to do the same.

You are the last one to talk.

Order!

The chief muckraker on that side of the House should not make any interjections at all. We know him.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is the hon. the Minister entitled to describe the hon. member for Zululand as a muckraker?

Yes. [Interjections.]

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

Mr. Chairman, there is no other word for it, but I shall withdraw it.

Wtihdraw it.

Order! The hon. the Minister has withdrawn it.

I withdraw it because the Chairman asked me to withdraw it. That is the only reason.

I now want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that he is under the impression that other people on this side of the House do not know half as much about industrial legislation as he does. He is always boasting that the Industrial Conciliation Act and the Wage Act was placed on the Statute Book by the United Party or the South African Party of those days. But this hon. member does not even know what the provisions of those Acts are. The hon. member makes the nonsensical suggestion in this House that there has been a reclassification of jobs under the Industrial Conciliation Act. Surely he knows that it is a nonsensical thing to say.

But there are negotiations under that Act.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member suggested here that the Bantu were excluded from the definition of employees. This is so, but this has nothing to do with the determination of wages. He ought to know that one of the fundamental principles of both those Acts is that when it comes to the determination of wages and conditions of employment no discrimination on the basis of race or colour is allowed.

But that is true.

But why does the hon. member not say so?

I did admit it.

The hon. member tried to conceal it. He tried to create a totally different impression.

But …

Order! I appeal to the hon. member for Yeoville to stop making interjections. He complained about them himself.

But I do not object to his making interjections and I answer the hon. member in a courteous way. I do not behave as he does.

What is courteous?

Order! The hon. member must make no further interjections while the hon. the Minister is speaking.

I say the hon. member knows absolutely nothing about this, or is he trying to conceal this matter in this House and to bring this House under a wrong impression as far as the provisions of the Industrial Conciliation Act and the Wage Act are concerned? The fundamental principle is that there may be no differentiation on the basis of race or colour in the determination of wages and conditions of service. In other words, it is laid down that the policy to be followed is the one that hon. member is supposedly in favour of, and that is the rate for the job. In both these Acts the wages and conditions of service are laid down for the work which is done and not for the person. The hon. member ought to know this. What the hon. member does not know either, is that as far as the Bantu are concerned, virtually the whole of the engineering industry … He must listen now and not sit there conducting a conversation. He should at least display the courtesy of listening when I reply to him. I say he does not realize that 90 per cent of the semi-skilled labour in the engineering industry on the Witwatersrand is done by Bantu : In terms of an industrial agreement they are paid for the work they do and not on the basis of race or colour. Why is he not honest? Why does he not tell this House what the real position is?

He speaks of the wage gap. In respect of which wages does the wide gap exist?

Listen, Marais.

No, Mr. Chairman, he does not want to listen. He is not able to display the courtesy of listening when he is being furnished with a reply. [Interjections.] The hon. member mentioned the training of Bantu. They have never told us what they mean by training. Do they want the Government to establish special schools to train the Bantu? Does he not know how an artisan is trained in South Africa?

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

Of course, I was courteous enough to allow you to.

Is the hon. the Minister aware of the fact that the hon. member for Hillbrow introduced a private Bill which furnished an answer to every one of those questions, and that his Government rejected it?

Yes, the hon. member for Hillbrow introduced a nonsensical Bill in this House which had nothing to do with the matter. This is what happened. He knows as little about labour matters as a baboon about religion. The hon. member for Hillbrow has only one thing wrong with him—he suffers from verbal diarrhoea. Does the hon. member know what it is? They speak of the training of Bantu. How must the Bantu be trained? The usual way in which an artisan is trained is that he is enrolled as an apprentice, serves his period of apprenticeship and is then accepted as a skilled artisan. When I was Minister of Labour I laid down provisions for the first time and put a Bill through for Bantu to be trained as building workers in their own areas, where they can then be used. These hon. members do not know what they are talking about. It is all very well to say, “Train them, give them the necessary training and then all the Bantu will have the opportunity to become artisans and then they will be able to enter the labour market.” I repeat that the hon. member makes statements which he cannot substantiate. He talks about matters he knows absolutely nothing about and he thinks he can impress this House with his eloquence. He is making a very big mistake on that score !

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the hon. Minister … [Interjections.]

Order!

Who is talking about decency?

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I heard the hon. Minister asking the hon. member for Yeoville that he should tell him what the wage gap was that he was referring to. I think he should ask that of the Minister of the Interior for he was the person who first advocated that the wage gap should be narrowed. During the Budget debate I asked the hon. Minister what he advocates. Does he advocate that the White man should get less or does he advocate that the Coloured and the Black man should get more?

You have had the answer.

I have not had an answer to that. I then asked that the Government must state that its policy is that we should all increase our productivity.

*However, this is not what I want to discuss tonight.

No, I knew that.

Order!

I want to come back to the question of the attitudes of the Afrikaners and the English-speaking people towards each other.

You are detribalized.

I want to come back to this spirit which has been let loose here …

You are detribalized.

There is nothing detribalized about me. My record is there for anybody to go into.

Order! The hon. member for Waterkloof must control himself.

The difficulty with the hon. member for Waterkloof is … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell you, Sir, that the difficulty with the hon. member for Waterkloof is this : Once there was a Boer War.

An English War.

It was an English War for the “Jingoes” and now those people who are the sons of the “Jingoes” want to take the war away from us as well. It was the Boer War, because the Boers shot the English. It was not an English War at all. It was only an English War for the children of the “Jingoes”. [Interjections.] It was our war and the English are not going to get it. [Interjections.] We, the descendants of the people who fought in that war, do not want to fight that war all over again. We have finished fighting it. Only people who fought can make peace, and those people who did not fight cannot become peacemakers, can they?

I shall … [Interjections.]

Order! I am warning the hon. member for Waterkloof now. If he makes another interjection I will have to ask him to leave the Chamber.

Mr. Chairman, that hon. member …

Order! I am warning you now! The hon. member may proceed.

During the Budget debate I said I was pleased that Parliament was getting lively again, and it is a good thing that this is so. It is true that there was a time the Afrikaner could justifiably feel that his language and his traditions were in danger, if one can believe the history as I learnt it.

In the time of the United Party.

Yes … [Interjections.] But I know we still have people in this country today who do not like an Afrikaner. I heard that during the last election. I heard how they voted in Sea Point. Certain people of the Progressive Party said, “Vote against the Afrikaner”. That is true. I raised objections with the highest authority in that party, who will still be able to remember this. I did so openly. [Interjections.] No, wait a minute, but I also heard that Afrikaans-speaking people had acted in a similar way on various occasions. I am thinking particularly of Port Elizabeth. There was an Afrikaans-speaking person with an English name who stood for the United Party, and the Nationalist Party shouted, “Vote against the Englishman”. All I want to say, is that there are such English-speaking people who do not like the Afrikaner, but they are not in the United Party. [Interjections.] There are Afrikaners who do not like the English. I believed that they were not in the Nationalist Party either. I thought they were with Albert Hertzog. But it seems to me Albert Hertzog does not have all his people with him yet. Some of Albert Hertzog’s people are still to be found in other places. I have listened to this debate, and what the hon. the Minister of Defence said did not worry me a great deal. He and I grew up in politics together. In 1936 he was appointed organizing secretary—and so was I, in the same area. You can imagine, Sir, what went on there. When I first stood for election, Sir, who do you think the Nationalist Party put up against me? It was the Minister of Defence! And who do you think got a hiding? He did! So the two of us grew up together. His politics do not worry me. I want to say today that I am grateful that the sum total of this debate amounted to this. I accept the word of both these two great men, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, that they are going to make it their aim through word and deed to bring the people of South Africa, the English-speaking people and the Afrikaners, closer together. [Interjections.] Do you hear the objections we get from some people, Mr. Chairman? I did not discriminate. I did not say my Leader was better than the Prime Minister, but do you hear what is being said, Sir, even from Ministerial benches? When I said that, there were objections. I shall tell you why, Sir, and I want to say this to the hon. the Prime Minister. There was something that worried me more than anything else. We are living in a time in which the White man in South Africa finds himself in what is perhaps the most dangerous position since South Africa was founded. If we do not have national unity now, when will we have it? What is the use of some of the members opposite becoming “verlig” on the colour question, but becoming “verkramp” on the English-Afrikaans question? I listened to the hon. the Minister of Health. Is he here? I am sorry he is not here. Do you know, Sir, what he said and did? I think he did far more harm than the Minister of Defence. I cannot see how he can stay on in the Cabinet. Do you know what he said, Sir? He referred to the hon. member for Turffontein and said, “There sits a Fourie for whom Jopie Fourie is no hero”. “Who is his hero?” he asked; “A Louis Botha!” We had a remark from one of the Nationalist Party members in reply to that statement. I do not want to mention his name. He said Louis Botha was a traitor.

I said it!

And he said Smuts was a traitor. Sir, I am asking you now : What must the Englishman, the Frenchman, the civilized nations of the world think of us? [Interjection.]

Order! The hon. member for Stilfontein!

What must the civilized nations of the world think of us when the two greatest South Africans, heroes of the Boer War, the first and second Prime Ministers of South Africa, can so easily be held up as traitors to their own people? What then about you and me. Sir? What is our position then? What will the hon. member for Stilfontein think if the best of men are held up as traitors? But. Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister of Health went further. He said: The Nationalists must have an anchor, a source of inspiration. They have to be able to cast that anchor. His anchor is Jopie Fourie.

I have the greatest respect for the courage and heroism of Jopie Fourie. But, Mr. Chairman, when a Government finds itself in a time of crisis, I will never be able to approve of its officers committing treason against that Government. It does not matter what the circumstances are.

I now want to put a question to the hon. the Prime Minister. I am sorry I have to do this, but I think it is necessary that this be said in public. We are today using persons of different colour in the Caprivi Strip and elsewhere. Let us leave aside for a moment what the circumstances were as far as Jopie Fourie was concerned; I do not accept the story that he hoisted the white flag. But I am asking any Nationalist now : Is that the example, are these the heroes whose example you want the coloured races in South Africa to follow? When this country is in danger, when one wears the uniform of this country, should they be able to defect to the enemy?

We must be great.

We must be great. Mr. Chairman, we are toying with the survival of our own children. Cannot that part of our history which hurt so many people and which did not solve anything, be allowed to remain forgotten; can it not be left in the past? That does not necessarily mean that I do not honour Jopie Fourie as a hero, as a brave man. But I am not going to hold him up as an example to Nationalists—whether they be White, Coloured or Black Nationalists. I do not want this to become the anchor of their Nationalism. Are there any Nationalists who want these people to follow this example? Are there any people, Mr. Chairman, who want it to be said, as was said at that time: We shall not allow our sons to be used … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, never is a long time; never is a very long time. But, Mr. Chairman, in this country we may never allow that party and its leader take over the government of this hard-won Republic.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Chairman, what manifestations have we had here during the past week and a half? On the one hand we have had the figure of the Prime Minister under the arch of my fatherland …

My fatherland!

… in the spirit of “I am in earnest”—profound arguments and a manifestation of serious responsibility in the times in which we live, but what did we have on the opposite side? A frivolous game of “ring-a-ring-a-rosies”, a little to the left and then a little to the right, and in the middle stands the hon. member for Hillbrow with his “bucket full of posies”. All he must still do is to call “hush, hush, all fall down ! ” I expect it will be tomorrow at 11 o’clock, after the result of the Oudtshoorn election. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, that party and its leadership cannot and may not take over the Government of this country, because, in the first place, they do not understand their own Constitution, and, in the second place, they completely fail to understand the way of life in the Republic—the race relations, the social life. Mr. Chairman, what have we had here from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? He said it was the right of any member in this House to get up and speak his own language.

Who said so?

Your leader.

Yes, that is right.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you that one would have to look far for a more superficial view than that of our Constitution in this regard. That Constitution lays down equal treatment of both official languages. What does equal treatment mean? It means that any person who occupies a public office should be bilingual, bilingual in practice. That is the only thing the hon. the Minister of Defence said.

That is not true.

He said that the shadow Cabinet, and those who represented constituencies here, were holding public offices, and that they were not bilingual. He said that that should be rectified.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Chairman, a party and a party leadership who clash with their own Constitution are looking for trouble. I want to quote a practical example; and I want to deal more specifically with the hon. members for Johannesburg North and Jeppes. It is still very fresh in their memories how they, when they represented the United Party in the Johannesburg City Council—for half a century— virtually violated the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.

That is not true.

They were unilingual, and in the ’fifties I personally proposed, with the assistance of my hon. leader, the hon. member for Langlaagte, that bilingualism be introduced. [Interjections.] Do you know what it cost us, Sir? We had to pass the language ordinance of the province of Transvaal to compel these people, who were looking for co-operation, to respect their own Constitution. Such a party cannot and may not try to propagate national unity here. Their hands are dirty; they cannot afford to do so. [Interjections.]

The hon. member must withdraw the words “their hands are dirty”.

I withdraw them, Mr. Chairman. That party and its leadership represent neither English nor Afrikaans-speaking people, nor the Bantu in this country. What Government—now I am talking of the Bantu; I am talking of justice—introduced mother tongue instruction into our Bantu Education in the first place? Was it that side? No, Mr. Chairman, it was Dr. Eiselen under this Government who made Bantu language compulsory in Bantu schools. Mr. Chairman, the whole motive and motivation of those people is to denationalize, to divide and rule. They cannot and may not represent the Afrikaans-speaking people; neither the English-speaking people, because they also bring about division between the English-speaking person and the Afrikaner in this country. What was the remark made by the hon. Minister of Sport by way of interjection when he said : “I am an Englishman with National convictions”? The hon. member for Zululand then asked him, “But do you call yourself an Englishman?” [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, they can decide whom they want to insult. Do they want to insult this Government because it saw the merit in an English-speaking person in South Africa and made him a member of the Cabinet? They may insult this Government if they like. Or they may decide to insult the Englishman by telling him that he has no merit and cannot be included in the Government for that reason. It is for them to decide which of these two attitudes they want to adopt. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the hero from the ring of the game of “ring-a-rosies”, with the “bucketful of posies”, with his crystal in his hand, is landed here as the labour expert, and it is said that in his private member’s motion he replied to all the questions of the hon. the Minister of Transport. Sir, what did we have in that private member’s motion? It was a direct copy of the British Training and Industrial Act, except for the fines which had been changed, and he presented that here as something original. Is the hon. member not ashamed of himself?

Sir, I want to deal with their labour policy, their policy of simply throwing open the flood-gates. If we need one non-White labourer, why should nine of them be at the ready? So that keener wage competition may be brought about, and so that we may perhaps, with less trouble and effort and by making use of automation and whatever the case may be, be able to do a little profitable business again. Sir, and then hon. members on that side come forward here and talk of a wage gap. Our standpoint is control of the non-Whites entering our labour market, but they want to throw open the flood-gates so that keener competition for wages may come about.

You know it is untrue.

The hon. member may say it is untrue, but we do know the United Party a little.

Order! The hon. member for Transkei must withdraw that.

I withdraw it. He ought to know that it is untrue.

Sir, the same goes for their federation plan, which is so cheap that their own Press does not want to “sell” it. It is a question of limited franchise on local, provincial, group and national levels. Sir, it is immoral and is not based on principles. They limit the franchise; they want to enfranchise A, but not B. Have we not had a display here of the thing against which the hon. the Prime Minister warned so long ago and so earnestly? We do not want to make of the non-Whites a political football in White politics. The hon. member for Yeoville implied here that the non-Whites would support them, and not us.

Where did he say that?

Go and read his Hansard. Sir, that is what we want to prevent.

Sir, I conclude by saying this: I see the figure of our Prime Minister with the triumphal arch “our fatherland” and below that: “I am in earnest”. That is his message for this country in these times. Sir, I notice that the more facts the “ring-aring-a-rosies” players on that side are given, the more noisy they become. They remind me of a lot of pot-bellied little boys playing “ring-a-ring-a-rosies”. Sir, where they have launched subtle and disguised attacks on our country for consumption abroad, I want to remind them that only a dog licks the hand of the man who beat it. [Time expired.]

Sir, I do not know about “ring-a-ring-a-roses”, but I think little Miss Muffet will be looking for a tuffet in Another Place. Sir, if that is the calibre of speech that we are to hear on the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister, when we have before us an issue which is vital to the peace, security and future safety of South Africa, in other words the question of non-White labour and the remuneration of non-White labour, then it is a sad day for South Africa. It is no wonder that that hon. member, who won the election in his constituency in 1966 by over 3 000 votes, had whittled that majority down four years later to 150-odd.

123.

He had whittled it down to 123 after a court case. A few months later that 123 had become a majority of 1 700 for the United Party, and a year later it had become eight out of 10 municipal seats for the United Party. The reason is that young South Africa, the young men who fought in his constituency and the young people who voted for them …

Wishful thinking.

… can no longer be bluffed by this muck which is being thrown about in order to camouflage the failure of the Nationalist Government. The youth of South Africa today are not interested in the Anglo-Boer War or in Slagtersnek or in Jopie Fourie. They are not interested in what our grandfathers or fathers did. They are interested in what we will do and what our children will do in the years that lie ahead. That is why, Sir, we on this side of the House are trying to point attention to the things that matter for tomorrow, not the things out of yesterday that divide, but the things that matter to ourselves and to those for whom we are responsible. Our fathers and our forefathers are dead; may they rest in peace. But our children are alive; our grandchildren are alive or are yet to come, and it is to them that this House owes a responsibility; it is to them that that Prime Minister owes a responsibility, a responsibility to ensure that there will be peace and harmony for them, not peace and harmony for the memory of Jopie Fourie …

Do you regard him with contempt?

… not peace and harmony for the memory of a Milner or a Phillips, but peace and harmony for those who are to follow us. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he regards it as conducive to peace and harmony and security when the hon. the Minister of Labour, on the 24th September, 1971, signed a wage determination which laid down a minimum wage for an adult female of R3,80 per week; a minimum wage for a general worker of R5,10; a maximum of R7,35 for a male and a maximum of R5,60 for a female?

What are you quoting from?

I am quoting from Wage Determination No. 335 dated 24th September, 1971. The hon. the Minister of Transport tried to divorce the Government from responsibility.

*He said that it had nothing to do with the Government; that there was a council for that; that there were industrial agreements, but the hon. the Minister of Labour signed this wage determination.

†Sir, he signed it willingly. He had the right to refuse to sign it. I can give you figure after figure, page after page. Those wages applied to Kimberley, Bloemfontein, Port Elizabeth, Welkom, Kroonstad, Klerksdorp, Orkney, Potchefstroom and Stilfontein.

For what kind of work is that?

I want to ask the hon. member for Potchefstroom whether he thinks that R5,10 is a living wage?

For what kind of work is that?

That is for a genera] worker. Take a boiler attendant, a man who has to get up in the middle of the night. Does he think that a boiler attendant is able to live and support his family on a minimum of R7,50 per week? Sir, let us leave labourers out; let us take the sample attendant: R9,40; Let us take the night watchman, who works 14 hours: R5,35. The minimum wages are also laid down here for waiters and female clerks. This was signed by the Minister of Labour, of his own free will. I want to ask whether that is the way in which we guarantee the future harmony, and therefore the future security, of the White man in South Africa, and I want to ask the Minister of the Interior whether he agrees with these wages. After all, he shares joint responsibility with his colleague, the Minister of Labour. As a Cabinet Minister he shares the responsibility for this minimum wage of R3,80 per week. The hon. the Minister of the Interior has made noises about closing the wage gap; he has made noises about the danger of revolution and bloodshed and yet he sits in the Cabinet, Sir, when the Minister of Labour approves of these wages, a Minister of Labour who believes that people can live on R3, R5 and R7 per week; that they can live and feed themselves and clothe themselves and pay their transport from way out in the bundu where they are pushed by the Minister of Planning and the Minister of Community Development, and then still retain their respect on a wage of R3,80 to R7 or R9 a week.

The hon. the Minister of the Interior owes South Africa an explanation because he shares responsibility, just as he shares responsibility with the Cabinet and with his colleagues who follow the line which that hon. member took and which has been taken on and off for two weeks by the Government, of trying to stir up feelings between White and White and White and non-White in South Africa. I want to say to the hon. the Minister of the Interior that he owes this House and South Africa a speech to justify his frequent and, I believe, his sincere appeals for national unity, his appeals for us to find the things on which we can agree, his appeals to find the things on which to build a better South Africa. I ask him to reconcile that with the speeches we had last week from the Ministers of Defence, Community Development and Labour and Information. We have heard hard things. I said this afternoon that the Nationalist Party has no monopoly on sensitivity. Other people have feelings too. English-speaking people have feelings, as the hon. the Minister of the Interior knows. I want to call as witness to the patriotism and loyalty of South Africans who speak English and who live in Natal, the following words—

That was said by a gracious lady, by the first lady of Natal, the wife of the then Administrator of Natal. I hope the Minister of the Interior will support that view and will restore some sanity to the bitterness which his Cabinet and his colleagues are sowing in South Africa.

Last week the hon. member for Durban Point really regaled the House, so to speak, with his sport stories and his rugby stories and I must say the metamorphosis that has taken place in the meantime is remarkable. It seems as if the hiding the Opposition has received is only beginning to take proper effect now. [Interjections.] The difficulty with the hon. member near me here who is making such a fuss is that he can spell the word “banana” but does not know when to stop. I want to start off by quoting from a newspaper article, and then it will be interesting to note the date. But let us first take a look at what the article says—

Now this is interesting. It was written by Aubrey Sussens and appeared in the Rand Daily Mail of 16th January, 1959.

Who is he?

He is one of their kindred spirits. The interesting thing about this is the following. What was said of this party in 1959, is more true than ever today. After all, they say, “We have a horse for every course and a course for every horse.” An old gentleman told me outside this House the other day that he was inclined to believe that the United Party had a “horse for every course”, but that he would like to know when they were going to withdraw the donkeys from the course. The hon. member for Durban Point was very sporting the other day. The National Party was supposed to have formed a scrum and then he had all kinds of jokes about “Haak-Haak” when the ball was put in, etc. But there is something he does not realize. Imagine if one had to choose a rugby team from their ranks. One would not know whether to laugh or to cry about this spectacle. One would probably have to start off with the scrum, but in a scrum one needs two props and usually they must have some backbone. Therefore one cannot choose anyone on that side for those positions. That is out of the question. Secondly, there is the position of hooker. Where is one going to find one? Because they can only kick and bite—they cannot hook. But the most interesting thought is that if such a United Party rugby team has to go on to the field and they are awarded a penalty kick out of compassion—for a referee is human too— just think what is going to happen. They are so used to kicking left and right at the same time that they will kick the ball with both feet at the same time. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Hillbrow is very talkative. He reminds me of the English rhyme we learned at school—

He came to the House last week and said that it should be noted that the United Party does not come to the people of South Africa with a slogan or with a warcry. This is the statement thrown at the National Party from his side. But what did they come forward with? “You name it, we have got it.” To which may be added. “And now we have had it.” That is the kind of slogan with which they came to the public of South Africa. He is the Black-danger man. He sees dangers in everything. In the Sunday Times of 30th January, 1972, there was an amusing headline. “Dr. Jacobs has done it again”, and then the report went on to say—

Their big problem is that everything is a danger to them; it is the red danger, the black danger and all sorts of dangers. But on this planet in 1972 it goes without saying that a state, a government or a country is surrounded by dangers. Modern technology has made this planet smaller, in the metaphorical sense. Where can one live or go on this planet today without there being any danger? Dangers there are but they can be faced by means of sound principles. Surely a principle which is difficult to implement is not less sound because it is difficult to implement, and that is what they do not appreciate. They tell us they will join us in defending the country and we accept that. They are concerned that some of these Bantu states may possibly turn communist. They are concerned about a whole series of things, but what they lose sight of completely is that the biggest danger to South Africa is contained in the very essence of their policy. That is where the biggest danger to South Africa lies, and we get no reply to that. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad asked for replies in respect of the practical implementation of that policy. We are still waiting for them. One can enlarge upon that. Imagine the policy of the eight, the six and the two —I suppose one sometimes has to imagine the impossible for the purposes of one’s argument. Imagine for the sake of argument that the Bantu, Indian and Coloured representatives are in this House now in terms of the U.P. recipe. Just think of the one aspect of the numerical rates. Do not think only of the question of the White-Black confrontation. It goes further than that. If, according to their arbitrary allotment of representatives, the number of Coloureds is to be exactly the same as the number of Bantu, then, according to that dispensation, the Coloured people would have to have 45 representatives here. In other words, the Bantu representatives would ask: “What is wrong with us; are we so bad that we are so much worse off than you are? We get eight representatives, but on the basis of the numerical strength of the Coloured people there should be 45 of us here.” If one makes a population projection for the future and accepts that there will be approximately 32 million Bantu, consisting of the various Bantu peoples, in South Africa by the end of the century, will they still have eight representatives here then? These are the cardinal facts to which the United Party simply must reply. They refuse to believe and to see that man is bound to a group and that the individual—reference was made here, inter alia by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, to more freedom for the individual—can ultimately realize his fullest rights and freedom only within his national and group context. Man in general cannot orbit in space like a meteorite; he realizes himself, culturally and otherwise, within his national context.

With reference to this I should like to refer to the conclusions reached by a gentleman by the name of Michael Wright, a graduate of Oxford, who went to the Evelyn Hone College of Further Education in Lusaka, Zambia, as a lecturer. Recently, when he could stand it no longer, he left that country. With reference to the people who attach no value to the significance of the differences among peoples and ethnic groups and who pay no regard to the organic life of the group, he said—

Then he comes to the big question and says—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Wonderboom tried to make a speech here this evening, but I think he used his entire ten minutes in quoting from different newspaper cuttings. Then he spoke about rugby. As I am concerned with a different sport, I think I will leave the matter there and not reply to the talk he gave us here on rugby.

It has been very, very noticeable indeed during this debate that, after my hon. Leader made some very pertinent references to the problem of the urban Bantu in South Africa, not a single speaker on the other side of the House up till now has referred to the urban Bantu. This is easy to understand because. I believe, that never in the history of the Nationalist Party has there been more uncertainty and confusion in regard to the future of the urban Bantu than there is today. With the year 1978 just around the corner, that wonderful year when by a miracle the ever-increasing flow of the Bantu into the urban areas will be reversed, and with the chances of the Nationalist Party’s pipe-dreams as remote as ever, we find of course that today many Nationalists are reluctantly agreeing that the Bantu in the urban area is a very integral part of our economy and that, as such, he should be recognized as a permanent citizen of South Africa. Unfortunately for South Africa, there is no doubt that the current concept of separate development, as seen through the eyes of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, is still the idyllic one of a number of separate nations, White and Black, with clear and neat geographic boundaries, in other words, as independent sovereignties with all the trappings that go with any state. It is also perfectly obvious that the hon. the Prime Minister is still so enamoured of this concept of separate development, because he believes that South Africa has a lesson for the world in this respect, namely a lesson of how people of different languages, cultures and colour can live together in peace and harmony in one country. So certain is the hon. the Prime Minister of the eventual success of this policy of separate development that he even envisages the day when people will come from afar to watch the workings of separate development at first hand. I agree that separate development for the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government is indeed a wonderful concept, not that it will change a single fact of life in South Africa, and not because it has the remotest possibility of succeeding, but as a wonderful concept because it provides the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government with a rationalization for treating millions of Bantu who work and live permanently in the urban areas as aliens without citizenship rights and to expose them to all the irritations and restrictions of apartheid.

What do you want to change?

I will tell you. Sir. I want to say that for the hon. the Prime Minister separate development may be a very wonderful and noble thing, but for the millions of Bantu who live and work in South Africa and who are making a vital contribution to the economic progress and the safety of South Africa, this noble thing has a very false and hollow ring. I et us make no mistake about this. For the Bantu who are living and working in the urban area, separate development means just one thing, namely, apartheid in perpetuity which in turn means segregation without equal facilities, a fugitive fly-by-night existence for many, lack of job opportunities, passes and constant surveillance by the Police, and political impotence. There are a host of other irritations, far too many to mention, and which are part and parcel of this policy of separate development. I want to put a question to the hon. the Prime Minister: Does the hon. the Prime Minister really believe that the millions of Bantu living and working permanently in South Africa and who are kept here because of the policy of separate development physically while they are politically expected to be somewhere else, will abandon lightly their social and political aspirations in the country in which they live and work permanently? Surely the hon. the Prime Minister must know that these people will still want political and social rights in the country which they serve with their presence and their labour. I want to say this to the hon. the Prime Minister : Does he really realize the degree of bitterness that is building up in the minds of the urban Bantu because of the effect that separate development has upon them? There are many reasons for this feeling. I would say that the one that stands out above all of them is the feeling of insecurity and frustration. The Bantu in the urban areas is not allowed to own land. Yet his homeland, hopelessly under-developed, offers no compensatory rights to him. The result is that the urban Bantu is hopelessly suspended between two worlds, with his only security a piece of paper that can be removed for any mumber of reasons. To put it bluntly, certificates of citizenship mean nothing and solve nothing, because you cannot expect the Bantu who lives and works in White South Africa to be overjoyed at having to carry a certificate of citizenship of some homeland which he in all probability has never seen or never will see. I believe that for the past 25 years the Nationalist Party has been so busy trying to defend and justify the policy of separate development, that they have not … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have only seven minutes at my disposal, and I should like to deal with one matter which has already been mentioned many times today, i.e. the federation policy of the United Party. I have tried to glean historically what the term “federation” embraces, and what lessons we can learn from the past with respect to such a policy. I read that Federalism has one of two objectives: The first objective can be to create a political situation from which there can develop, in the course of time, one nation built up of the various component parts. This happened in America, Germany, Italy and also in other countries. There is also a second type of federation which tries to string together various national groups in one political homeland. The first group of attempts at federation all succeeded, and the second group all failed. My question now is which of these two federation attempts the United Party envisages. I think it envisages not the first kind, but in fact the second. But all attempts at bringing about this second type of federation failed. There are eight reasons why these attempts at federation failed. I should like to mention them in the few minutes at my disposal.

The federation attempts I am speaking about were tried on three occasions in Africa, and also in Indonesia. As a result of these eight reasons or requirements, those four attempts at federation failed. Therefore I also want to add that I believe that this federation plan, which the United Party speaks about, will not succeed either. The first requirement laid down by all the national groups was that each component pant must be granted equal opportunities in respect of decisions and the determining of policy; in other words, they all wanted to be equal partners. The second requirement that was laid down was that there must be joint loyalty in respect of their history, their language, tradition and nationalism. The third requirement for success was that in none of these component parts should there be a striving towards individual independence. The fourth reason, and this is very important, why the attempts failed, was because people said that the White minority group in this federation plan was a minority group that wanted to give permanence to its own leadership. A fifth factor that contributed to the failure of those four attempts at federation was the requirement laid down that all individuals of those various component parts of the federation must have complete freedom of movement and complete freedom in respect of labour negotiation. A sixth causative factor in the failure of this federation attempt, which I have mentioned, was that there was too great a numerical disproportion in population between the various component entities and also too great a difference in the level of development between them. I have two names I should like to mention to hon. members. The first is that of the Chief Justice of the Rhodesian Federation, Sir Robert Tredgold, and the second is that of the Attorney-General of Senegal, Monsieur d’Arboussier. These two people, together with several others—and they were all involved in some of these federation attempts —said that their experience in connection with why the federation attempts failed was, and I quote :

Then I should like to mention the following. This is very important, as far as I am concerned, because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition speaks continually of “communal rights”. A seventh reason why those federations attempts failed was because, as the people I have just quoted also said:

The final reason for the failure of these four federally-orientated attempts, which I have mentioned, was because all the non-Whites in all the four cases said: “Federation? Fine, but give us a Black Prime Minister”. What was the result? The federation attempts in these four areas, i.e. Central Africa, East Africa, West Africa and Indonesia, failed. The eventual outcome was that this same Rhodesian Chief Justice, Sir Robert Tredgold, said that the 64 000 dollar question that cropped up for them in the course of time, after the attempt at federation, was “How to unscramble federation”, because it appeared to be a complete failure. I am sorry, I had to sketch this very rapidly, because my time was very limited.

Mr. Chairman, the time allotted for this debate has almost expired. I therefore want to reply to the few matters still outstanding. Before doing so I do just want to refer to another matter. If one considers what may be discussed under a Prime Minister’s Vote and what is normally discussed under a Prime Minister’s Vote, if I consider that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has the benefit of two half-hours and that he has as much additional time at his disposal within the fixed period as he wishes, and if I consider what matters he raised here, I cannot but regard it as a special compliment under the circumstances. Then I must regard my handling of all the matters which are normally raised under this Vote, and which were very carefully avoided, as being irreproachable and insusceptible to criticism. Sir, if there was criticism to be levelled at it, the Opposition has been disgracefully neglectful of its duty in not bringing it to the attention of the House.

But before I reply to those matters still outstanding, and because the Leader of the Opposition has another opportunity to speak after me. I want to ask him to clarify two matters which have for a very long time been waiting to be clarified, questions which have from time to time been put to him. The Leader of the Opposition has told us once again now that his policy comprises three stages. The one will to a certain extent overlap the next. The first stage is the revision of the legislation passed by this Government and which they do not like. At the beginning of every session private members have ample opportunity. I want to give the Leader of the Opposition this suggestion to reflect on for next year: Why should we simply leave these matters hanging in the air? Why not instruct or ask his members to put to us those things they would like to have revised? They can do so by way of motions; they can do so by way of the other machinery established for that purpose by the House. Then we will not have to guess. Then it will not be necessary for these things to be stated in vague terms. Then we will have something tangible in front of us.

But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also speaks very vaguely about the “third stage” about which he will negotiate during the second stage, and that is the stage which will actually bring us to the federation. Now, it goes without saying that in any country in which the current system is a federal one, and in which to a greater or lesser extent there are sub-autonomous bodies in the provinces or regions, there has to be an allocation of power between the federation on the one hand and the provinces or other bodies on the other. I have been hearing about this federation from the hon. member for many years, but I have never yet heard him making any attempt to say what powers will be delegated to the federation. After all, one cannot play around with the idea of a federation for such a long time without having it clear in one’s mind what the powers are which that federation should have. Not only the non-Whites, but also the Whites of South Africa would be particularly interested to know what powers that eventual federal government would have. What power would it have in its hands to decide on the fate of inter alia the Whites? But what is even more important than this power aspect— and in this respect we have not yet heard anything from the hon. the Leader either —is what he has in mind in regard to the composition of that federation. According to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition there has to be an overall federal Parliament. We have now heard that in the interim stage the usual Whites, who are now sitting here, will still be sitting here, plus the 16 non-White representatives. But the prospect of an overall Parliament is being held out to us, and I should like to know from him—I think he owes this House a reply—what the racial composition of that race federation will be. To how many White representatives will the Whites be entitled; to how many representatives will the Coloured people be entitled, and to how many representatives will the Bantu and the Indians be entitled? For this will be the super-Parliament which will have the final say over everyone. This will be the super-Parliament which will have the greatest authority and the greatest power. I do not think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should allow us to remain in the dark any longer in respect of this fundamentally important matter. I should very much like to hear what he has to say in that regard.

Sir, I notice here, according to my notes, that the hon. member for Hillbrow once again levelled the approach that our school system is what it is. When he spoke about national unity he once again levelled this reproach at us. I now want to tell him once again—and I want to say this to him with particular reference to the candidate in Brakpan—that it surprises me how frequently leaders of the United Party voice opinions in regard to this matter and how piously they discuss it, but when one comes to deeds, one finds exactly the opposite. Recently we heard the same story again from the United Party candidate in Brakpan. It so happens that Brakpan is a town which I know very well, and happen to know that there is a parallel-medium school in Brakpan for those parents who want their children, Afrikaans and English speaking, to attend school together. I would have expected the United Party candidate, who, together with the hon. member for Hillbrow, advocates parallel-medium schools so earnestly, to have sent his child to that school, but one does not find that happening. He boasts of being a super-Afrikaans-speaking person, but his child is attending an English medium school, not even a parallel-medium school. He has every right to send his child to whichever school he wishes, and I am saying nothing about that, but, Sir, why should we profess to advocate parallel-medium schools and charge the Government with not seeing to this matter, although it does do so, and then refrain from sending our children to those parallel-medium schools? It so happens that I know what I am talking about here. When I was living in Brakpan my eldest child attended a parallel-medium school. Do you know, Sir, that that school subsequently became a single-medium school because the English-speaking parents took their children out of that school and sent them to single-medium English schools? In my own constituency, Nigel, there was for many years a parallel-medium high school for English and Afrikaans speaking children, and the English parents—and they have every right to do so and I am in no way condemning their doing so—came to my provincial councillor and to me and said, “We want you please to make arrangements with the province so that we may have our own single-medium English school.” I expressed their wishes. We submitted their case to the provincial authorities and today, at their request, there are two schools in Nigel— a single-medium Afrikaans school and a single-medium English high school. Why do we profess one thing and then do something else? I have an intimate knowledge of the Transvaal, and I can state that there are hundreds of parallel-medium schools which are indicated on the books as being parallel-medium schools. [Interjections.] No, these are not merely little farm schools; these are high schools and big schools which are indicated on the books as parallel-medium schools, but are in fact Afrikaans-medium schools because the English parents prefer to send their children to English-medium schools. That is, after all, the practice. Why do we profess something we know our people do not want? Surely we achieve nothing whatsoever by doing that.

The hon. member for Johannesburg-North discussed the matter of the urban Bantu with me. I just want to tell him that during the past recess I went out of my way to attend conferences with the urban Bantu, where they stated their needs and problems very candidly.

Were these elected or nominated boards?

No, they were representative of the urban Bantu from Soweto and all the different areas. These were the ordinary workers from the Witwatersrand and other Bantu residential areas.

Nominated or elected?

They form themselves into those boards. They elect their representatives, and we held talks with those representatives. I want to tell hon. members that I acquainted myself with the aspirations, wishes and problems of those people. It was not only I, but also the hon. the Minister concerned, the Deputy Minister and the department. I referred to this in a previous speech, and that matter may profitably be discussed again when the Minister’s Vote comes up for discussion. I just want to say that I am convinced that this way of doing things, this method of organization, is going to produce very great results for the urban Bantu. I have no doubt about that at all. As far as the political aspirations of the Bantu are concerned, I went away there feeling greatly encouraged that the urban Bantu can within that system find expression for any political aspirations they may have and that their cultural and other interests can be fully served with the system which is in operation at the present moment.

But in this House they will vote against you policy.

I shall come to the question of this House. In terms of the policy of the hon. members the Bantu will be represented here by Whites. Those Whites will come here in the knowledge— that is, if those hon. members should ever come into power—that this side of the House does not want them here. Surely they will know too, that this side of the House will avail itself of the very first opportunity of getting them out of here again. Surely that goes without saying.

But you can change your policy again.

Oh no, Sir, after all, I am not a member of the United Party. But this again indicates to me how oversensitive hon. members are in respect of this matter. My argument is that they will come here in the knowledge that they are unwelcome as far as this side of the House is concerned. This side of the House will do everything in its power to prevent their election. Do hon. members think for one moment that those people who will have been brought to this Parliament in that way, will vote for their own abolition by siding with this side of the House? Do hon. members think that for one moment? Surely they have no other option. For what other reason are they coming here? Surely they have absolutely no other option than to side with that side of the House, but what is more—and this is what Gen. Smuts warned against—those representatives will of course make use of their position, when the two sides are well-matched, to negotiate against the Government as much as possible. Whether the Government stands or falls is going to depend upon them.

Why?

If the two sides are more or less equal, it goes without saying that that side of the House will only be able to govern if these people support them. It also goes without saying that they will blackmail the government of the day, as groups of that kind have already done in Parliaments in other parts of the world. They will make their demands and you will have to comply with those demands, otherwise the Government would fall.

And if they support your policy?

But they will not do so, for my policy is not to have them here. Surely they will not vote for their own abolition? That is the most ridiculous argument ever advanced.

I again want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I would be pleased if he would furnish me with the replies to the questions I have put to him. The hon. member for Yeoville put certain questions to me. He quoted from the reply I gave in respect of the wage gap. My colleagues and I have already told him across the floor of the House what the policy of the Government is in respect of its own officials. That we have already stated. He then raised the question of those people who do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Government. Is it the policy of the United Party now, when it engages in such a penetrating dispute with me in regard to this matter, and must I conclude from that, that it wants this Government to intervene and prescribe to employers what they should pay their non-White workers?

Does the Wage Board not do that?

I am coming to the Wage Board. I dealt with this matter in that piece. The Wage Board has only one function, which is to determine a minimum wage. The Wage Board performs that function from time to time. But does the hon. member now want the Government to prescribe to employers how much more they must pay than that minimum wage?

But the Wage Board does not do that. The Wage Board only determines the minimum wage.

What do you want?

The hon. member is not satisfied with that now. The hon. member is not satisfied with the minimum wages determined by the Wage Board.

Are you satisfied?

He is accusing the Government of allowing them to be underpaid. That is in essence the accusation he is levelling at us. My hon. friend was quite right in pointing out to him— and he had my reply in front of him— that the Industrial Conciliation Act and the Wage Act prohibit a person from discriminating against any other person on the grounds of race or colour. This has been written into those laws, and what more does the hon. member now want in respect of that matter?

That does not narrow the gap.

But surely I have replied now …

But the whole point of my argument centred around the gap.

In the one case wages are negotiated, and in the other cases minimum wages are determined by independent boards and the employer. The employer can do one of two things now. He can pay only the negotiated wage, or only the minimum wage, or he can pay his employee more, according to what he is worth to him. That is all he can do. Must I now say to the employer, and how is one going to do this now, that what he is paying the employee—which in most cases, if not in all, is more than the minimum wage—is not enough and that he must pay his employees more than that, and that he must pay his Bantu in particular more, so that they receive more or less the same wages as the Whites? Surely it goes without saying that Whites are receiving more than the negotiated wage today, firstly because they are worth more to the employer, and secondly, because there is a scarcity factor as far as they are concerned.

But what about the spheres of employment which differ? Should not this be taken into account?

But the Industrial Conciliation Act has nothing to do with that. The Wage Act has even less to do with that. The Wage Act does not demarcate employment for races.

Now you are getting the right idea. Hear, hear!

If the hon. member feels so strongly about this matter, surely it is one of the matters which the hon. member can propose. Why does he not do so?

105—A.H.

I have done so.

He is at liberty to do so. I must make haste, for my time is almost up. The hon. member for Yeoville put other questions to me as well. He once again put a question to me in regard to the speech made by my hon. friend the Minister of Defence. I want to tell him that I made my standpoint in regard to this matter very clear. If he does not want to accept what I told him, it is his affair. I have nothing further to add to what I have already told him in that regard.

Now we know.

The hon. member asked me about a certain piece of gossip, a story which came to his attention. He did not tell me what story came to his attention. Consequently I am in the dark as far as this matter is concerned.

I referred specifically to the suspension of Mr. Gouws.

Yes, but I do not know what story the hon. member heard in this connection. I just want to inform the hon. member that when specific complaints were made in regard to this person, I immediately referred them to the Minister of Transport, and that he took the matter further. And that is all I can tell the hon. member in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to note that the hon. the Prime Minister is worried about certain subjects we did not raise under his Vote, but let me give him the assurance that we have several rods in pickle for his Ministers which will be discussed during the course of this session.

The Prime Miniter set out by asking me two questions and he suggested that I should arrange with members to deal by way of private motions and private Bills with those sorts of amendments we should like to see to legislation which is on the Statute Books. One can just see the hon. the Leader of the House giving time for a discussion of those old battles we have had in the past over section 6 of the Terrorism Act, over the unlimited powers without recourse to the courts given to Ministers in certain legislation, over the autonomy of the universities, over job reservation and a large number of other Acts! The hon. the Prime Minister has heard these set out before and so have members on the other side of the House.

Then, Sir, the hon. gentleman wished to know from me what the position will be at the third stage of the United Party’s race federation plan and what the allocation of powers will be between the Federal Government and its components. He has also wished to know what the representation will be in that federal parliament. I should have thought that I had made it very clear that in the second stage we create the machinery for consultation. Does he want me to anticipate the result of the consultation before consultation takes place?

I want to know what your ideas are.

The hon. gentleman wants to know what my ideas are. That is perfectly fair. A central parliament in which White leadership will be accepted and entrenched, a central parliament in which there will be defined representation for the various groups, which will not have regard to numbers, a federal constitution with entrenchments for the rights of various groups, individuals and perhaps geographical areas. The hon. gentleman is, of course, entitled to ask for any details he likes. He need not think that I am going to be led into those traps.

What will be the composition of the Federal Parliament?

That, Sir, will be decided as a result of consultation, but those will be the three characteristics of that parliament. Before it is put into operation, it will be submitted to the White electorate by way of a referendum. Even the hon. the Minister of Transport will probably be able to vote.

The hon. gentleman has obviously asked these questions because he wants to run away from a comparison between his policy and our policy in respect of the future of the White man and the future of this Republic in South Africa and its safety. The danger that he points to all the time, is the danger of 16 representatives in this House holding the balance of power and preventing a Nationalist Government from getting into power again. First of all, that shows a complete lack of confidence in his own policies or the possibility that they will ever attract support from non-Whites in South Africa, and—something much more serious—it shows a lack of confidence that the electorate will never by way of a referendum allow us to take a step here in South Africa which will mean the end of the White race or the end of proper constitutional government and law and order in South Africa. Sir, if you want to look at a policy that really brings danger into the centre of South Africa, a policy that can undermine law and order, and the future of civilized living here in South Africa, look at the policy of the Nationalist Party. Look at the independent states that can come under communist influence. Look at the sort of situation you can end up with if you have Peking, not in Zambia, but in Zululand; if you have your Russian communist influence not in Botswana, but in the Transkei. What does the hon. gentleman think he is doing, taking risks of this kind with the future of South Africa? The only thing that really worries hon. gentlemen on that side of the House is not the future of Western civilization here, it is not the future of the White race, it is not civilized government here and the maintenance of law and order, the only thing that worries them is that they believe that there will be less chance for the Nationalist Party to get back into power and stay in power. I do not blame them having those worries after their record since they came into power. Look at what they did to ensure that they could stay in power over the years by removing the rights of other people one by one from this Parliament always with the excuse that it was going to be a White Parliament which was going to protect the interests of civilized government in South Africa. It is just this Parliament that is creating the greatest dangers with which South Africa has ever been faced.

I want to go on, because I am by no means satisfied with the replies of the hon. gentleman in respect of the urban Bantu. I believe that this is the flashpoint in South Africa today. As the hon. gentleman knows, we have been trying for several sessions to bring this matter to a discussion with the relevant Ministers, and they have always postponed it for another time. They always deal with something else. Never do we get down to the real centre of the thing …

You have never replied to my speeches.

We never get down to the real guts of the debate which is the dangers of the position of the urban Bantu under the policy of this Government at the present time.

Nor have we had any satisfactory reply from the hon. the Prime Minister on the question of the Coloured people in South Africa. Are we really going forward again, for another year, on the sort of basis that the Coloureds have a semi-representative council with no say in the Government which controls their destiny, with no proper planning done for their training to increase their productivity and with no socio-economic schemes of upliftment? Can we really go ahead in this way? Has the time not come for the hon. gentlemen to look reality in the face once more and to realize that the one thing which will protect us against Communist propaganda in this country is rising living standards, living standards that rise faster in South Africa than in other parts of the world? What plans are there really for the training of Whites and non-Whites; for Whites to take a bigger responsibility and for the non-Whites to take their place? We have heard a little talk about training of Bantu in the homelands to do certain work which apparently they are only going to do in the homelands, but we are sitting with a labour force that needs training now. We are sitting with a shortage of skilled labour in South Africa at the present time. Our rate of growth is falling behind the growth rate of the countries of the Western World. There is a backlog in living standards. Instead of our catching up and moving forward as a young country should be doing, we are falling further behind because of the lack of foresight, because of the prejudice and because of the inability which this Government is evincing at the present time to face up to the problems of this country. We have raised this question of the wage gap and pointed to the difficulties. What do we hear? We hear a lot of technical stuff, about Wage Boards and about industrial conciliation agreements. That is not the answer. The answer is : What example is the Government going to set to the private industrialists throughout South Africa to close that gap? What did we get from the Government? The gap is bigger than it was when they took over 24 years ago. It has become bigger and bigger and that is why we ask these questions. We ask them in the interests of South Africa because we want satisfied workers, workers who are proof against Communist propaganda and workers who are going to maintain civilized government here in South Africa.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 5.—“Transport,” R55 081 000, Loan Vote L.—“Transport,” R2 947 000, and S.W.A. Vote No. L— “Transport,” R3 268 000 :

Mr. Chairman, I have to confess that this Vote comes on about 24 hours before I expected it to do so.

Wrong notes.

I shall therefore be decent enough to move—

It is not necessary, but I shall appreciate it.

Motion put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.