Mr. Chairman, I am rising to reply to the plea advanced on Friday by the main speaker on the Opposition side, the hon. member for Yeoville, to the effect that Bantu workers should be given affiliated trade union rights. He discussed this matter on Friday, and his exact words were as follows—

This plea was preceded by a question which the hon. member for Wynberg put on 21st March, of this year, viz. whether I “intended taking steps to grant collective bargaining rights to skilled and semi-skilled Bantu workers; if so, on what basis? ”

Now she has to keep quiet!

No, I hope she is not going to keep quiet, for there are a few questions the hon. member must reply to today. She must not remain silent today. To this question I replied as follows—

My reply was then criticized by various English-language newspapers, and by the hon. member for Wynberg as well. She commented on my reply in an interview which she granted to the Argus. The report, in the Argus of 22nd March, 1972, read as follows—

At the outset I want to say that it is clear that the United Party have given considerable thought to this matter. The fact that the hon. member asked such a question and granted such an interview, and also that the hon. member for Yeoville advanced this plea to which I have now referred, one takes as a sign that the United Party have given considerable attention to this matter. Perhaps I should mention at the outset that this is not the very first time it is being advocated that Bantu workers should be incorporated with registered trade unions in the way in which the hon. member for Yeoville advocated. The leftist Tucsa began to advance this plea years ago. When I stated years ago at Geduld, on behalf of the Government, that we would neither recognize Bantu trade unions, nor allow the organization of Bantu workers in a trade union context, Tucsa changed its tactics completely. This was after that Government statement. Tucsa then began with these tactics to which the hon. member for Yeoville referred, tactics aimed at getting the Bantu workers incorporated in this way. Since the trend is now for the United Party to take over the Tucsa plan I think it has become necessary for us to consider precisely what it is going to mean for South Africa if we are going to have affiliated Bantu membership of our trade unions. It has become necessary, because we have fortunately reached the stage in our politics where we are contrasting policy with policy, and also comparing the effects of those policies, to consider this policy and its effects very carefully. As far as the National Party policy in regard to Bantu workers is concerned, it is our conviction that the organization of Bantu workers is neither in the interests of South Africa, nor in the interests of improving their own wage position, nor in the interests of promoting race relations. Our own experience in the past, which extends over a period of 30 to 40 years, and the experience elsewhere in Africa, confirm this standpoint of the National Party. But, because the Government realizes that it is necessary and desirable to act fairly towards our Bantu workers, and that they should receive fair remuneration, the Government has taken steps to establish machinery for the settlement of disputes, in terms of which a Bantu Labour Board and workers’ committees were established, and Bantu officials appointed, to do this work. It is true that in terms of this Act to which I am referring Bantu workers may not strike, a piece of information which the hon. member for Houghton is forever imparting, especially to overseas visitors. It is true that in terms of this Act they may not strike. The hon. member pays regular visits to foreign countries, where she elaborates on South Africa.

I tell the truth, as you have just said.

I wonder whether she, when next an opportunity arises, would perhaps mention the few points which I am now going to tabulate. I wonder whether she would include these in her conversation as well. When next an opportunity arises for her of talking to those who take a critical interest, or perhaps just an interest, would she tell them that apart from the Bantu workers who may not strike, there are tens of thousands of White workers in South Africa who may not strike? I hope that she will have an opportunity of telling them that there are 188 000 White Public Servants who may not strike either. Perhaps she could at the same time tell them: “Do you know that there are 112 000 White railwaymen who may not strike” and then she can come to what is my domain and say, “Do you know that there are 35 000 White Post Office officials who may not strike?” For the sake of fairness, she ought to tell them this. But the hon. member’s problem is that she is so obsessed with conjuring up a terrifying picture of South Africa that these facts do not fit in with that picture. If the hon. member wants to be fair to South Africa and fair to the facts and the truth of the matter, she will tell them precisely what I have now tabulated here; she will tell them that not only are Public Servants prohibited from striking, but that employees of local authorities may not strike either. It is not only those people associated with, essential services who may not strike. No one in the employ of a city council may strike; that is the law of this country. Why does the hon. member never impart this information to those critical people?

Because they are organized, and the Bantu are not.

No, she concentrates only on the Bantu in order to conjure up this terrifying image of South Africa. But in spite oil this fact that it is not only the poor Blacks who may not strike, but tens of thousands of Whites as well, the wages of the Blacks have gradually increased in South Africa. The Bantu Labour Board, this despised board, is in fact the body which has to a very large extent been responsible for phenomenal wage increases having taken place during the past number of years. On Friday I furnished certain particulars here, and I now want to furnish other supplementary particulars in this connection here. In the past three years alone wage increases to an amount of R23 million have been granted to 626 000 Bantu workers in this country through the instrumentality of the Bantu Labour Board. This happened as a result of the efforts of this Bantu Labour Board which acted on behalf of these Bantu workers and pleaded their cause to industrial councils and conciliation boards. These 626 000 Bantu who benefited from this, do not even include those Bantu workers who are covered in terms of wage determinations. At present we have 76 wage determinations, covering 481 000 workers, and those 481 000 workers covered by wage determinations, are primarily Bantu workers. But in spite of this, Sir, the Government is still being presented in an unfavourable light. But let me say this to the hon. member and to other hon. members on that side who are not satisfied with this system: Despite this criticism, the existing wage machinery, the existing machinery for the settlement of disputes, have led to our having a very satisfactory situation in our entire labour corps in South Africa. But the United Party now wants to effect a change in this regard. The United Party now wants affiliated trade union rights for the Bantu. I want to ask the United Party today whether they realize what a dangerous game they are playing. I wonder whether the United Party fully realizes what a dangerous game they are playing in South Africa with this plea advanced by their chief spokesman, supported by the hon. member for Wynberg. This United Party plea means only one thing, which is that the Bantu workers will be able to compel compliance with their demands by means of legalized strikes. That is precisely what it will mean; they will be able to enforce compliance with their demands by means of legalized strikes, and it is with a view to the dangers which something like this constitutes to South Africa, with its particular ethnic structure, that we in South Africa—specifically this Government—have arranged that Bantu trade unions will receive no recognition, because we believe that Bantu trade unions will bring about no real improvement for these people.

May I ask a question?

The hon. member will have ample opportunity to speak; I want to present this matter in its entirety. This Government has adopted the standpoint that as a result of these dangers, the recognition of Bantu trade unions in South Africa is not justified; in fact, that it constitutes a danger to South Africa because it will endanger labour peace. The Bantu workers receive their real benefits in the way I have just set out here. Sir, let me say this to hon. members on the opposite side who are so critical of the present machinery: What your Bantu worker really wants is that personal assistance should be given to him if he has to cope with some problem or other in his place of employment. Those personal problems of the Bantu worker, and his grievances, are being solved for him by our Bantu labour officials. There is abundant proof of the confidence which the Bantu workers have in the existing machinery. Only recently we heard that even in the Transkei, on Government level, very appreciative mention was made of the results which are being achieved, as a result of the intercession, under the existing machinery, of our labour officials on behalf of Bantu workers working here in the urban areas. It happens frequently, when they return to their homeland, that they give their people there the name of a Bantu labour official in South Africa with whom they can liaise here in South Africa. But the United Party and the Progressive Party and Tucsa are not satisfied with this system which is producing these satisfactory arrangements. The hon. member for Yeoville is now advocating that the Bantu workers should be incorporated into the existing registered trade unions. The fact that the hon. member for Houghton congratulated the hon. member for Yeoville so sincerely on Friday on the progress he and the United Party are at last making towards the recognition of Bantu trade unions, surely indicates to one what the end result of this policy of the United Party would be. Of course, the United Party does not have the courage to state openly in this House and at this juncture that they stand for the recognition of Bantu trade unions. No, they do not have the courage to do that at the moment. Now that they have written off the “deep platte-land”, they have to concentrate on the 83 urban constituencies, and that is why a different plan had to be devised for carrying out this policy of theirs, and this plan of theirs can only be carried out by bringing Bantu workers into our trade unions through the back door. But if there is one sector in our country which will be particularly affected by bringing Bantu workers into our trade unions through the back door, then that sector is in fact our urban workers; then it is in fact our urban constituencies. For, Sir, how is this bringing in of Bantu workers as affiliated members going to work, and how is it going to affect the urban White worker in future if that plain should be carried out? Will these Bantu workers, whom the United Party wants as affiliated members of the existing trade unions, simply pay their subscriptions, and desire or ask nothing further of those trade unions? No, Sir, they will not simply pay their subscriptions. Do hon. members on that side of the House think that the Bantu workers are going to feel so flattered at being only affiliated members that they are going to ask nothing further of the employers or of the Government? No, that is why the hon. member for Yeoville said, as I quoted here, that the Bantu workers who have been affiliated and the White workers will speak with one voice. I would be pleased if the hon. member for Wynberg, who is present here, would tell me whether her reference to “semi-skilled workers”, related to semi-skilled Bantu workers; whether they should also have the right to participate in collective bargaining? Did I understand the hon. member correctly? Perhaps I should just read this report again—

Is the hon. member advocating that semiskilled Bantu workers should have the right to collective bargaining?

I said nothing about semi-skilled workers.

Sir, I have the question here which the hon. member put to me; the question reads as follows—

That is the question which the hon. member herself put to me, and it was with reference to this that the newspaper wrote—

That was the essence of the hon. member’s question. She asked whether skilled or semiskilled Bantu workers could have the right to collective bargaining. Now that I have read the hon. member’s question to her, does she accept that she put the question in that way?

Mr. Chairman, I must say that this type of ban which the hon. Chief Whip of the Opposition has now imposed on his members in this House really makes debating in this House rather difficult. This ban leads to members not being able to confirm now that they asked this type of question, the question which I read out to you now. She may not even say that she asked the question. This is really a kind of “zipping” which is detrimental to good debating in such a place as this. [Interjections.] The question which the hon. member for Wynberg put, and which she may not even confirm having put, dealt with semi-skilled workers. On Friday I mentioned in this debate that there are 290 000 semi-skilled Bantu operators in the country, but do you know that as against these 290 000 semiskilled Bantu operators, there are only 76 000 semi-skilled White operators? Is it the intention now that these 290 000 workers should also have collective bargaining, as the hon. member stated the question, and as her own newspaper took it amiss of me for not wanting to grant? Of course this is the only logical and honest conclusion which may be drawn. But before I proceed to the question of precisely what effect this is going to have on the White workers, I just want to refer first to the aspect of what the effect of such affiliation is going to be on the existing White trade unions in South Africa. I wonder whether the United Party could perhaps—I mean those who have not been “zipped” —furnish us with a reply to the question of how the United Party, with this affiliation policy of theirs, is going to prevent the predominant number of Bantu workers getting the upper hand in those trade unions. I see the hon. member for Hillbrow over there. He does not look as if he has been “zipped”. He can tell us how the United Party is going to prevent these White trade unions from being inundated by these Bantu who will now, as the hon. member for Yeoville says, at the outset gain access as affiliated members. But you know, Sir, this conclusion is quite consistent with the history of the United Party, for there was a time when the United Party arranged, in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act, that Bantu could serve on the conciliation boards. They could serve on the reconciliation boards, and it was this Government that came with legislation in 1959 and deprived those Bantu of that right which existed under the United Party, viz. that they could serve on reconciliation boards. Therefore I want to put it today that in terms of this affiliation policy of the United Party, it is fully consistent with the history and with the conduct of the United Party that they will again place Bantu workers on industrial councils to confer together and decide together not only on Bantu wages, but also White wages. One must then ask oneself on what basis that must take place. On what basis must this conferring together and deciding together, this one voice which the hon. member for Yeoville spoke of, take place now? Must it take place on the basis of their much-vaunted “equal pay for equal work” slogan? I assume so. It will probably take place in terms of the United Party’s principle of equal pay, in regard to which we are forever hearing what a panacea this is. And how is this going to be applied in the trade unions now? How is this principle, where these affiliated Bantu workers speak with one voice, going to be applied? I should like to know whether it is going to be applied as Mr. Harry Oppenheimer is now applying it at Highveld Steel, as I mentioned the other day. Is it going to be applied in this way, as it is being done at Highveld Steel, where the Bantu workers who do the same skilled work receive approximately 48 cents per hour less, or are they going to apply it as the United Party apply it in general, as in the Johannesburg City Council, where they say that they cannot apply equal pay there because it would cost too much to increase the wages of the Bantu? No, do you know what the actual result is going to be? Do hon. members know what the result of this attitude is going to be? It will correspond to their behaviour in the Johannesburg City Council, where they hand out the sheets, but where Mr. Oberholzer then says he cannot apply the equal pay principle of the United Party for it would cost too much. Do you know what the ultimate result is going to be? It will be that the wage level of the Whites will drop. [Interjections.] The White wage level will be dragged down. I want to adduce proof of this. [Interjections.]

Order!

I shall be pleased if the hon. members could confirm for us the following untruth. This principle of equal pay has always been applied here in the Cape in the furniture industry, the building industry and the clothing industry. Here the principle of equal pay has already been applied from the earliest times. With what results? This equal pay which has been applied in these industries in the Cape was applied on such a low level that it dragged down the wage level of the Whites to such an extent that the Whites with their higher standard of living were simply unable to remain here, and that is the principal reason why the Whites here in the Cape left the building industry, the clothing industry and the furniture industry. [Interjections.] That is precisely how this equal pay of the United Party will work if its affiliation policy is applied. It is on the basis of this experience which we have had of the application of equal pay that I state it as my conviction that the effect of this principle of the United Party of affiliated Bantu membership will result in one thing, viz. that the remaining Whites will leave the manufacturing industry.

What does Tucsa say?

This U.P./Tucsa attempt, in terms of which they want to allow the Bantu worker to come in through the back door, is of course completely in line with the United Party policy of bringing a non-White bloc into this Parliament. There is only one difference and it is that the 16 non-White members will come walking into this Parliament through those swing-doors, while the United Party wants to let hundreds of thousands of Bantu workers into the trade unions through the back door. That is the only difference, but in principle it is precisely the same. This confirms precisely what one of the left-wing trade union leaders said some time ago when he said that the man who will in future control the Bantu trade union members, will be the most powerful man in South Africa. As this bloc of 16 will rule this Parliament, so the admission of these Bantu workers, coming in through the back door, could dictate to and paralyse industry in this country. [Interjections.]

Order!

I ask the United Party to tell us categorically in what way this policy of affiliation will not present these dangers to South Africa, and in what way these can be prevented. I am asking them now, those who have not been “zipped”, to rise to their feet …

They have all been “zipped”.

They must tell us how this policy of affiliation will not present these dangers to South Africa. This is one of the most vitally important matters for South Africa. This is one of the most vitally important things, and I think this country and the White worker are entitled to an unambiguous explanation from the United Party as to precisely how its policy of affiliate Bantu workers in South Africa is going to work.

Mr. Chairman, of course it is very difficult, when the hon. the Minister makes this kind of pre-Brakpan speech … [Interjections.] Of course we have known for a long time now that this hon. Minister—we know him well,—always asks questions, but never reacts to questions from this side. We have quite a number of questions which I want to put to him, and I should like to return to his policy. Before doing so I just want to say that the hon. gentleman kicked up a big fuss here and said that the existing legislation assured the Bantu of all their rights. The best evidence we have in this regard is from Mr. Liebenberg, who was the head of one of our biggest trade unions, and who recently retired. The hon. the Minister of Transport knows him well. When he retired he said that the existing legislation which was supposed to look after the rights of the Bantu was completely ineffective and that it should be abolished … [Interjections.] Why did he not tell us that? If this legislation is so successful, why does that enormous wage gap exist, although the hon. the Prime Minister tells us that it has been the policy of his Party since 1948 to close it? He also told us that the wages of the Whites had increased fourfold since 1948, and that of the non-Whites threefold. Surely on that basis the wage gap is widening, and what protection does this then afford the non-Whites? The hon. the Minister referred to the Johannesburg City Council, which has to work within the limits of Government legislation. When he quotes statistics of that kind, why does he not talk about the Government itself, in other words, the Central Government which had to sound the keynote? In 1970 the average earnings of White workers in the Central Government were R282 per month, and for Bantu R44 per month. This means that the income of the Bantu is one-seventh of what the Whites are receiving. He feels proud of that. He says that the present legislation is completely adequate. If this kind of thing happens, what becomes of the Government policy of apartheid with equality? Where is this equality then if the Government itself pays its Bantu workers only one-seventh of what Whites are receiving? Then the hon. the Minister became so afraid of our policy in which we say that Bantu workers should be organized on the basis of affiliation. I do not know of one responsible trade union leader in this entire country who does not accept that the Bantu workers should be organized. If we do not accept this then compare the danger of that with the dangers of the Government’s policy. After all, the Government is now going to establish independent Bantu homelands. What is going to happen when those Bantu homelands become independent. Each one is going to establish its own trade unions, and the trade unions are going to function from within their own homelands. What becomes of the White workers then, who comprise 20 per cent of our total workers’ group? I would much prefer to have Bantu workers on this basis, where they are in affiliation with our own trade unions, then we can exercise control over them. If they are independent in the homelands, what is going to happen then? Every industrial problem which arises will be taken to the United Nations as a dispute between states.

The hon. the Minister said that we want to allow non-Whites to enter through the back door. What is happening in terms of the Government’s own policy in the so-called border areas? There they are simply being allowed to stream in, and according to his own White Paper I want to show him how he wants to undermine the Whites. He said—

He then threatened them even further, and said—

If there is one form of undermining of the Whites’ position, then it is this. He tells us nothing about this. Let us take a look at the Government’s policy here, for he wants so much to get away from it. If we examine what the hon. the Minister has told us over the years there are always two aspects which emerge. The first is that the matter has to be well ordered—apparently it makes no difference what you do, as long as it is done in an orderly fashion. The second aspect is that he is always saying that we want to open the floodgates. Apparently it is this side of the House, the businessmen and the Press that want to open the floodgates. Now we see a policy for the Government and a policy for the rest of South Africa. If the Government, the Railways and the Post Office brings non-Whites in to do work previously done by Whites, this is well ordered, but if the rest of South Africa wants to do this, it is not well ordered. If the Railways and that hon. Minister want to bring people to do this kind of work, we do not hear a word about the floodgates being opened. But if the rest of South Africa wants to do it, it means that the floodgates will be opened. If the Government and these hon. Ministers bring non-Whites in to do this work, it is in the national interests, but when the rest of South Africa wants to do it, it is economic integration and then it should be condemned. Where do we stand? How can it go on like this? The Government has a policy for itself, and the rest of South Africa must follow an entirely different pattern.

But now we go further: What is the general approach of this Government to labour matters? We find it in its two slogans. The first is: Poor but White. If this policy is going to be implemented and carried to its logical conclusion all Whites in South Africa are going to become poor Whites. The second concept is of course the concept of apartheid with equality. I should like to consider that in a little greater detail. If a government has such a policy surely it has to establish certain mechanisms in order to put it into operation. The first mechanism is work reservation. The hon. the Minister once said that that was a cornerstone of its policy; it would be changed over his dead body. But then he suddenly became just a little verlig. If one is verlig, one cannot really speak of work reservation. But then came Oudtshoorn of course, and the cloak of verligtheid fell away. Now it is a completely different approach, with a touch of Black peril added, as we saw again today. This is another hobby-horse which the hon. the Minister has saddled, one on which he is of course far more at home.

Let us consider this work reservation. Recently the hon. the Minister was challenged by the trade unions to apply it. He then got the fright of his life and said that it was irresponsible to ask him to do so. “Where will I find the Whites to fill these positions, and what must I do with the non-Whites who have been exempted in this way?” Have you ever heard of a government which has a policy, and when it is asked to apply its policy, says that it is irresponsible to ask it to do so? According to the hon. the Minister’s own figures only 3 per cent of work categories are covered by reservation today, for there are so many exemptions. Now I ask what protection this affords the White group if less than 3 per cent of them are affected by it? This is merely a marginal kind of protection. No, what he is doing is to place an artificial damper on the development of the non-Whites, but he affords the Whites no real protection whatsoever.

But let us consider the question of his apartheid with equality. The apartheid is of course a sham, but as far as the equality is concerned, as I have in fact indicated, who is there sitting on that side of the House who can say when there is such a wage gap that there is equality? We are told repeatedly about apartheid with equality. It is a sham; no equality exists. But as far as apartheid itself is concerned, the hon. the Minister speaks of opening the floodgates, yet since this Government came into power, the number of White workers in the construction sector of our industry decreased from 25 per cent to 15 per cent. In the manufacturing sector this decreased from 35 per cent to about 22 per cent. Now he is talking of opening the floodgates, but the dam has already been drained dry. Today there are important sectors in South Africa where the White group comprises only 10 per cent of the total labour force. Then he talks about opening the floodgates! What this Government is doing with its policy—and this is the theme I should like to develop—is to place a damper on the development of the non-Whites while giving the Whites only a form of sham protection.

Mr. Chairman, this Government is continually posing as the champion of the White workers. What I want to try to show is that this Government is systematically undermining the very security of the White workers in South Africa. It is doing this is many different ways. In the first instance, by keeping White workers in jobs which could quite adequately be done by non-White workers. He is in fact pegging the advancement of the White workers and he is restricting their earning rate. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is my unpleasant duty to follow up on what the hon. member for Hillbrow said …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the words “unpleasant duty”.

I withdraw them, Mr. Chairman. We listened here to the flowing words of the hon. member for Hillbrow and to the tactful way in which he evaded the direct questions of the hon. the Minister. Neither did he reply to the representations made by the hon. member for Yeoville. And he did not reply to the representations and the questions of the hon. member for Wynberg either. In a very tactful political way he evaded all the questions put to him. Today we on this side of the House and the workers of South Africa want to know from hon. members opposite what their policy is. The workers of South Africa want to know where they stand with the policy of the United Party if it is their desire to give the Bantu and other non-White groups the right to establish their own trade unions. This is something the White workers of South Africa must take note of. We are now specifically faced with another election in Brakpan, and I should like to ask the workers of Brakpan to take note of this; they must take note of the United Party’s policy. We cannot accept it. Why did the hon. member for Hillbrow not reply to these questions of the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member for Yeoville asked these questions, and we want to know where we stand. Any hon. member on that side, who is still going to speak, must tell us what precisely they mean. In this respect, like the hon. the Minister, I also want to quote what the hon. member for Yeoville said, i.e.: “We believe that it would be much better if our Black workers in South Africa could be encouraged, and if our trade unions could be encouraged, to come together and accept the Black workers, at the outset perhaps as affiliated members. They can have their own organizations, but they must be affiliated to the White trade unions.” We surely know what dangers that embodies. We also know that since 1922 the workers of South Africa have been fighting against this. The workers of the Republic of South Africa were the ones who put Gen. Hertzog in power in 1924 because they clashed with the policy of the South African Party of that time. And surely the workers of South Africa were the ones who put the National Party in power in 1948. I should now like to quote what the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education quoted from the Sunday Tribune on a previous occasion, just after the Brakpan election result. I want to ask members of the U.P. if this will be one of the laws they are going to burn if they come into power. As you may know, according to the newspaper report the United Party is going to burn many laws, which the National Party made, when it comes into power, so many, in fact, as to cause air pollution in Pretoria and Cape Town. After all, that is how many laws the United Party wants to burn! I quote from Hansard, col. 5242, of 18th April, 1972, where the Deputy Minister quotes the newspaper report as follows: “South Africa will never be the same after Brakpan. February, 23rd, will go down in history.” Why did they make these statements? Now they are as silent as the grave, because they will not reply. They have no answer either, because they cannot tell the White workers of South Africa what their policy is. The workers of South Africa will never renew their insurance policies with the United Party; they would be foolish to do so. The person goes on to state—

This is surely one of the ways of life they want to change by this legislation, this is what these people and the hon. members for Yeoville and Wynberg are advocating. One of the ways of life they want to change is not only the way of life of South Africans as workers, but also of South Africans as the White race of this country. Why did the hon. member for Hillbrow not reply to that question? No, Sir, the person continues by stating—

I want the workers of Brakpan to take note of the fact, when they go to the polls on the 17th, that that legislation, which we have placed on the statute books since 1948, will be burnt in the cities of Pretoria and Cape Town.

[Inaudible.]

Oh, Sir, leastways I do see my old friend, the hon. member for East London City, beginning to feel the blows when they are dished out.

We come back again, for a moment, to the hon. member for Wynberg. Unfortunately she is not here. I do not know whether she has been so completely silenced that in fact she has to leave the House when we are discussing this Vote.

Arthur!

Yes, I should like to know from the Chief Whip of the United Party where this member is. Where is this front-bencher who lodges such pleas as these for equalization? If the hon. members who speak after me reply to the Minister, do let them have the courage of their convictions to answer the questions the Minister put to them. The workers of South Africa also demand of them, as Opposition members, to say what they would do if they were ever to come into power.

Sir, my time is limited, and I just want to thank the Minister. [Laughter.] Now they are laughing, because they do not know the words “thank you”. But we shall say “no” to them again on the 17th in Brakpan. I just want to say thank you to him in consequence of the discussions he held with the gold producers committee so that the 31st May is now a fully-fledged and statutory holiday for the mine-workers. I want to tell him, and the Minister of Mines, that I am glad that with their cooperation this day has now been obtained as a fully-fledged statutory holiday for the mine-worker. On behalf of the Mine Workers’ Union, although the mining group’s name is not mentioned here, I want to tell them that we join them in delighting at the fact that the mine-workers may also go along to celebrate on this day, because it is a day for celebration. I want to tell the mine-workers again, because I am one of them: Vote National on 17th May, because you can never take out your policy with the United Party.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is really concerned about this question of affiliated membership. I just want to say to him that for years, in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act, Coloureds and Indians were members of the trade unions. I know of no difficulty at all. Why is he all of a sudden so concerned about other groups of non-Whites? Surely, there is nobody in this House who is trying to suggest that the Black people should be completely unorganized. This runs counter to what is developing throughout the world. Surely we are not as backward as that? If I were a member of a White trade union organization, I would much rather have the Bantu having affiliated membership of my union than have independent Black unions operating from independent Black states, representing 80 per cent of the workers of South Africa, because what bargaining power would they have left? They will be completely excluded from the whole conciliation procedure.

But I want to continue where I left off. This is the charge we level at the hon. the Minister: With the policies of the Government he is systematically undermining the future security of the White worker. I have shown how they do this by pegging them to lowly paid jobs. As a result of the artificial shortage of workers that they have created we have inflation. This means that White workers are paid more and more, but if you take into account the lower buying power and value of the rand, if you take into account that our national income has increased ten times since this Government has come into power, and if you allow for the fact that workers after all expect an increase in their living standards, then you will find that White workers today, whatever their additional earnings may be, are having those higher earnings eroded away by higher living costs and that the White worker today is in fact infinitely worse off than he was in 1948. Because the Government is also creating an artificial shortage of workers, our White workers are forced to work overtime, on a scale that probably does not apply anywhere else. Mr. Tom Murray has indicated that White workers here work up to 20 hours overtime per week. That means that one man giving that kind of overtime does a full year’s work in six-tenths of the year. This Government is undermining the position of the While workers because they are bringing the non-Whites into the border areas, and the border areas are not Black homelands; they are part of White South Africa. Are Rosslyn and Brits not parts of White South Africa? In these areas much of the industrial conciliation machinery does not exist, so this is the back door this Minister is using on a massive scale. Once they are there and once there are no occupational opportunities for them, they will spill over into the other areas. This Minister speaks so much of protecting the position of the White worker, as an indication of what the Government is doing, I have here an advertisement placed by the Department of Water Affairs. It is not some unscrupulous industrialist, but his own colleague sitting on those Ministerial benches who placed this advertisement. What is the Department of Water Affairs advertising for? It is an advertisement for workers on the Fish/Sundays River Canal, and they say—

We want to know from this Minister, who always asks these questions: Was this done in consultation with his department? Is he party to it? Does he agree with his own colleague, the Minister of Water Affairs, that Bantu people should be used as plasterers, electricians and mechanics, qualified or unqualified?

Sir, he is also busy undermining the position of the trade unions, because it is now being decreed that in the Black homelands the Minister of Bantu Affairs will take over the training of the Black people. We want to know from the hon. the Minister: Will the trade unions play a role in this training? Who will train them? What control will the trade unions have in this regard? You see, Sir, the Industrial Conciliation Act, which the Minister tells us at every conceivable opportunity is the finest piece of legislation in the world, is suspended in the Bantu homelands. If it is such a good piece of legislation, why should it not apply to the homelands? Is is too good for them? Will the hon. the

Minister answer that question for us? Sir, this hon. Minister has capitulated as Minister of Labour, because it has now been agreed that all Black people will not fall under his department; they will be controlled by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration. This means that this Minister is no longer Minister of Labour. He is only Minister of Labour as regards a tiny segment of the work force, because the vast bulk of it is completely excluded from his jurisdiction.

He is undermining the White workers and consistently undermining the White trade unions with his border area schemes, and we want to ask him some questions on that score too. How many concessions have been granted for the border areas? This, we must remember, is Government policy. Ultimately nearly all industrial activity will take place in the border areas. How many concessions have been granted? What jobs are involved here? How many people are affected? What control will he have? Sir, he becomes worried about things like influx control, but what controls will he have over the border areas? In fact, they are the sluice gates and they are wide open; the Government wants them to come in. What procedure, what machinery, does he have to control all this?

Sir, he is also undermining South Africa’s position, and thereby undermining the position of the White workers. It is because of this Government’s labour policy that our growth rate in per capita terms over the last ten years was 2,4 per cent. It is a disgrace in a country like South Africa with its immense potential, that our living standards should grow at a much slower rate than is the case elsewhere in the world.

But, Sir, he has also undermined productivity in this country. From 1960 to 1970 wages in South Africa were increased by 6,7 per cent, whereas productivity increased by only 2,5 per cent. When you have this procedure whereby unskilled people are thrown into work positions on a migratory basis, can one be surprised at these figures? I find that the Minister’s colleague, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, recently made the following comment: “This drop in productivity is most unhappy and alarming”. Of course it is alarming, but who should be blamed? His colleague who sits there next to him.

This Government’s policy is also inhibiting domestic capital formation. Right at the present time in South Africa remuneration of labour accounts for 60 per cent of our gross domestic product. So, with more and more money going into labour, and less and less money being available for investment, South Africa is becoming dependent on foreign risk capital. This is a Government that tells us that they put South Africa first. Yet, by following this particular procedure, we are being put in a position where we become dependent on money coming in from the outside world. The Government is making us completely uncompetitive, because labour costs per unit of production are increasing alarmingly. In the period of the sixties, the labour costs in the construction industry more than doubled. Moreover, since this Government has come to power, from 1948, labour income has increased faster than the income from all other facets of production. We are being made entirely uncompetitive in the outside world, and that is why we have balance of payments problems and that is why our reserves are in such a mess.

Having told us for years that the Government has a labour policy, a policy it will stick to through thick and thin, what happened recently when the hon. the Minister of Finance spoke on this question? The Minister of Finance has now popped up as the chief Labour man on the Government side, because this Minister can only speak for about 20 per cent of our labour force. What was the labour policy the Minister of Finance announced for the Government? He said: “Within our basic social structure …” You will notice, Sir, that there is no mention of economic or political structure. He has forgotten about that; he has written it off. He says: “Within our basic social structure, the Government’s attitude towards labour problems remains flexible.” What does that mean, Sir? Is that not the biggest indictment of the Minister? It is now just flexible; you can do whatever you want. But he went on to elaborate on this. He said: “Much can be achieved where employer organizations can obtain the co-operation of trade unions for the reclassification of work categories so as to permit more effective use of both skilled and unskilled workers”. What does this mean? It means that the Government has opted out; it has hurled in the towel; it has capitulated. It has now thrown the whole question of African advancement into the arena of collective bargaining. It is now left to employers and to the trade unions. Sir, this Government’s labour policy stands exposed for what it is. It is a policy that inhibits the occupational development of the non-White people; it is a policy that systematically undermines the security of the White workers and their trade unions, and whatever is left of this policy is negative and is restrictive. There is a complete absence of a long-term, cohesive, dynamic plan for South Africa, and, worse than anything else, it is dangerous to our future growth. [Time expired.]

Sir, I shall probably be replying in a short while to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. Firstly I just want to ask the hon. the Minister a few brief questions in order to obtain clarity. In the Cape Times of 28th March, 1972, and in the Rand Daily Mail of 29th March, 1972, it was reported that the International Metalworkers’ Federation had an interview with the Secretary for Labour, and that the Secretary for Labour then allegedly told them the Government was going to scrap job reservation “because of its ineffectiveness”. In a Press statement on 28th March the Secretary for Labour denied this. I should just like to know how it is that such a responsible body gave such a misrepresentation of our policy; or is it just the Opposition Press again wanting to create the impression that the policy of controlled employment has failed, so that they can try to promote their integrationist desires? In the second place, I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he is convinced that the individual exemptions granted to Coloured building workers in the wet categories of the building industry are not being abused, and whether he thinks that these aspects are being effectively controlled.

Sir, the hon. member for Hillbrow is a terribly clever man, so clever that he is still running away from the questions the hon. the Minister put to him. This is also what is being done throughout the United Party.

Look at your Minister.

Sir, you will remember what a marathon debate we had in this House in 1956 about the Industrial Conciliation Bill. You will remember that in that debate hon. members on that side came along with the same prophecies of doom as those the hon. member for Hillbrow came along with here this afternoon with his melancholy argument that allegedly there is insufficient proof of the successful implementation of the National Party’s labour policy. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his brilliant statement here this afternoon of the policy of the National Party. Sir, this Vote is more important than most people realize; it is very important and extremely contentious. It is of the utmost importance to every person in South Africa, with its heterogeneous population in which the non-Whites form the overall majority. Here it is purely and solely a choice between integration and segregation; i.e. it is a matter of separation or assimilation, or to put it differently a matter of life and death. Surely there are only two paths to choose. The National Party’s policy, in respect of its sound relations politics, is known to all. It has surely been proved time and again by virtue of the industrial peace and quiet we have experienced. The National Party recognizes the multi-nationality of the Republic of South Africa and the separate development opportunities, to the highest possible rungs of the ladder, for every people within its own preferential area. I am saying the greatest possible opportunities for development within its own preferential area; the preservation and maintenance of a personal heritage; the preservation and development of an individual identity. That is why the National Party believes in controlled employment. I want to say this for the cognizance of the hon. member for Hillbrow. This is not purely a matter, as he said, of job reservation as such; here there is a wider meaning, i.e. that jobs are reserved according to the need; in other words, controlled employment. But what do they want to do? They want to throw it open. [Interjections.] I shall come to that in a moment. The National Party believes in the survival of the Whites in South Africa and that is why the Whites are being protected, and even if it is this 2,9 per cent of the White population, it is still a matter of controlled employment. The National Party also recognizes the colour bar in industry as well as in the trade unions, as proven by its 1956 legislation and the implementation of that legislation. The U.P.’s policy is heading for the grave, i.e. for the end of the White man in South Africa. Just as the United Party has no future, likewise under their policy the United Party offers South Africa no future either. I want to tell you, Sir, that we still call them the United Party, and that at times we speak of the “Sappe”, but there are no “Sappe” sitting there, because what did Gen. Smuts and Gen. Louis Botha say? They believed in segregation. But this Opposition is on the path of the liberalistic integrationists, i.e. the Progressives. They want to wipe out all boundary lines between the various peoples. The separate development policy must crack and crumble through the uncontrolled employment of non-Whites, uncontrolled growth and an unrestricted growth rate, under the cloak of combating inflation. The existing social and political pattern in South Africa must be destroyed. The Whites must be delivered into the hands of the non-Whites so that the order can be disrupted by economic factors. This must serve as a weapon to destroy the continued existence of the Whites in South Africa. Passages can be quoted without number to prove this point. But I just want to mention a few of them. The United Party states that the non-Whites, the Bantu included—please note, the Bantu included—must be able to sell their labour on the best market. This was stated here. They are opposed to migratory labour. They are opposed to migratory labour and the decentralization of industries, and they want to let the Bantu come to the metropolitan areas on a family basis. I should like to know from the Opposition how they want to implement influx control under those circumstances. The Bantu in the White urban Bantu areas must obtain more rights, a greater say, even the franchise and proprietary rights, so that they can be granted permanence in White South Africa. They want to open the sluices. They now want the Bantu to be organized into trade unions so that “they can speak with one voice”. We heard this here this afternoon. The question I am now asking is this. What is the Opposition now doing in respect of those trade unions, which are now going to be organized, considering the percentage of non-White workers, which increased in 1971 to 70,3 per cent of the total labour force? It is a sell-out of the White workers in South Africa. They have only one object in view and that is integration, integration through powerful Black trade unions, so that they can “speak with one voice”. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down made the sort of speech that one is coming to hope is something of the past. He talked about threats to the White man, the end of the White man and so much other trash. I would suggest to the hon. member that if the White man in South Africa needs some of the silly laws that we have to protect him to ensure his continued existence …

Order! The hon. member may not reflect in that way upon any law passed by this Parliament. The hon. member must withdraw that remark.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the remark. I want to say that if the White man needs some of the laws passed here to protect him, he is not worth protecting at all. I think far more of the White race in South Africa to think that he needs some of the laws which this Government has passed which are supposed to be to his protection. I remember a session or two ago when various hon. members of the Government side talked about having White people to serve White people in shops.

Do not remind them about that.

They went on about this for some time, but I believe that we have got away from that now, because some of the hon. members opposite saw themselves as waiters, petrol pump attendants and so on and now they no longer talk about Whites serving Whites in shops.

I should like to say to the hon. the Minister, since a great deal of this debate has been aimed by the Government side at the Brakpan by-election, that he must bring to the notice of the Brakpan voters certain of his actions in running the Department of Labour. Last year, in debating this Vote, talking about the United Party, the hon. the Minister said that it was a fact that the United Party wanted the Bantu to be employed in skilled spheres of employment in White areas as well. I now quote from the hon. the Minister’s speech in Hansard, 1971, col. 7002—

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister this—I hope he will answer it in full, because last year when I raised this matter, he did not answer it. When it was raised in the Other Place, as it has been raised on more than one occasion, he also did not answer satisfactorily. In view of the fact—I am taking the hon. the Minister’s words for what they mean—that the Bantu Building Workers Act prohibits the use of Bantu to do skilled work in White areas, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister this crisp question: What is happening to it in Newcastle? Who is building those hundreds of homes in Newcastle? I put this question to the hon. the Minister last year and he ignored it. I should like him to tell Brakpan what is happening in Newcastle.

I give you a 10 to 1 bet on the result of Brakpan. Take me on!

For the record I will say what is happening in Newcastle and I challenge the hon. the Minister to deny it. What is happening in Newcastle obviously has the Government’s approval because a contract was awarded by the Government and at the present time hundreds—I say hundreds advisedly, because I am not sure of the exact number —of Africans are being employed as plasterers, bricklayers and carpenters. They are being employed in the full sense of those particular jobs, not doing part of the job.

Absolute rubbish!

The position is that a little while ago these African bricklayers, plasterers and carpenters were working inside the houses, but now they are so blatant about it that they do the work in the open. It is there for everyone to see. Be that as it may, we are not objecting that the Africans are doing this kind of job, but what we are objecting to is to the fact that this particular organization, which has a semi-Government contract, is paying these Africans who are doing the skilled jobs of the non-African building workers, contrary to the Bantu Building Workers’ Act one-fourteenth of the rate they would have to pay an artisan under the Industrial Conciliation Act. I repeat that they are paid one-fourteenth of what they should be paid, and this means that for every one White, Coloured or Indian artisan they might use, they are using 14 Africans at the same cost. Is it any wonder then that this particular organization was able to tender successfully for this massive job? And it is a very big job. Is this the way they worked out their cost? What is worse, they are doing it quite openly with no shame. They are breaking the law as far as we understand and. nobody cares. They are obviously doing this with impunity, because the Government is taking no action against them. I repeat, and I repeat a hundred times, that they are working on a semi-Government contract.

I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether he will go to Brakpan and whether he will tell the voters of Brakpan and the workers of Brakpan what is happening at Newcastle. I challenge him to do so and to give the facts of this matter to the people of Brakpan. Moreover, these African building workers are working shou1der-to-shoulder, heaven forbid, with White workers. They are working on White houses in a White area. Can you name any other law which they are not breaking? If there is, I would certainly like to hear of it. Last year I asked the hon. the Minister what exemptions have been given in these Natal areas for this sort of practice, and he replied that there had been exemptions at Empangeni and Richard’s Bay. There were no exemptions at that stage given to Newcastle. To my knowledge what was happening at Newcastle last year, continues to happen now. I say to the hon. the Minister and to the workers of Brakpan that the hon. Minister can get up in this House and waffle to his heart’s content and trot out all the various flaws he likes, but when it comes down to the actual facts of the matter, they just do as they like and go ahead as they please, by telling the workers one thing and Parliament another.

I want to say that we on this side of the House, and I want to make this quite clear, have no objection to the Africans doing this sort of work, but we insist that they be trained properly and that they be paid properly and not exploited in the manner in which they are. This is why my colleague from Hillbrow was so correct. Not only is this undermining the White workers of South Africa, but it is also exploiting the non-White workers of South Africa to a disgraceful degree. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister, if he wishes to mislead the White workers of South Africa and the White electorate of Brakpan, please not to mislead this House. I ask him to bring the facts of the matter to this House and to say why this particular organization or any other organization for that matter, is able to carry on in the manner in which it is doing, and why it is able to pay one-fourteenth of the going rate for this particular type of work.

It is no good the hon. the Minister saying to me that the job has been broken down as it is in certain areas in the Transvaal, where under agreement certain skilled jobs have broken down into bits and pieces and for that reason lower rates were paid. Witnesses have shown that these people are doing exactly the same sort of work any White artisan would do. They are employing plasterers, bricklayers and carpenters to do the identical work at one-fourteenth the rate of pay. If the hon. the Minister would get up and prove me wrong, I will apologize, but I will not apologize until I have seen a change to what is actually happening in Newcastle. Therefore, in conclusion, I repeat what I have said earlier. I challenge the hon. the Minister and the Government opposite to publish the facts of what is happening at Newcastle, and to publish those facts in Brakpan to let the White workers of Brakpan just see how the Government protects those particular jobs and White workers.

Mr. Chairman, we do in fact know that there is now an election in Brakpan and it is essential that we should pay attention to what must and must not be said in Brakpan, but there is another matter which is much more urgent and that is, as we understand from the English Press, the United Party caucus which will take place tomorrow. Voices have now been raised, as the hon. the Minister indicated, about the Bantu being affiliated trade union members. Now we come to tomorrow’s caucus. I should like to know from the hon. members, who prophesy this and say that the Bantu should consequently be able to speak with one voice through the medium of those trade unions, what would happen if the hon. member for Bezuidenhout wins in the caucus tomorrow, with the result that they will be recognizing the Bantu homelands? Will those Bantu then still be affiliated members? But I want to go further: Will the Bantu, who are citizens of one of the nearby independent states and work here, also be affiliated members of that trade union, and will they also have a voice? These matters are to be decided tomorrow.

I should like to conduct a more productive discussion and refer to a matter which should, in fact, be properly brought to the attention of this House. I am referring to the question of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and the accident injuries we hear so much about. Unfortunately, not one of the hon. members who represent Rand constituencies referred to the good work which is being done at the rehabilitation hospital which was built there with funds guaranteed by the Accident Fund. I should again like to draw attention to this rehabilitation hospital situated at the western end of Johannesburg on a fine 10 acre piece of ground. It is regarded as one of the most modern and best laid out accident case hospitals in the southern hemisphere. This hospital was completed a few years ago and has beds for about 120 patients. But apart from the wonderful facilities this hospital offers, we find that very few of the Rand doctors and factories make use of this hospital. There are two reasons for this: Firstly, every doctor wants to send his patient to the nearest hospital for treatment and, secondly, the patients do not want to be far from their homes.

I just want to give a brief summary of the type of work being done at this hospital. In this hospital all facets in any way related to accidents are linked up in the activities of one team. Not only does this hospital provide the best team of surgeons at all times of the day, but it also supplies physiotherapy and hydrotherapy, which is very important in the rehabilitation of the injured. There is also a psychologist on full-time duty. A female social worker’s services are also available because, as we know, an accident brings about one of the most dramatic changes possible in a person’s life. Thus a man who is a wage earner can suddenly lose some limb or other, and he subsequently has great difficulty in adjusting. Therefore I should once again like to focus attention on this rehabilitation hospital which is so empty at the moment that a large number of its beds have to be allocated to the provincial administration. The fault also lies with many of my own colleagues. They do not support this hospital as they should, either because they have facilities available near their consulting rooms or because they have a stake in another private institution and therefore channel cases to that institution. Not only does this hospital have all those facilities, but it also builds up those who are suffering from contusions or were involved in an accident, so that they can again be taken up in the community and make a living in the future. In addition, there are also facilities such as artificial limbs, with the physiotherapy involved. These people truly get the best treatment and their chances of recovery are better than at any other hospital that does not have these facilities. I am mentioning this hospital because it is essential for us to focus attention on the facilities that have been created with the co-operation of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner.

Another argument I should like to put to the hon. the Minister is that since Act No. 77 of 1967 lays down special precautionary measures against dust and other injurious material or processes in factories, regulations should be issued for factories to comply with certain requirements, thereby to prevent the occurrence of some industrial disease or other at a later stage. Apparently this Act is not yet fully operative. I understand that its scope is tremendous and that its implementation is also a very difficult process. There are approximately 25 000 factories, and to consolidate all the various dangers in those factories, and to implement the Act, will be a long and difficult process. However, we may not neglect to place the health of the worker first at all times. Therefore I again want to advocate that when that Act is fully implemented thought should be given to a bureau for industrial health. This bureau’s most essential task will be to assimilate all these facts in connection with diseases that occur in industry and to process all that data so that one can get an idea of what processes and conditions are possibly detrimental to human beings. Such a bureau will be modelled on the same lines as the General Council for Pneumoconiosis Compensation. Although this council deals only with dust and conditions underground in a mine, we do understand that conditions above ground in industries are not quite the same and that the work is much more comprehensive. In factories there are many more harmful materials which can have a detrimental effect on human beings.

In the 1970 report of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner it is mentioned that there were 13 158 accidents in a total of 25 715 factories which employed altogether 1 321 000 workers. This gives an accident rate of about 9,9 per 1 000. When one makes a further analysis of this tremendous accident rate, one finds that the majority of employees were absent from their work for only a week, or three weeks at the utmost. Since we are struggling in this country to bring about higher productivity I should like to suggest that we harness every method possible to get those, who have been injured, back to their work as quickly as possible. We do find in practice, for example, that a person who only has a wound on his finger is absent from his work for about two weeks at the request of his doctor. Perhaps such a person only has a broken little finger. Cannot something be done, for example, so that such a person can return to his work after two or three days, when there is no longer any pain or he is no longer bothered by the finger, without his benefit in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act being affected? He does have nine other fingers with which he can do useful work. This is the kind of problem we encounter. Such a person has only a minor injury, but he has to wait until it has completely healed. In the meantime that person stays off work, while his productivity is also weakened. He no longer has so much of his heart and soul in his work, and he only uses his injury as an excuse not to go to work. This is an element we must counteract at all costs.

In addition we must also take note in this report of the large number of fatal accidents that occur in certain industries. I should like the Minister to give attention to this when the 1967 Act is in full operation. I shall just mention one figure. From a total of 422 deaths, there were 173 fatal accidents in the building, construction and excavation industries alone. This is much more than half of the total accident rate. Therefore I should also like to ask that in that type of construction work, where the accident rate is so high, we adopt extra precautionary measures so that accidents receive the quickest possible treatment and that all possible facilities be created to keep the number of deaths as low as possible.

Mr. Chairman, it is a long time since I have seen such a timid and “zipped” Opposition as I see today. It reminds me so much of my favourite poet, A. G. Visser, who said—

I want to tell the hon. Opposition they may relax—the caucus is only tomorrow. They need not be so worried—and look it —this afternoon.

Here I should like to give a few words of praise to one of the big men in our Afrikaans trade unions, who is going to retire later this year. There will be no other fitting opportunity; that is why I should like to do it here, and also because he has his office in the Pretoria West constituency. I am speaking of the Secretary of the Steelworkers’ Union, i.e. Mr. Lucas van den Berg. I shall quote from an article in Hoofstad which reads (translation)—

that was when Mr. Van den Berg began in the trade unions.

I think this is something that will make the hon. member for Houghton’s mouth water. Those were the “good” old days.

I am thinking of something quite different.

I continue—

Mr. Van den Berg devoted his life to the trade unions. I shall also quote the last part of this article. I should like to ask the Opposition to listen carefully to this—

I now want to ask the hon. Opposition: Do you agree that we have such good workers? I am asking this now, because I shall not be able to ask them this question on Thursday week. Then the Brakpan results will be known and then we shall perhaps hear those same disparaging references, for example “deep Brakpan”, “deep East Rand”, etc.

Are you making a speech or saying a recitation?

I cannot hear the hon. member very well from here. I should like to bring a matter to the hon. the Minister’s attention. As you know, if a matter about racial separation is brought to the attention of the inspectors of labour, they investigate the matter and issue a report. I must speak with gratitude of the instances where this was done. Where cases have been reported to them, attention has quickly been given to the matter. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister if we cannot expedite matters in the sense that when the inspectors investigate the case they also simply make direct contact, where it is necessary, with the Department of Community Development, for example, and also directly with other departments if they are also involved in the case. This would save time and possibly eliminate unnecessary work.

Sir, it is very difficult to understand the United Party’s labour policy. In this well=known yellow huckster booklet which they have, one finds differences from one page to the next. On one page, very boldly and clearly printed, they state: “Job reservation is not enough to protect White workers”.

Yes, that is right.

That is what they state on one page. I am glad that that hon. member who so “gratefully acknowledged” Oudtshoorn, is now saying this, because after stating on the one page that job reservation is not enough, they continue on the next page, page 8, by stating: “The rate for the job will be applied at realistic, not minimum, wage levels … Mr. Chairman, if that is the protection they want to offer the South African workers, then I say: May we be preserved from United Party protection. In order to understand clearly the whole matter in connection with the United Party, I should like to go back a little way. Our entire history is dominated, and tremendously so, by three large companies in particular, i.e. the Dutch East Indian Company …

Sanlam and Santam!

Yes, and the agricultural loans which the hon. member knows so much about. The other firms are the British Charter Company of South Africa, and then, at present, the “Oppenheimer Empire”. These three big companies all have something in common. This was perhaps a little more explicit in the days of the Dutch East India Company, but all three cold-bloodedly championed integration. That policy laid the foundation for the position we have today.

Who wrote your speech?

If hon. members want to tell me something, they must please speak louder. The British Charter Company of South Africa gave us two wars of independence, a marauding expedition, etc. That was the reaction of the Whites against these big companies which had interests in South Africa far beyond their value, interests which actually began to gain increasing political value and not only economic value. Against this background we must today see the United Party’s policy, because the United Party is not even a fellow-traveller. It is a henchmen, an accomplice, of mammon in South Africa. They ought to think deeply about that. If the reactions of the Whites in South Africa in the previous cases resulted in two wars of independence, what are they not giving rise to in South Africa today? Will we now have the same results we had in the past? The United Party is in a responsible position, or they ought to be. They will have to think deeply and clearly about this, and act correctly.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I have to leave the hon. member for Pretoria West to some smarter member on this side, because, quite frankly, I did not understand one word he said, either literally or figuratively. I want to get back to the hon. the Minister’s statement earlier this afternoon, when he told me all about the other workers, that is to say, workers other than Africans, who are not allowed to strike. He mentioned the Post Office, the Railways and essential services of that nature. He also referred to public servants. He wanted to know whether, during my visits overseas, when I informed people there that Africans could not strike, I also told then about these thousands of White South Africans who were also not allowed to strike. I must tell him quite frankly that I did not, and I would not dream of doing so, because it would be presenting a completely false picture of South Africa. I want to know from the hon. the Minister how he has the face to make such an analogy in this House. How can he compare these hundreds of thousands of unskilled, unorganized and hopelessly vulnerable African workers with the powerful artisans’ unions of the Railways, the Post Office, the public servants and so on? He knows it is chalk and cheese. For one thing, the public servants and the essential services people are organized into the most powerful associations, and they can go slow, at the very thought of which the hon. the Minister starts to pale; what is more, Sir, they represent a very powerful bloc of voters, each in his own way. How can he possibly compare workers of that nature with the unorganized, unskilled African workers who are not allowed to strike? I might say that when they do attempt to strike, it does not take the employers and the police five minutes to round them up and have them charged. I have yet to hear of White workers who are rounded up by the police when they decide that they will strike, when they are not allowed to strike Sir, it would be presenting a completely false picture overseas if I were to tell people there that workers such as the members of the Post Office Staff Association, or the members of the Railway Artisans’ Staff Association, are on the same footing as the unorganized African workers. I wonder what Mr. Liebenberg would think about this comparison. He has recently retired. I do not think he would be very flattered by the comparison of his highly organized, efficient Railway Artisans’ Association with the thousands of unorganized Black workers. I believe that he would tell the hon. the Minister that he is talking nonsense, which is exactly what I tell the hon. the Minister here today. Sir, that is the second silly statement that we have had in a very short time from a man I have always considered to be an intelligent man. I do not know who he thinks is going to be gullible enough to swallow the sort of comparison that he was making here. Sir, the other silly statement which he made, about which I said something yesterday, was his statement that African workers are adequately protected by existing legislation. You have only got to look at their wage rates to see what nonsense that is. I have here the official figures for the nine principal occupations in South Africa: Mining, manufacturing, construction, electricity, banks and building societies, Central Government, provincial administrations, local authorities and the South African Railways, who between them are by far the greatest employers of African labour. In only one of these, that is to say, in the banks and the building societies, do the minimum wages even approximate the poverty datum line or the minimum effective level that we should be using. It is only in the banks and the building societies, where the monthly wages are R66,90. In the other sectors the wages are approximately R50, R32, R52, R49, R55, R44 and, of course, the provincial administrations pay a miserable R35,90 per month. Why does the hon. the Minister not tell them that there is no law to prevent them from paying higher than the minimum wages? He is very quick to refer to private entrepreneurs. Why does he not tell his own Government that there is nothing to stop them from paying more than R44,80 per month to the African workers? Why does he not say that to the Railways, where something like 80 000 nonWhites are earning less than R2 a day, as the hon. the Minister told us the other DAT? Sir, that is a very silly statement for the hon. the Minister to make. He knows that the Bantu Labour Board does not protect Africans, even though they have their representatives on industrial councils where there is a dispute or where the wage levels of African workers are under consideration. Where were these Bantu Labour Board representatives when Highveld Steel decided to pay a wage of, I think, 41 cents an hour to the overhead crane operators, who were formerly paid 89 cents an hour when that work was being done by White workers? Where were his Bantu Labour Board people? I am sure they were sitting right there, negotiating on behalf of the African workers, and that is one reason why the wage is low.

Why could Mr. Oppenheimer not negotiate himself?

For one thing, he is in competitive industry. Let me tell the hon. the Minister that the minimum wage for that operation is much lower than the wage that is being paid at Highveld Steel; it is much lower. I was looking at wage determinations, and I see that the wage is something like R13 a week, which is much lower than the 41 cents per hour which is being paid at Highveld Steel, not that I am suggesting that that is adequate, because that is also below the poverty datum line. But, Sir, all these levels are set by the minimum wages which are laid down by statutary Government boards, by industrial conciliation councils and wage boards. Surely the hon. the Minister must realize that. If these jobs, which were classified originally as jobs done by White workers, were carrying an abnormally high wage rate for the value of the job done, just because they were done by Whites, then of course when the job is reclassified and it is then done by someone of another colour, the wage rate drops. That has happened in every case where there has been fragmentation and where the White unions have agreed to release certain jobs to non-Whites. The truth of the matter is that we have had no real scientific evaluation of the rate for the job in many occupations in South Africa, in mining and industry and construction, simply because the White workers have always had a monopoly and therefore the jobs have carried an abnormally high wage. If the hon. Minister wants to get any rationale in wage regulation in South Africa, he should have a thorough-going investigation into the rate for the job in every occupation in the country, and then we might get a reasonable mean where the Black worker is not paid a poverty wage and where the White worker is not paid an abnormally high wage for the particular occupation that he happens to be following. I want to say that all this talk about trade unions and the terrible dangers that would face South Africa if Blacks were allowed to combine in trade unions, reminds me of England in 1799, where there were Anti-Combination laws for workers, because members of Parliament in England were talking about White workers there in exactly the same way in which hon. members are talking here about Black workers. It is a question, of course, of whether or not one is prepared to allow workers to combine for the purposes of collective bargaining in order to get decent wages. In the end, in England, in the 19th century, the laws had to be changed until there were proper unions functioning for the benefit of the workers. I am sure, Sir, that in this country the same thing is going to have to take place, because it is far more dangerous to have 70 per cent of your workers’ force discontented because of the low wages that they are being paid, than to allow them to organize into proper trade unions so that they can have the benefit of collective trade bargaining and get reasonable wages. Sir, this is what Mr. Liebenberg has said, and he ought to know better than anybody because he was the head of one of the largest White unions in this country. He says, “Do not think that the millions of African workers”—or Bantu workers, as he called them—“in our metropolitan areas are unaware of the fact that they are not getting good wages and that there is very little that they can do about it.” If White South Africans think that by simply denying collective bargaining rights to Blacks, they are going for ever to stop strikes, then they are making a big mistake. I would have thought that what happened in Owamboland was sufficient indication of that, where 13 000 tribal Ovambos were able to organize a strike, despite all the machinery against their striking. In any case, it is a myth, as I have said before, to think that there are no strikes in this country. There are strikes. We do not hear about them; but the workers get bundled off and charged and land up in gaol. I would like to know how many African workers have in fact been charged since 1962 onwards and have gone to gaol for striking. I think, Sir, that if these figures were available you would find that this picture of industrial peace is not quite as blithe a picture as the hon. the Minister would like us to believe.

There is one final point that I would like to make in reply to what the hon. the Minister said yesterday when he was ad monishing employers to use labour more productively. He is quite right; labour is not used productively in South Africa in a great many cases. That is. of course, because labour is “cheap” in South Africa. Because the wage levels are low, there is no incentive for employers to use their labour productively and economically. Once again, Sir, if decent wages were paid to these workers you would find that the employers would soon use them more productively. But there are other things in Government policy that also militate against the proper utilization of Black labour in this country. The one is the migratory labour system. It is obviously impossible to train a man who is for ever on the move in industries where there is a very high turnover simply because of the migratory labour system, which this Government encourages at every turn. Then, Sir, I might add that there is the low standard of basic education which is handed out to Blacks in this country. There is no free and compulsory education for Black children, and the result is that there is an enormous dropout rate. The vast majority of African children leave school by Std. 3 and they are not even functionally literate. I would like the hon. the Minister to tell me how you can train a man who is not functionally literate to follow plans and to become a skilled worker. It is an extremely difficult thing to do. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Houghton, who has just resumed her seat, makes it so clear to one that as far as she is concerned there is no place for the Whites in South Africa. She makes sure that every time she stands up she gets in a sideswipe at the Police. She does not believe in the law and order we maintain, but as far as the National Party is concerned the White man is priority No. 1 in this fatherland of ours. This Government has done more than any other previous Government for the Bantu. We have nothing to be ashamed of. As far as the Opposition is concerned, the Bantu are, in most cases, only labour commodities.

We have come to the end of this Labour debate, and it is probably necessary for one to take a brief glance back at what has been happening here. I think I can begin by saying that it is an historical fact that the South African electorate and the White workers trust the National Party, and only the National Party, with their future. We have the proof of that. It is historically true. It is so. On the other hand, the White workers and the South African electorate have every reason to be afraid of the policy of the United Party. This afternoon we again had the Minister revealing that there are good reasons why they should be afraid of the United Party’s policy, because if they cannot do it by the front door, they will drag it in by the back door.

That is what you are doing.

The electorate has “Oudtshoorned” the United Party to such an extent by now that apparently they are already changing their policy again. I read this morning in the newspaper that the hon. member for Wynberg is speaking of “new sounds”. I do not know whether these will still be the old sounds, but I know that from that witch’s cauldron we shall just have another brew under a different name; it will again be the same concoction, so we may be sure the electorate will also be reluctant to sample that labour policy of the United Party. I challenge the Opposition to show me a country where there is greater labour peace and quiet than in this beloved country of ours. This Government of ours can boast of full employment.

Where do you get that from?

It can boast of employment opportunities for everyone. There is really no unemployment in South Africa worth mentioning, and that is a big achievement. In this Republic we have a happy and satisfied core of workers with full opportunities for everyone who can work and wants to work. In a multinational country such as this, with its complicated and delicate population set-up the National Party has carved out a policy which offers future prospects for every people, an opportunity for everyone— Blacks, Whites, Browns and Yellows. The labour policy of the National Party is one of its greatest achievements. Under the National Party’s policy we have grown from an old agricultural country into a big industrial giant with a future we cannot see an end to yet. The public does not need to experiment with new labour policies; they have the proof for that. The National Party’s labour policy has already proved itself. In spite of the United Party’s gossip-mongering campaigns, in spite of the stories of bankruptcy that are dished up here, in spite of the reference to our being a police state and in spite of the disparagement of our economy, we have built this country up into an ever-increasing giant. On what cornerstones does this National Party’s labour policy then stand? I am going to mention them briefly. The first important cornerstone of the National Party’s policy is the Industrial Conciliation Act and in conjunction with that the colour bar. The National Party has bound itself to maintain the colour bar in this country.

The next cornerstone is job reservation and in this respect the National Party has also bound itself to that. We should like the United Party to make use of the opportunity it will still have in the future to tell us what its policy is going to be in that respect. Another cornerstone is influx control. The National Party has also bound itself to that and will ensure in future that it strictly maintains those laws. However, there is also another cornerstone of our policy and that is the controlled employment of the Bantu with the permission of the trade unions and staff associations. As far as the National Party is concerned the survival of the Whites is much more important than temporary economic benefits. Because the White workers trust the Government, we find labour peace and contentment in the Republic unequalled anywhere else, and that is why the workers vote for the National Party, because the National Party is also the workers’ party. We shall again see proof of this when there is a confident vote in Brakpan shortly. Because the White workers trust the National Party they support the Government when nonWhites are used judiciously to supplement the labour force. This confidence can only be engendered by the National Party. The White workers do not feel that their position is being threatened. The United Party’s policy threatens the White worker’s position and will undoubtedly lead to resistance with serious consequences. The lesson we learned during the 1922 strike on the Rand must not be forgotten.

The shortage of White labour and the problems experienced when non-Whites are used for work previously done by Whites, have serious political implications which could even be more detrimental to the South African economy than the labour shortage itself. I therefore want to thank the hon. the Minister. I want to thank him and his department for the brilliant way in which they are handling these matters and these delicate situations. This aspect of our policy specifically emphasizes how essential it is that the homelands should be developed, that the border industries should be developed further, and that decentralization should take place. Only then can the optimum use be made of South Africa’s labour forces and only then will our industrial growth reach full maturity. There the Bantu themselves can then occupy all the posts, from messenger to manager.

There is yet another view that must be emphasized when it comes to decentralization, i.e. that it will also grant the Bantu the opportunity to have full employment in their own areas. Thereby they will be able to claim all the concomitant socioeconomic benefits for themselves. South Africa must continue to guard against an accumulation of conflicting interests and must continue to make it possible for every population group to carry out its own rights fully in its own area. Though we want to keep the White cities white, we do not begrudge the non-Whites opportunities they have never had before. As far as the White worker is concerned the maintenance of the colour bar, job reservation and industrial conciliation are of vital importance, the guarantee for continued labour peace. The Government will not allow itself to be put off by talk of labour crises and materialism. The labour question must no longer be exaggerated in order to create wrong impressions. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it has become very obvious during this debate that hon. members on that side of the House, and that includes the hon. the Minister as well, can only think in terms of votes and what this debate will mean to them in terms of votes. They do not appear to be interested in the national economy of South Africa at all. Here we have just had an hon. member making a ten minute speech. He mentioned certain laws of which hon. members on that side of the House are so proud. He mentioned influx control and he is very proud of it. In Brakpan they will tell the electorate how proud the Nationalist Party is of influx control. Surely hon. members know, in their heart of hearts who introduced influx control in South Africa. It suits hon. members to forget that it was the United Party Government … [Interjections.] Give me a chance; I only have ten minutes. In 1943 the United Party Government introduced influx control. Of course, they know that. The hon. the Minister shocked me, or rather, I should not use the term “shocked” because I can no longer be shocked by the hon. Minister with his wild statements; he stood here on Friday afternoon and told this House that if we, the United Party, had to come to power, it would mean an unlimited influx of Bantu workers and that it would toe opening the sluice gates for Bantu. Apart from the United Party never having done so in the past and not likely to do so in future, this Government is allowing it to happen now. How short can the hon. the Minister’s memory serve him? Can he not remember how in 1933 his Nationalist Party and his Government undermined the national economy of the country resulting in the undermining of the White worker? The people were going insolvent, left, right and centre, and the White worker was undermined because of the bad state of the national economy of the country. This Government are the very people who were the cause of displacing thousands of White workers in 1933 from their jobs. Yet they have the audacity to come and warn the electorate that this side of the House will do so. The hon. member had so much to say about trade unions and how afraid they are that if the United Party comes to power certain bodies of Bantu would be an appendix to White trade unions. Surely the hon. the Minister realizes how dangerous his own policy is in that regard? Surely he knows that Chief Kaizer Matanzima has already said that when he gains his independence—which apparently he will get soon—he and his Government will form trade unions for every Bantu worker in South Africa. His Government will in fact be the trade union. The hon. the Minister is saying that not a worker in South Africa will be allowed to go and strike at any time. “So lank soos my Regering regeer, sal hulle nie toegelaat word om te staak nie”. What will the hon. the Minister and his Government do when Chief Kaizer Matanzima has formed his own trade union for his workers, which will include 80 per cent of South Africa’s workers? What will the Minister do if things do not go according to the Bantu worker’s liking and he decides to strike under his own independent Union? What can this Government do then? Nothing. You cannot do a thing then. As we view it under the United Party’s policy, we want to maintain control of those workers. We, under the United Party’s policy, want to maintain control over all those workers, all 80 per cent of them. We will maintain control over the 80 per cent Bantu workers because they will be an appendix to the White trade unions.

What about Lesotho and Swaziland?

They talk about strikes ! I have never heard so much nonsense as I heard on Friday afternoon and again this afternoon. The hon. the Minister went further and was even quoted over the radio as saying “that it is an illusion that productivity will increase if more Black labour is used in industry”. He said it was an “illusion”. I think the Minister was joking; in fact I am sure he was joking; he could not have been serious. Surely we realize that South Africa’s economy today, although not yet in a crisis, will soon be in jeopardy the way things are going? We witnessed something similar in 1933. We know that in South Africa we cannot balance our trade. Everybody knows that. Why can we not balance our trade? Because we cannot produce as much as we are importing. We cannot produce enough goods to export in order to balance our trade because our economic growth rate is deteriorating. It is too low and it is going down and down. By the hon. the Minister’s statement he is implying that if we introduce more Bantu into the lower-grade jobs and uplift the White worker into higher-grade jobs, it will not help us at all. He says that it is an “illusion.” The hon. the Minister said this, and here on his very left sits the hon. the Minister of Transport who is doing precisely what the hon. the Minister of Labour accuses us of wanting to do when we are in power. To me it is an indictment of the policy of the hon. the Minister of Transport, and of what he is doing. The hon. the Minister of Transport has admitted repeatedly that if he did not introduce Bantu into the Railways and transport system, the Railways would grind to a standstill. Those were his very words. When we in the United Party say we will introduce Bantu into the lower-grade jobs where there are no Whites to fill these jobs, then the Minister says it is throwing the sluice gates open and endangering the White man. Let us be logical. I do not believe the Government can be logical, after having listened to the hon. the Minister on Friday afternoon and again this afternoon. The Nationalists maintain that this will be undermining of the White worker. I can give this House the assurance that when we are in power, we will not displace one White worker. But a lot of White workers will be displaced under this Government. Has this party ever displaced White workers from their employment? Never! [Interjections.] You cannot name me one instance. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, they can make a noise; I know there is panic in their ranks. Where we do not have enough White workers we will engage Bantu in the lower-grade jobs and uplift the Whites to better-grade jobs. But not one White need ever fear that we will displace him from his work. All we have listened to in this debate is a lot of political expediency from that side of the House. We have had nothing but expediency from them since this debate on Labour started. The hon. the Minister mentions that there are 290 000 …

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

The hon. member knows I have only ten minutes at my disposal.

The hon. the Minister mentioned that there are 290 000 half-skilled Bantu workers. He seemed quite proud in making this announcement. Imagine, there are 290 000 half-skilled workers out of 14 million people. Mr. Chairman, after 24 years of Nationalist rule, this is all they can show us.

According to Government spokesmen, Johannesburg, Cape Town and Port Elizabeth are the reserves for the White man and that the border areas are the reserves for the Black man. I want to repeat what the hon. member for Port Natal asked the hon. the Minister, namely, what about Newcastle? Is that a reserve for the Black man or the White man? Is it a border area? The hon. the Minister must reply to this. We have had him on this for a whole 12 months. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what he thinks of the statement of Professor D. Marais, the Director of the University of South Africa’s business school? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this afternoon we heard the prompters of the Black trade unions. We have now heard a number of the hon. members opposite asking what would happen if Matanzima were to establish Black trade unions But, surely, it is our policy that those homelands will be granted independence, just as this is the policy of the hon. members for Wynberg and Bezuidenhout. But now I want to put this question to those hon. members: If Botswana, Lesotho or Swaziland should establish Black trade unions, are they going to tell those countries that they may not have Black trade unions? Is this the danger that is going to threaten them? At least, we are honest …

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No, I have only 10 minutes. We are at least being honest by telling those countries that once they have independence, they may do in their countries what they please and may establish trade unions. Let hon. members opposite now display the same courage by also saying this to Swaziland, Lesotho and Botswana. If we have ever listened to political fraud and to the White worker in South Africa being misled, then we heard it in this House this afternoon. The United Party has now become the so-called patron of the White worker, because they know that we are going to have an election in Brakpan in more or less a week’s time. Now they have all of a sudden become the champions of the White worker. Fortunately we do have a Hansard, however, and I now want to quote from column 3110, where the hon. member for Yeoville was speaking in the course of the Railway Budget debate on 13th March, 1972. Referring to the Railways, he said the following—

Now, these are the people who are the champions of the White workers. However, they accuse the National Party of over-protecting the White worker. This is where the crux and the naked truth of the United Party’s policy are to be found, i.e. in their accusing us of over-protecting the White worker. Now I want to ask hon. members opposite what they are implying by saying that we are allegedly over-protecting the White workers. Will they tell us that we are paying the White worker too much for his labour and over-protecting him in that way? Do they want to imply by it that the work which is being done by the Whites, can be done better by nonWhites at a lower wage? Surely, when it is said that people are being over-protected, the implication is that the work done by such a person is not worth the wage he earns. Let the United Party tell us clearly what Whites are being over-protected. Or am I to infer that all the Whites on our Railways and in our industries are being over-protected, and not only individuals, as the hon. member for Yeoville also stated very clearly here? Furthermore, I want to ask them what posts in our industries and on our Railways are allegedly being overprotected. Is it that unskilled labourer who is now to be thrown to the wolves, or does this include clerks, artisans, stationmasters, etc.? Or is it those “poor White people” to whom the hon. member referred and about whom hon. members opposite have all of a sudden become so concerned now? Now we do at least know what their rate for the job means and embraces, i.e. that the White worker is being over-protected. He is being over-protected, and we are to infer that, if the United Party should come into power, this so-called over-protection will be removed and will disappear, and that the White worker will be left to his own devices when those floodgates are opened to the non-White labour and those non-Whites are employed in an uncontrolled manner. There is still a week left before the election, and I want to tell hon. members opposite that we shall tell the White workers that the U.P. accused the National Party of over-protecting the White worker. I challenge the U.P. supporters, who are so ready to come forward with their sixpence policy and to put it in writing, to tell the country, and to put this in writing, that this is their official policy and that they do not go hand in hand with the H.N.P. and spread gossip to the effect that we are negrophilists. When I accused the hon. member for Turffontein the other night of having indulged in gossip in connection with the photograph taken of the hon. the Prime Minister between the two Malawian women, he denied it. However, he admitted to Die Vaderland that he had gone about with that photograph. Let the United Party spread the story that the National Party is over-protecting the White worker. Let them also put it in writing and stop spreading gossip in conjunction with the H.N.P. to the effect that this Government is negrophilist. But, Sir, in practice this very clearly means that if, in terms of U.P. policy, the non-Whites will be permitted to sell their labour anywhere, or on the best market, as they say, the White worker will simply be told, “Sorry, but you have now been over-protected by this National Party for more than 20 years; now we have cheaper non-White labour at our disposal and you will just have to go; you will just have to manage without any protection, because you will have to compete against the non-Whites on the same market at the same wage.” This is the full implication of their policy. This is their “rate for the job”. As Mr. Oberholzer also said in Die Transvaler, they cannot unless the wages of the Whites are frozen and those of the non-Whites are increased.

Now I should like to ask the United Party another question: This rate for the job policy of theirs—will this also be applicable to the public service, the provincial administrations and local authorities? What protection are those officials, the white-collar workers, going to get from the United Party? I asked the hon. member for Yeoville this question in 1970. At the time he replied, “Oh no, this does not include the public service and those people.” Do they still adhere to that view? [Interjections.] Just tell me “yes” or “no”. Have they not been included in this ratefor-the-job policy?

[Inaudible.]

I did not have a chance to speak after the hon. member for Yeoville had said that they were not included in that policy. Now I want to say that I think those people are dishonest. I think they are immoral; they, who are always so concerned about morality, now want to discriminate between first and second-class workers. The white-collar workers, the clerks, may not be fitted into that rate-for-the-job policy of theirs, but the manual labourers, the second-class workers, may be left to their own devices to compete against non-White labourers. They are the people who are now to be thrown to the wolves.

The hon. member for Turffontein was brave enough to ask in some or other debate this year whether it was our policy that a Coloured person could become Secretary for Defence. Now I want to tell him that the answer is “no”, and I want to ask him this question: Is this their policy? Will it be possible for a non-White person to become Secretary for Defence or the Secretary for any other Government department under their Government? [Interjections.] Just tell me “yes” or “no”; that is all we want. Let him or any of them tell us now. He was brave enough to ask the question, and now I tell him the answer is “no”. Now let him say whether it will be possible for a non-White person to become Secretary for any Government department under their Government.

In other words, this is dominance over the Coloureds.

No, do not try to run away from me now. Just tell us “yes” or “no”. [Interjections.] We, Sir, say throughout: We do not have any first or second-class workers, whether they are public servants, industrial workers or whatever; our policy is that that White worker will be protected. That is something we guarantee every White worker. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to react to the hon. member for Boksburg. I think he is quite irrational. I think, while we are talking about the rate for the job, there is one member who does not deserve the rate for the job.

I want to deal with something totally different; I want to deal with the welfare and the health of the worker. In the few minutes that I have, I want to suggest to the Minister that I think the time has come that the worker in South Africa is deserving of a new deal As far as the health and the welfare of the worker are concerned, I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that, as soon as possible, a division of industrial health and hygiene should be established. This should be done by the Department of Health in conjunction with the Department of Labour. Following upon what the hon. member for Brentwood has said, I feel that the present set-up in regard to industrial diseases and accidents, maternity grants and unemployment allowances, is totally inadequate and not anything near what it should be. I would suggest that, firstly, all occupations be graded according to their potential hazards. Those persons working in a higher grade of potential hazard should be given a bonus commensurate with the hazard that they may meet in the course of their work. These grades should be altered from time to time, depending upon the safety measures that can be introduced into each of these categories. This is terribly important at the moment, and I feel that the accident compensation given to people today has no bearing at all on the potential of that accident rate. In some occupations the rate goes up alarmingly, and in other occupations the chances of death of injury through accident are minimal. Yet in both these cases the person in this occupation is allowed only the same compensation.

Over the years terrific amounts of money have been accumulating both in the Unemployment Fund and the Workmen’s Compensation Fund. The figures that I have here are quite alarming. The Workmen’s Compensation Fund, for instance, now stands at R153 million. In 1970 it stood at R149 million. Most of this money is now invested with the Public Debt Commissioner at the rate of 5 per cent. So the interest accruing to this large sum of money is building up more and more. The Minister has not put a ceiling on this Fund. The other Fund in question is the Unemployment Fund which has now grown to R63 million. Again this Fund is growing. There is no ceiling to it either. I would like to know what is going to happen to the money in this Fund? What is this large amount of money going to be used for? It is obvious to me that those people who work out what the contributions to and the benefits from the Fund should be, have been totally inaccurate. It is my contention that in view of what is happening now and the rapid growth of these Funds, either too much money has been taken from the employer and the employee, or too little money has gone to those people who have to be compensated; or both of these conditions have existed. I would say to the Minister that he must immediately start giving back to the employer and the employee something of the money he has taken from them. The rate of allowances he gives in the case of accidents and sick pay as well as maternity grants has to be increased immediately. At the moment, any increases that have been given in the past, have not kept pace with the cost of living. These increases are hopelessly behind. The Minister knows as well as I do that the allowance that is given during unemployment, especially for sickness, is given at a time when the worker requires more than his usual salary. He knows quite well how much it costs today to be ill. The cost of obtaining treatment for illness has escalated. It is at this time, when the worker is earning so little—because he has to rely on unemployment payments only; and then he has to wait for that money—that he receives as little as the Minister is able to give him. The Minister is not giving him as much as he possibly can; he is giving him as little as he possibly can, and such a person will fall behind financially, month after month, although he may try his best to catch up with the additional expenditure during the period when he is out of work. The Minister knows from the figures that there are very few people unnecessarily out of work today; there are very few hangers-on. He himself has admitted here that unemployment is almost at a minimum. If the unemployment figure is 2 per cent or 3 per cent, then that figure also includes persons in the process of changing over from one job to another. If he says—and I believe what he says—that the White man here is going to be employed fully and permanently, then as far as the White man is concerned there is no danger of large-scale unemployment. The Coloured, the Bantu and the Indian workers are in a like position; there is plenty of work for them. The Minister has no record of unemployment regarding the Black people, none at all. He does not know how many Black people are unemployed, because they are migrant labourers; they come and they go. They are here for a year and then they go away again. What then is the danger of giving more from this fund to the worker? What is the danger in taking less from the employer for this fund than is being taken at the moment? For the life of me, I cannot see what the object is of making this fund grow and grow.

Besides that fund, there is another fund which is growing. This is a fund that has been accumulating because of the unsatisfactory way in which the Minister has been looking for those people to whom money is due by way of compensation. This, too, is running into millions. Untraced allowances, due to the injured, last year amounted to R1 million; this year the figure is R2,2 million. Next year, I suppose it will be nearly R3 million. It is quite obvious to me that the mechanism used today to trace people who have been injured is quite inadequate. It is strange to me that when a person commits a crime he is found so quickly, and he is brought to justice. One wonders sometimes, at the speed with which these people in our vast and heterogeneous population are brought to justice, and yet, when they have to receive compensation money, nobody can find them. Why is that? What has gone wrong with our mechanism? I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that he has a central bureau where the movements of workers can be registered, and where there is a card for every single worker in this country. When a worker leaves a job, the information must be recorded on his card, and if he is a migratory labourer there must be stated on his card where he is going, who his headman is, who the commissioners of the area are, and so forth. If any money falls due to him, it should then be a relatively easy matter to find him. I can say to the Minister that there are many migrant labourers, and there are many people amongst the White population who still have money owing to them and who do not know that these moneys are held for them. [Time expired.]

Sir, in reply to the various matters raised here, I want to begin by referring first of all to the remark made by the hon. member for Pretoria West with regard to Mr. Lucas van den Berg. I should like to associate myself with the tribute he paid Mr. Van den Berg here. In the years when I was Deputy Minister of Labour, and subsequently in my present position, it was my privilege to have a great deal to do with him. I should like to attest to the fact here today that Mr. Lucas vain den Berg certainly is one of the most responsible trade union leaders this country has ever known. He really was a tower of strength to us. He is a person who fought for the interests of his members; he is a person who fought for the interests of his trade union, but he never fought in such a way as to lose sight of the interests of his country. In all he did he always had regard to South Africa’s interests, and that is why I want to associate myself today with the tribute which the hon. member for Pretoria West paid this man who has made a positive contribution to our trade unionism in South Africa and whose name will always be remembered with honour.

The hon. member for Stilfontein referred to the introduction of Republic Day by the Government as a paid, statutory holiday. It is a fact that the Government took this step largely as a result of representations made over the years by our own mining group in Parliament as well as the Mineworkers’ Union, and for that reason I appreciate the fact that the hon. member spoke with so much appreciation of this matter.

On Friday the hon. member for Yeoville referred, inter alia, to the Factories Act which has brought about separation in factories, and to the Shops and Offices Act. As is customary, he claimed the credit for that for his side. I think for the sake of the record, for the sake of correctness, I should point out that the Factories Act and the Shops Act—not the Shops and Offices Act —were in fact passed by a United Party Government, but that the apartheid provisions in those measures were inserted by this Government. In 1960 I myself, as Deputy Minister, had the task of introducing certain provisions into the Factories Act so as to enable us to bring about separation between White and non-White workers in factories. I had another look at those debates today. You will remember, Sir, how the hon. member for Yeoville opposed those provisions. The United Party even called for a division in this House on the provision which this Government introduced in order to enable us to bring about separation between White and non-White workers. The same applies to the Shops and Offices Act. It is a fact that the United Party Government placed it on the Statute Book in 1939, but it was this Government that rewrote that Act and introduced it here as the Shops and Offices Bill in 1960 and made provision for separation between Whites and non-Whites. That Act provided that there should be separation between Whites and non-Whites in all shops and offices. The same applies to the Industrial Conciliation Act. In season and out of season hon. members on that side want to claim for themselves the credit for the Industrial Conciliation Act. I just want to remind them that the Industrial Conciliation Act, which was passed here by the old United Party Government, did not contain the cardinal points in connection with job reservation. Job reservation is the cornerstone of his Government’s labour policy today, and it is embodied in the Industrial Conciliation Act, which was opposed tooth and nail by the United Party.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark made a plea here for higher allowances to be paid to trainees at Westlake and also for the establishment of another institution. The position is that the allowances were recently increased from R18 per week for unmarried persons and R24 for married persons. As far as a second training institution for adults is concerned, I am afraid the times and needs do not justify it. We do not have a full enrolment at the existing training institution for adults at Westlake. Because of the full employment which exists under this Government in this country, it is a major task for us to draw some 200 people through advertising, and consequently there is no need for something of this kind today. There are no unemployed people who are idle and who have to be trained. That is why there is really no need for a second institution.

The hon. member for Uitenhage pleaded with me for more regular inspections at factories in order to see to it that job reservation provisions were being complied with. I tell him what I also tell trade union congresses from time to time, and that is that the executive members of trade unions should also act as watchdogs in this regard. We do not have enough inspectors to walk into every factory to see what is happening at that factory. It is the task of the trade unions and of the workers who experience and see these things to report them to me and my department. Then the necessary steps will be taken.

When the hon. member for Boksburg spoke on Friday, he pleaded, with reference to the Workmen’s Compensation Act, for a more accommodating approach on our part. The position is, as far as overtime payment is concerned, that the method of calculating the earnings of a workman in terms of section 41 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, is under consideration at present. The ideas expressed here by the hon. member are being considered by us at the moment so as to see to what extent we have to bring them into the formula of calculation. But I want to tell the hon. member at once that as far as the retrospective aspect is concerned, I am afraid it will not be possible. I replied to representations of this kind before and said that we could not burden the employers, who are the only contributors to this Fund, with accidents which occurred not in their time, but 20 or more years ago. It is unfair to do so, and I am afraid we cannot make this of retrospective effect. But we shall have due regard to the aspect of overtime calculation in earnings, which the hon. member raised.

The hon. members for Brentwood and Rosettenville spoke about the health provisions in the Factories Act. The regulations in terms of that legislation are being drafted and are under consideration at present. I may just tell the hon. members that negotiations in this regard are being conducted at present.

I can tell the hon. member for Rosettenville that arrangements have already been made for the handling of industrial diseases in conjunction with the Department of Health. As a matter of fact, a joint inter-departmental committee, representative of Labour and. Health, has been appointed to go into this very matter for this purpose. So, the suggestions which the hon. member, as well as the hon. member for Brentwood have raised, will be taken into consideration by this inter-departmental committee.

The hon. member also referred to the Unemployment Fund and the Accident Fund. As far as the Unemployment Fund is concerned, the position is that the cost of benefits and the administration costs still exceed the income of the Fund. We have to supplement it out of the interest we have from the Fund. So I am afraid we cannot consider increasing those benefits at this stage. When it can be done of course it is done by the board on which, as the hon. member knows, the workers and the employers and also the State are represented. When that time arrives, and we run even again, the matter will be considered. As far as the Accident Fund is concerned, I can inform the hon. member that there is already in operation a system whereby rebates are paid to employers every three years, depending on the accidents experienced.

*The hon. member for Hercules referred to the International Metal Federation, which had paid us a visit. They had a deputation here and subsequently they had an interview with the Secretary for Labour and after the interview things were published in the Press to which the Secretary replied in order to point out that that version was incorrect, as the hon. member rightly said. The Press report stated that the Secretary had allegedly said that job reservation was obsolete and would be abandoned. After the statement of the Secretary we received this letter from the Confederation of Metal and Building Unions. I think it is important to quote the relevant paragraphs, in reply to the question as to what had gone wrong. In that letter we received, which was addressed to the Secretary for Labour on 29th March, the director of the organization wrote as follows—

Then, with reference to this misrepresentation, they went on to say—

That, I am afraid, is only one of the numerous examples of the way in which the English-language Press in this country presents us with a slanted image of reality. [Interjections.] Here is the proof and the hon. member may give the matter further consideration if he wants to take it any further.

The hon. member for Hercules also questioned me about the exemptions granted by me to Coloured persons to do plastering and bricklaying on the Rand and in Pretoria, and made the request that this practice should be used judiciously and should not be abused. The position is that we do see to it that this practice is not abused, in so far as we no longer grant exemptions in respect of Coloured persons who are not available. As I said in my reply on Friday, now it is first established whether there are Coloured persons available for the work in respect of which application is made for exemption, and the applicants must furnish us with the names and addresses of those Coloured persons, and when these are received by the department, exemption is granted, but, what is more, exemption is granted only in respect of the specific work in respect of which application has been made. In this way proper care is taken that this practice is not abused.

The hon. member for Hillbrow started his egg dance, which he did to avoid having to reply to the pointed questions concerning the United Party’s attitude to Bantu trade unions, by referring to the border areas which allegedly were such a threat at the moment. It would interest the hon. member to know that as far as the border areas are concerned, 49 wage agreements are applicable in respect of the border areas, and that there are 30 wage determinations in respect of those border areas. In terms of them it is arranged that there will be no unfair competition. As I said on Friday, at present a third investigation by the Wage Board into the clothing industry in the border area is in progress in order to eliminate any possibility of unfair competition.

But there are no Whites ini the clothing industry any longer.

I shall come back to the hon. member with reference to the Bantu trade unions in just a moment. Now I first want to refer to the hon. member for Port Natal.

The hon. member for Port Natal tried to shield behind certain occurrences in Newcastle. I hope the following will interest him. First of all I can tell the hon. member and this Committee that no exemptions have been granted in respect of Bantu building workers to perform skilled work in the Newcastle area. In fact, a prosecution is at the moment in progress in regard to this case, but apart from the prosecution which has been instituted, instructions will be issued for the inspection of those premises to which the hon. member has referred, and if there are illegal workers the necessary steps will be taken.

Will the Minister investigate the amount paid to these workers?

Oh yes, that is part and parcel of such an investigation.

*The hon. member for Hillbrow, who had to perform all kinds of egg dances in order to get away from having to reply to questions concerning the United Party’s attitude on this affiliated Bantu membership, also tried to hide behind the Transkei. Let me tell him that what the Transkei is going to do after it has become independent, is their concern. If they want to establish trade unions there, it is their concern. However, it is sheer foolishness to think now that Matanzima can organize trade unions in South Africa, just as foolish as it is to say that we can do so in the Transkei. This is so unrealistic and so foolish that I really do not even feel like replying any further to such nonsense. [Interjections.] That is what one must deplore. The hon. member did not have the courage to take a stand here in public on what his own main speaker had to say about this right of the Bantu to obtain affiliated membership of trade unions. No, they hide behind some imaginary nonsense. That is the difficulty with the United Party. They do not have the courage to say openly and frankly, as the hon. member for Houghton had the courage to do, that they stand for Bantu trade unions. The only consolation she has, is that the hon. member for Yeoville has gone half way to the point where she finds herself at the moment. The hon. member for Hillbrow is on the same way he is, but he does not have the courage to say so openly here today

Let me put this to you as far as the trade unions are concerned: If we are to have the implementation of United Party policy, i.e. that Bantu will be able to obtain affiliated membership of White trade unions, it will actually amount to the Bantu dominating our trade unionism in South Africa and, to put it differently, it will spell chaos for South Africa.

Nonsense !

If the hon. member calls it nonsense, it is up to him to state this point of policy openly and candidly to the public. I challenge the hon. members to state this policy they want to lay down in two twos today, openly to the people. The only thing necessary in South Africa, is for the public to see the United Party and its policy exactly as they are. If they see the United Party’s colour policy exactly as it is, the public of South Africa will see to it that that side never governs this country. [Interjections.] This party and the Government has a great responsibility not only to our economic development; we also have the responsibility of directing our labour policy in this country in such a way that we maintain a social pattern for ourselves, that we maintain the position of the Whites, and to this this Government and this party will commit themselves to the end.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 24.—“Bantu Administration and Development”, R105 897 000, Loan Vote N.—“Bantu Administration and Development”, R39 307 000, and S.W.A. Vote No. 10.— “Bantu Administration and Development”, R14 327 000:

Mr. Chairman, in rising here to introduce the debate on my Vote and to present it to this House with great pride, I want to start off by saying that today is the day of reckoning. [Interjections.] We have a score to settle with the Opposition here as well, because it must present an alternative to the policy which my departments and I are implementing on behalf of the State and the Government. I say we are here for the day of reckoning, because from the beginning of the session I and others on our side have tried very assiduously to have a discussion on the fundamentals of Bantu policies in South Africa, but on every occasion the United Party has evaded and fled from such a discussion, Today they cannot flee from it, except by refusing to speak on their policy. I am afraid they will do so. I am going to prove why I say this. While speaking here on 3rd February in the no-confidence debate this year, I set out the policy of this side of the House, of the Government, in respect of the Bantu in the White area of South Africa, very fundamentally and basically. I set it out fundamentally and in great detail. The Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, Dr. Koornhof, also did so in that debate. However, the United Party remained silent and up to the present time —let alone in that debate—has not replied to the statements we made in that debate. I sat agog anticipating their reply, but they did not reply. That is not all. In the first few months of the present session, we had ample opportunity to deal with private members’ motions. Let me tell hon. members what happened. There were 28 motions on the Order Paper of this House of Assembly, and of these three were motions from the National Party side on its Bantu policy. Out of that total number of motions, there was one motion on Bantu Affairs from the United Party side, and, what is more, the United Party made sure that that would not come up for discussion. That motion lapsed. The one and only person who moved a motion of that nature, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District—I do not know whether it was due to the mover that the motion did not come up for discussion—did not even use the one and only opportunity he requested for that side of this House to state its policy or to criticize me. I repeat, they remained as silent as a covered grave. At the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill, we conducted a five-day debate, and apart from certain casual ideas on Bantu affairs expressed in certain speeches, they remained silent and ran away on that occasion too. That is not all. Since that time we have had two by-elections in this country. The one by-election was at Oudtshoorn, and if there has ever been a place where a party has done a Dunkirk from its policy, it was the United Party at Oudtshoorn in respect of their Bantu policy. They also did a Dunkirk as far as our policy in respect of the other peoples was concerned. They did a Dunkirk as a Dunkirk has never been done anywhere else on earth, except at Dunkirk itself. Now we have Brakpan as well. If there has ever been an opportunity for the Opposition here or for their speakers in the North to state their policy effectively to the country and to show what great potential they have as an alternative Government, it is now with this election at Brakpan. In the previous election they did not deal with this policy, but walked around with the tarbrush. That is all they did. Now, in this by-election, they are doing even less to present the policy. We should like to hear it in Brakpan. ecause they have evaded pitting policy against policy out there and on other occasions they could have had of their own free choice, I say today is the day of reckoning for the United Party. I say they did a Dunkirk at Oudtshoorn. but I want to predict that Brakpan is going to be their Majuba. Brakpan is going to be their Majuba and after Brakpan we shall see their skeletons, figuratively speaking, hanging from the bushes there. I am opening the discussion of these Votes which concern the policy of this Government in respect of the Bantu peoples in South Africa. I am going to present it to its full extent and with all the implications it has for all peoples in South Africa. From this it follows very logically that the United Party’s policy must then be contrasted to this in equally clear terms. We are going to do this. I hope the United Party is going to do the same. There is a great deal we must know. Especially after this weekend, there is a great deal we must know. My group of very assiduous and competent colleagues on this side and I are going to present the National Party’s policy and what it has achieved to this Committee.

Then you must start now.

Yes, that hon. member will still have a hard time to digest what he will have to swallow here.

At the same time we are going to lay the United Party’s policy wide open in this debate. As we have already heard, we are going to chase them from Dan to Beersheba on the basis of their own policy. [Interjections.]

Order!

As I have said, on 3rd February this year, I elaborated on the principles of our policy in respect of the Bantu in the White area of South Africa with whom, as hon. members opposite want to make out, we apparently do not know what to do. I put forward the six basic principles on that occasion. I am not going to elaborate on those six basic princiles today, except to repeat them in order to bring them into this debate in which, as I have said, we should have fundamental discussions on these matters. I want to repeat those points of policy here from a somewhat different angle than I did in February. We must realize that the basic premise in dealing with our policy in respect of the Bantu in the White area, is the same as that in respect of the homelands, i.e. the concept of multi-nationalism. This is the point of departure in dealing with this policy. It is very striking that a sort of parallelism is to be found in respect of Bantu in the White area and in respect of White persons in the Bantu homelands.

What?

I said there is a parallelism. But if my hon. friend does not understand me, I shall repeat it gladly. There is a parallelism in our policy in respect of the Bantu in the White areas and in our policy in respect of the Whites in the Bantu homelands. [Interjections.] Yes,

I shall explain it to the hon. member now. As I have said, there are the fixed principles which axiomatically give direction to our thinking in regard to these Bantu persons in the White areas. So, I mention in the first place, as I did in February, that every Bantu person belongs to some Bantu people in South Africa and is, therefore, a member or citizen of that people. He is either a Zulu, or a Shangaan, or a Xhosa or a Venda, or whatever the case may be. The second principle of which I want to remind this House, is that the members of any particular people have preference and exclusive rights to facilities and privileges in their own homeland, and that they are secondary in another homeland.

What does Dr. Eiselen say?

He says exactly what I have said. In fact, I learnt these things from him at Stellenbosch. That is why we say that the Bantu people here in White South Africa are here only for that labour which is released to them in terms of statutory provisions and which is controlled in that way. That is very clear. We find this parallelism in the following respect as well; in the same way, but naturally with adjustments, because it is not always identical, the position of the Whites in the Bantu homelands is such that they are present there not by virtue of any right they have to be present there but because of that work for which they are needed there. Of course, the work for which they are needed there, is not identical to the work for which the Bantu are needed here. However, the principle remains unaffected. The third principle I want to mention, is that the Bantu persons here in the White areas enjoy their own rights of citizenship within their own national context, linked to their own specific homelands. This is a very clear principle which we reasoned out when we dealt with the Bantu Citizenship Act here. A fourth principle I mentioned and want to repeat now, is that as far as possible people should be present in their own homeland to a maximum extent and to a minimum extent in the homeland of another. This principle is fundamental to the control of the Whites entering the Bantu homelands and of the Bantu coming here.

Then what about …

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I want to implore you to give the hon. member for Pinelands a turn to speak in the course of this debate. It seems to me as though he is brimming over with knowledge and enthusiasm to inform us of their policy. The fifth point of policy I want to repeat today is that those Bantu persons in the White areas who are allowed to work here, are treated here as homogeneous communities. That is why we house them properly in their own residential areas, therefore, with their own facilities, etc. I do not want to elaborate this now, because in the course of this debate hon. members on this side are going to do so in a competent way. The sixth and last principle I want to repeat here now is that in as far as there are Bantu in the White areas, there should be good liaison between them and their peoples and the homeland to which they belong. I want to repeat what I said a few moments ago, and that is that I am not going to elucidate these principles in general, because I know there are other members who would like to elaborate on them and who will indicate what successes we have in fact achieved—and there have been many successes and achievements—in respect of the implementation of our policy in the White area of South Africa. I want to remind hon. members of the great stability we have brought about in the economy and labour of South Africa by means of the labour bureaux we have established in all the White towns and cities in South Africa since the beginning of the 1950’s. These labour bureaux already handle more than 2 million Bantu labourers per year. They have rendered a great service and have brought about great stability. As yet the system is probably not as perfect as one should like to have it, but already it has rendered South Africa immeasurable services. In addition I want to mention that a large variety of community services of an excellent nature have been established in the urban Bantu residential areas. One can talk for days not only about the large numbers of people moved from Sophiatown to Meadowlands, from Windermere to Guguletu, Nyanga and such places, and from Cato Manor to other places, etc., but also about the facilities which are true to the traditions of those people, which have been established for them at those places.

Thirdly, I want to mention another great success which was achieved more particularly in the past year—and in this regard I should like to pay a special tribute to my good friend and colleague, the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development—and that is the activating of the aid centres. The legislation dealing with aid centres was passed here several years ago, when I was still Deputy Minister. At the moment these aid centres are operating properly and are rendering excellent services in assisting the very Bantu who have become problem cases in the White areas.

What about promotion?

I just want to say to the hon. member that this Deputy Minister deserves promotion ten times more than any other person on the opposite side. I want to remind the Committee that resounding successes have been achieved with the Bantu in the White areas in respect of strengthening the national ties which the Bantu here have with their homelands and their peoples, in respect of their citizenship, in respect of their delegates or national representatives for whom provision has been made here and in respect of transport schemes which have been established. By controlling the numbers of the Bantu in White areas, we have also achieved phenomenal success in respect of the principle of maximum presence in one’s own homeland and minimum presence in the homeland of another. Today we again have the position I pointed out before, and that is that in five of our Bantu homelands we have already settled more than half of the population of those homelands. I want to repeat very clearly that as far as the South African Bantu is concerned, the position today is that just under half their number is in White South Africa. I shall not include the 80 000 Malawians in that, nor the people from Mozambique, etc. I think these are things which prove that resounding successes have been achieved in the implementation of our policy in the White areas of South Africa. I have mentioned only a few, because I do not want to deal with these things extensively. Other hon. members on this side will have more to say about these things. I want to make haste. I just want to say to hon. members that they must make a good job of orientating themselves for what we should like to hear in this debate. [Interjections.] Hon. members may go ahead and make a noise, because I am not subject to any time limit and consequently I may talk for a long time. If they make a noise, I shall wait until they are silent. From our side we are also going to point out other resounding successes we have achieved on other levels in respect of my departmental work. I, and I hope other hon. members will do this too, am going to point out the systematic development we have had in recent years of political systems and structures of their own for each of these Bantu peoples. Hon. members laugh about this now, but we heard from the mouth of one of their colleagues what she said on this point. Hon. members should take another look at what the hon. member for Wynberg said on this specific point.

Where is she?

I am sorry that the hon. member for Wynberg is not here. I saw her leaving the building some time ago and presume she has a good reason for being absent. However, in her absence I want to say what I should like to repeat in her presence, and that is that I express appreciation towards her for acknowledging that in respect of this point, and also in respect of two other points she mentioned, the National Party has achieved success. It is very seldom that one gets such an acknowledgment from both sides of the dividing lines in South African politics. I am grateful to her for having done that. Therefore I also do not think she deserved it that, as she herself told the United Party’s newspapers, her Chief Whip had gagged her to stop her from saying anything more. I think it is a tragic day in this Parliament and in South Africa if one has to be gagged merely because one has made sensible statements about one’s opponents’ political progress. If the United Party is so bankrupt that it cannot tolerate its own members telling the truth about their opponents, then we are indeed dealing with an alternative government which simply cannot form a government in South Africa.

This systematic development of the political system is the other success we present to this House. In addition to that, I want to mention the very fruitful dialogue, as it is called in the present-day vocabulary, which we have been practising in South Africa in the past years, indeed, up to the highest level, so that in the past week we had the experience in Cape Town of the hon. the Prime Minister being able to speak personally to the full Government of a Bantu homeland, namely the people from Owambo.

It is his duty.

It is his duty, and that hon. member need not tell me that. That is why he speaks to them and that is why they are brought here. That is also why he visits their country. I just want to point out what happened. That party’s previous Prime Minister never did so, however. I go further and mention to you the resounding successes we have achieved also in respect of agricultural development in the Bantu homelands, and in respect of economic development in general and social development in general, which includes education, etc. I mention to you the resounding successes we have achieved in recent times with the imaginative start we have made with the large-scale consolidation steps we have taken. Here I want to mention the name of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, who is performing a gigantic task in this regard. This is merely a small foretaste of what you are going to get this year—the real start still lies ahead, and soon, we hope. Furthermore, I want to tell you that we have achieved as resounding successes with the extension of Bantu education in South Africa, under difficult circumstances, particularly under difficult financial circumstances as well as difficult social circumstances, but in spite of this, we have had wonderful expansions in respect of school education, university education and the training of industrial workers in the industrial areas, inside as well as outside the Bantu homelands. About that, too, you will definitely hear more here.

Having spoken only briefly up to now about the successes and progress of our party in the implementation of our policy, I want to say, as I did at the start, that we should contrast to those things the United Party and what it advocates. If that is done then we would be able to indicate in this debate how untenable the United Party policy is as an alternative policy for the policy of the National Party. In the past months we heard by way of a reminder— we had heard it before—what the policy of the United Party would mean to us, the Whites in South Africa, and therefore to the whole of South Africa as well as to the stability or instability of the country, with the 16 non-White representatives they would introduce into this House of Assembly as an element of balance between the parties of the Whites in this Parliament. This is a step which would have only one consequence, and that is that the balance would be exercised to the disadvantage and downfall of the White man in South Africa. But in referring to the 16 representatives in this House of Assembly, I must admit that after last Thursday I am skating on thin ice, because last Thursday we had identical, authoritative reports in four or five Opposition newspapers, identical to the extent that they contained the same spelling mistake, about how a new alternative policy for them would possibly be formulated by their constitutional committee which was meeting at the present time. Having seen what a tremendously negative impact these 16 representatives in this House of Assembly will have on White South Africa, members of the United Party have jumped up in order to suggest, as that report did, that those 16 representatives need not come into this House of Assembly, but in fact into a new “supra Parliament”—this is their own terminology. On looking back at that report after four or five days, and especially on reading what else was stated and written over the weekend with reference to that report, it seems to me as though that report was in fact a sort of feeler that was thrown out. One would not have thought that they still felt like “hoorns” (feelers) after Oudtshoorn. However they did throw out feelers. The whole intention of that report—so it seems to me—was to see what White South Africa, but particularly the National Party, was going to think of it. When they saw White South Africa shuddering at the idea, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition came to tell us there was nothing of the kind. But I scrutinized the statement which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made in his constituency. When one scrutinizes that statement of his, Sir, do you know what the clearest impression is which one gains from it? The clearest impression one gains from it is that he admits the essential statement contained in that report of Thursday. [Laughter.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is sitting here; he himself may listen to my interpretation. In that explanation of his, as reported in Rapport, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said: Yes, in terms of their existing policy, it was perfectly possible that there might be a central Parliament in which all the different races were represented and that this House of Assembly of ours might become the communal council of the Whites. This is also precisely what is contained in Thursday’s statement, and this is what White South Africa objects to most strongly. We are not going to tolerate that this House of Assembly be reduced to a communal council, subordinate to a supra Parliament, which, because of the balance of power factor of 16 non-White representatives, or 25 if the Other Place is included, will not be the White Parliament controlled by Whites either. Those non-White representatives would always be able to maintain the balance between two or three White parties which are more or less of equal strength. It is said that the mother Parliament, here in the old Houses of Parliament would remain a White institution, but would be degraded to a communal council.

White South Africa would not be satisfied with that, and the National Party will prevent this at every election which is held. We shall not allow ourselves to be bluffed in this way. I just want to say in passing, that on looking at that report of Thursday which, according to yesterday’s Sunday Times, the hon. member for Hillbrow allowed to leak out, and on looking at quotations from speeches made previously by the hon. member for Yeoville, I am reminded of the words of Isaac, who said: “I hear the voice of Jacob, but I feel the hands of Esau.” I think that, in all piety to the late Isaac, one should change the words here and say: “I feel the hair of Esau here, but I hear the voice of Jacob, that is, the hon. member for Yeoville, Mr. Marais Steyn.” After all, we know him; he is a man who likes quoting from his own past speeches in the statements he issues; that is his technique. Here and there he quotes incorrectly, of course, as happened last year, and then he writes a letter to the newspapers to say that he quoted incorrectly from his own speech.

Sir, I think the letter which the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Hillbrow subsequently gave to the reporter of the Transvaler to say that they denied that report, was merely a political or diplomatic denial. I think that report was a patented leakage by the two gentlemen or, more than that, a patented leakage by the hon. member for Yeoville. Sir, I have already said that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition then ostensibly wanted to rectify the matter; in that process he confirmed the most revolting element in that report, namely that under their policy this House of Assembly of ours would perhaps be degraded to a mere communal council in which the authority of the Whites would be worth nothing, while the authority of the Whites could by no means hold sway in their new super Parliament.

Sir, this tentative new policy of theirs will make as little impression on the public as their previous policy did, and the funny part of the matter is that they discovered it within a few days. We shall see whether the constitutional committee will have more to say about the matter. Sir, I should have liked to say much more about the policy implications of their announcement; it is very tempting, but I shall leave it at that. However, I do just want to say I know that on my side there are members who are longing to talk about that. I know they will also get the opportunity to do so. Sir, the United Party owes it to this House, to South Africa and to Brakpan to give us more clarity about this. As I said at the start, today is the day of reckoning, and the United Party must give us more clarity on this matter in this debate. There are members on the opposite side who should rise and speak. I think we have to pardon the hon. member for Wynberg for not speaking, because in that report which appeared on Sunday she named the people on that side who should speak. She said that in the first place it was the hon. member for Transkei. I know he is going to speak after me; I can see it in his face. I want the hon. member for Transkei to speak about this, because the hon. member for Wynber said he was the man who should do so. In the second place she said the hon. member for Yeoville should speak about it. Of course the hon. member for Yeoville, the man with the patented leakage of that report, who is not here at present, should speak about it. According to the hon. member for Wynberg, the third person who should speak about it, is the hon. member for Pinetown. Sir, if there is one member with whom I want to live in heavenly peace, it is the hon. member for Pinetown.

He is harmless.

Yes, he is very harmless; I have got to know him as such in the almost 20 years that I have been here. But if the hon. member for Wynberg says he ought to speak about it, then there is obviously something, or a great deal, which he knows about this matter, because in the circumstances in which she found herself, the hon. member for Wynberg would not have mentioned the hon. member for Pinetown had there not been a good reason for it. I think he should lift the veil for us slightly in regard to this matter. He should lift the lid off the pot, in the terminology of the hon. member for East London City.

Of course, Sir, the hon. member for Hillbrow should also speak about this matter, because his name was associated with the report. He should speak about it, that is to say, if he does not prefer to make a public statement on this matter, because we know, of course, that the hon. member is his party’s director of public statements; and, last but not least, someone who was mentioned only indirectly, should speak about this as well, and that is the chairman of the constitutional committee, who, according to the newspaper reports, is the hon. member for Durban North. I do not see him here now, but the Whips can tell him what his duty is in this regard. Sir, I want to conclude by challenging the United Party—and if this offends them, then I beg the United Party—to disprove one single statement in our policy as I put it and as other members on this side have put it. I ask them to mention a single guarantee we give White South Africa which is false and wrong. Sir, in all humility, I also request the members of the United Party to try to indicate to us soberly where we on this side have erred in referring to their policy as being merely dangerous figments of the imagination. Hon. members opposite owe it to us, Sir, and we are going to wait for it.

At the beginning of the speech of the hon. the Minister, I thought we were going to see the depth that a speech could descend to, the same type of speech that we heard from the hon. the Minister of Health under the Prime Minister’s Vote. [Interjections.] I am referring to the low depth of the debate. We had the accusations that we referred to the election at Oudtshoorn as the Boer War election. [Interjections.] Members opposite deny this, but we heard about Majuba again today. [Interjections.]

It is quite clear to me that the Minister is trying to get back into the Prime Minister’s stakes. He is now competing with Carel de Wet and P. W. Botha. [Interjections.] But let me tell you, Sir, he cannot. He was much better when he adopted the other line and acted as the Jolly John towards the end of his speech.

What about coming back to the Native Affairs?

The Minister has said that this is the day of reckoning, he is going to put his policy against our policy, and he wants us to discuss our policy and he will discuss his policy. He will find it much easier for his party to discuss his policy than it will be for them to have our side discussing his policy. But I can assure you, Sir, that we intend discussing his policy. It is his Vote. In a few years’ time, after the next election, he will be sitting on this side of the House. [Interjections.] So I do not blame him in getting practice in leading off in a debate under the Minister of Bantu Affairs’ Vote.

He says the policy of the Government in regard to the Whites in the Reserves is parallel to their policy for the Blacks in the White areas, but that is not true. Can a Black man go into a White township area as he pleases, as a White man can go into the villages of the Transkei? Can a Black man own property in Soweto or anywhere else, as a White man can in the Transkei? [Interjections.] Of course he cannot. Would he expect his public servants to go into the Reserves as migrant workers and leave their wives at home? No, he supplies them with houses at cheap rates and he gives them family allowances to make it easier for them to go into the Black area. Do they show the same consideration to an African, to have his wife with him? Not a bit. So this is nonsense.

Sir, we intend dealing with the Minister and his Vote, and we will not be dictated to by him as to how we will run the debate. We have the right to say how we will run this debate. His policy and his Government’s administration is going to be before us and we are going to deal with it. It is no good us going back and talking about our policy to the Minister because obviously he does not listen. The Leader of the Opposition set out our policy in the no-confidence debate this Session.

Which policy?

He set it out again in the Budget debate and again under the Prime Minister’s Vote, and yet that hon. Minister does not know what our policy is. It is just a waste of time. I would just like to remind the Minister of one statement by our leader, when he discussed our policy and when he dealt with the threat of the 16 members representing the non-Whites in this Parliament. He asked whether the Prime Minister was so dejected that he felt he could not rely on one of the representatives of the non-Whites voting for him in Parliament? I do not blame the Prime Minister. That is why they are stressing it now, because of the reaction from the Bantu leaders and the Coloured leaders to their policy. It has been discarded by them and I intend dealing with it.

Under the Prime Minister’s Vote I said that the troubles were coming fast, not singly, on the Prime Minister and his Government, and coming mainly because of the actions of this Minister and his department and the other Ministers who are running the race portfolios. I am supported, I see, in the last report, by Dr. Eiselen who says—

These troubles come on the Government because of their inconsistencies and their illogicalities in the implementation of the policy, the impracticable policy, which the Minister is trying to carry out. In theory the policy of self-determination would give the race groups the right to say in which direction they would wish their destiny to lie, but in practice it is not so, as I will point out later. The fallacy of the Government’s reasoning was mentioned again by the Minister this afternoon, namely that he does not accept that we are different peoples sharing one fatherland and one citizenship, a citizenship which is bestowed by this Government on all the citizens of the country. He chooses to pretend that we are different nations with different states. The Minister talks about stating our policy, and I was asked which policy our leader has stated, but how many policies has this Government not had since 1948? First we had apartheid, a discredited word. Then we had baasskap and then separate freedoms and separate development and self-determination and now we have the policy of multi-nationalism. They believe that the policy of multi-nationalism is the alternative to multi-racialism. While they strongly believe that multi-racialism will lead to integration in every sense of the word, because of the contacts which must necessarily be made between separate race groups in a country where you cannot separate them economically or politically and where they are inextricably brought together in the homes, in the factories, in the mines, on the farms, in commerce, in the Public Service, in every walk of life, they argue just as vehemently that the same contracts do not have the same consequences if they are made multi-nationally. A meeting in exactly the same circumstances, by the same people in the same place for the same purpose will have vastly different consequences if it is on a multi-national basis than it will have if it is on a multi-racial basis. There are psychological and social changes and contacts can be made with equanimity between Whites and foreign non-Whites because those meetings are multi-national and not multi-racial. Then the same argument should apply to meetings between the different nationalities, the different nations, in South Africa, But it does not. If the Government’s policy of establishing separate independent states is fulfilled, I am entitled to ask whether all the subjects of the foreign states which will be established and who will be living in this country, will be accorded the same privileges and consideration as the nationals of the other states a bit further away. I raise this question because this is one of the many problems facing the Government as it progresses with its policy of forcing independence with all its consequences on its fellow Black citizens.

It was easy for the late Dr. Verwoerd, the architect of the policy, to talk in abstract 11 years ago, but the wind of change, forecast by Mr. Macmillan, is now blowing in South Africa too, and what at first sight appeared to the more credulous and the more nave of the Government supporters to be the answer to our race problem, is now boomeranging and serious problems face this Government in the confrontation between it and the chosen leaders of the non-White races. It is boomeranging because it has been forced on people without prior consultation. Every term applied to Government policy, is a misnomer. I have been through the lot, and the biggest misnomer of the lot is the policy of self-determination. What rights of self-determination have the Bantu, the Coloureds or the Indians had? What self-determination did they have? Which group would determine its future in the same way as this Government has determined it for them?

Why do you not define self-determination?

What does Chief Gatsha Buthelezi say? He says—

I believe that all the Bantu leaders think that way. They do not accept the policy, but they have no option. They were not consulted before the policy was enunciated by the later Dr. Verwoerd. They are consulted now; I readily accept that; the hon. the Prime Minister says that he has had more consultations with the Black people in the last two or three years than all his predecessors put together.

Dr. Verwoerd consulted with the Transkei.

I accept the Prime Minister’s statement, but what type of consultation is taking place now? The only consultation now is on the question as to how the policy can be implemented. The hon. the Minister says that Dr. Verwoerd consulted with the Transkei. What alternative was the Transkei given? He pushed the system of Bantu Authorities on to them, but that system was a failure. They had the riots at Pondoland and a special commission had to be appointed in that regard, and he came with this solution. But what alternative did the Transkei have; what alternative did Chief Kaizer Matanzima have? Chief Kaizer’s point—and it has always caused an argument with the democratic leader, Mr. Guzana—is that it is no good allowing Whites to have political rights in his area and to treat them as full citizens of the Transkei because, he says, the Bantu will never get it in the White Parliament in South Africa. He is saying that they have to take what they can get. That is in the same line that Chief Buthelezi is taking.

The first cause of confrontation should not have come as a surprise to this Government. It was folly to talk about independence for those states before finalizing their boundaries. We are not being wise after the event; we warned that the Government would be faced with the trouble it is having now. Boundary disputes have bedevilled race relations between neighbouring states throughout the world and there is no reason why the so-called states in southern Africa should react any differently from the states in Europe and in Asia.

It was according to the international relations of Gen. Smuts, and you know it.

[Inaudible].

What do you know? You are a baboon.

When the Transkei Constitution Act was passed, we said …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

The hon. member is not a baboon.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it unconditionally.

The hon. member for Transkei may proceed.

We warned the Government when the Transkei Constitution Act was passed and we warned the Government when the Bantu Homelands Constitution Act was passed last year that we were looking for trouble by not finalizing the boundaries. What have we had before us lately? We have had a demand by Chief Kaizer Matanzima which he coupled with his claim for independence. In passing, I might say that this false report which appeared in the Press last week about claims he had made for additional land in the Ciskei to be added to the Transkei, would not have caused the concern it did and the embarrassment to the Government which it did, had the boundaries been finalized beforehand because there would have been no argument about it. Until finalized there will be speculation and demands which will embarrass the people living in the area concerned and this Government. The Prime Minister admitted that a point which kept on cropping up in his discussions with the Bantu representatives of other homelands, not only of the Transkei, was the question of land, land and land again. That is always a point of discussion. Why does the Prime Minister or this Minister not finalize the land problem before talking further about independence? The Prime Minister stressed ad nauseum that the Government would buy the land promised in 1936. He said that the boundaries could not be settled until that land was bought. There is no quota for the Transkei, the Transkei do not know how much more land they have to get. Why does the hon. the Minister not tell the Chief Minister of the Transkei what land he is going to get and which part of the country is going to be added to the Transkei? The Prime Minister has made it quite clear that he does not know what the quota is, but he says a quota is visualized. He has not told us what that quota is. I hope that the last speech of the Prime Minister has settled once and for all the ridiculous claim by Nationalist speakers, especially the hon. member for Aliwal North, that the boundaries were laid down in the 1936 legislation.

The Bantu leaders remain dissatisfied and are in confrontation with the Government. Chief Buthelezi has complained about his land. Why did the chief Minister of the Transkei move his independence motion last week? It was not necessary for him to move a motion to consult with the Government in regard to independence. He could have done it. He is the Minister. He is reported as having said that independence is long overdue. This is a complete reversal of what he has said in the past. His attitude in the past has been that independence could not be meaningful unless the State was viable and therefore he would not be a party to asking for it at this stage. The Transkei is becoming less and less viable. If you look at the Estimates of Expenditure, you will see that the Government has to put more money into the Transkei in order to keep the administration going. The Chief Minister said that he is not interested in the 1936 legislation. He said that he was not a party and that the Bantu were not a party to that agreement, as he calls it. He said it was a uni-lateral decision. He went on to say:

How true that is. What better cause for consultation could there be than a dispute over land between two states? What did Chief Gatsha say during that same week? He told his people that they were being taken for a ride by this Government and warned that we were sitting on a keg of dynamite and that the fuse was getting shorter all the time. He, too, expressed the dissatisfaction with the land allotted to his people and made it quite clear that he was only prepared to work with the Government because he had no option. Is this the climate in which the Government hopes to build up friendly relations with potential foreign neighbouring states, when the majority of the permanent inhabitants of our state will be foreign citizens? What a golden opportunity for fifth-columnists!

Coupled with these land demands is a plan that suitable provision must be made for repatriates from the urban areas. The Dimbaza’s and the Sada’s are things of the past. The Transkei will not have it, Zululand will not have it and I am sure that the Ciskei will not put up with it for much longer. The Government has to face up to the fact that the population growth, whether Black or White, is around the economy, and economics will ultimately decide the policy. Economics are now deciding the policy and the Government is continually making changes as I shall show. The Africans have taken to the Western way of life. They want to live it where they can appreciate it best. It is no good telling them to go back to the Reserves to enjoy the tribal way of life. They have discarded it in the same way as we have changed our way of life. They have accepted our way. We have repeated time and again that the urban African is the rock on which the Government’s ship of State will founder. Now we are supported by “die vader van Groot Apartheid”.

*Listen what he has to say. He says (translation)—

We cannot do without them here. They are needed here. It will never be possible to settle them all in their homelands; they will therefore never be in a position to enjoy all their rights there.

I should like to add something else he said:

This is what is said by the father of Grand Apartheid—dr. Eiselen. I said that we, especially my hon. leader, stressed our policy in previous sessions and during this session. I refer especially to our policy regarding the urban African. The difference between our policy and that of the Government is that ours is based on family life. It is the very antithesis of the Government’s policy. In keeping with its policy, the Government neglects the basic requirements for family life and that is housing. I know that there was a good record in the past, many years ago, but latterly the Government is applying pressure to have the housing established in the Reserves. Obviously, the less attractive the urban areas are made, the easier it will be to persuade the Africans to go to the Reserves. It was fundamental to Dr. Verwoerd’s policy that the African would either return or migrate to the Reserves and he insisted that the number of Blacks in the White areas be so reduced that in the year 2000 there would be parity. This tide was to turn in 1978. The year 1978 is dead. So, that aim has now been abandoned and the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister in charge say that numbers are no longer decisive. Numbers are no longer a threat, nor are they as important as they were in Dr. Verwoerd’s days. The Government is now bowing to pressure from its intellectuals and other critics and is, in fact, admitting the failure of its ideal of sole use of migratory labour in urban areas.

The hon. the Deputy Minister, the hon. member for Primrose, announced important changes in policy during this session, namely that he would allow wives to live with fairly permanent urbanized Africans. In his Budget speech the hon. the Minister of Finance also announced a change. He said that the authorities would allow industries to employ additional labour in the urban areas. This is a further example of how economics are changing our policies. These noble gestures can of course be nullified by the simple expedient of failing to furnish the requisite housing. The accusation we make against the Government is that it is neglecting housing in Soweto, Port Elizabeth, Cape Town and Pretoria. Is it not a fact—I ask the hon. the Minister —that the Government froze married accommodation in the Pretoria municipality about five years ago? Apparently the hon. the Minister is proud of that. We know, too, that there is a terrific shortage of housing in Soweto and we know that with a shortage of housing you get overcrowding in the municipal areas.

What has happened to Dr. Verwoerd’s policy of allowing leases up to 30 years? My information is that that has also been abandoned.

Long ago.

I want to know why they have abandoned it. Is there no consistency in their policy? If Dr. Verwoerd introduced that system, it must have played an important role in his policy, otherwise he would not have introduced it. I want the hon. the Minister to tell us why they have abandoned that system of allowing the Bantu to build their own houses and to have a right for 30 years.

I know that the hon. the Minister said— he did not say it in the House; it was reported in the Press—that he was going to take away the rights which the Africans enjoyed in terms of section 10. He skimmed over it in the Other Place, but I still believe that it is his intention to take away those rights, if he can, but the only thing that stops him, is that Dr. Verwoerd was the man who gave them those rights under section 10 and therefore the hon. the Minister cannot take them away.

Other hon. members of this side will deal in more detail with the housing and the problems of the urban Africans, but I want this hon. Minister to tell us what his intention is with regard to the offer made by the hon. the Minister of Finance. The hon. the Minister of Finance can talk as he pleases, but he cannot do what he pleases. This hon. Minister has to decide whether additional Bantu labour will be allowed in the urban areas. I want to know from him under what conditions will the additional labour be allowed in. It is time he made a statement. The Chamber of Commerce are very worried. They say—

The speech was made by the Minister of Finance some weeks ago, but we have heard nothing from the Ministers who have to carry out that policy. I ask them now to tell us and to tell the country what they intend doing.

I now want to come back to the Bantu Reserves and deal with work opportunities there. Today it is an absolute necessity for a labourer to go out to work. The hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour have stated plainly that there is no unemployment. I dispute that. How do they know that there is no unemployment in the Bantu Reserves? All one has to do is to go to a labour recruiting office and see the queues standing outside of people trying to get work in the towns. I want to ask the Minister whether he knows of any farmer, industrialist, or builder who obtained a permit to go and get Bantu labour and who came back and said he could not get labour because everyone was employed.

Yes, in many instances.

I would like to know where you went to. The hon. member must tell those people to come to the Transkei and they will get all the labour they want.

They went to Kokstad and couldn’t get any.

Kokstad is not in the Transkei. They go to the only White district in the Transkei, Mount Currie, and go and look for Bantu labour there. The hon. member must go and read the debates of the Transkei Parliament and see what the members of their Assembly said that things were beginning to look so bad that soon some of the people will become cannibals. They will become cannibals to get something to eat. That was said in their Assembly. They do not treat unemployment as a joke. Unemployment is a serious thing there.

It is claimed by Government speakers that because the percentage of Bantu living in the White areas has been reduced, it is proof that the policy of repatriation and the use of migrant labour is succeeding. We do not accept that for various reasons; the chief reason being that the numbers employed, and not the percentages, have not been reduced, but have proportionately increased more than the Whites, so that the gap between the two population groups is widening, instead of narrowing, as Dr. Verwoerd envisaged. It is no good telling us that a lower percentage of Bantu is now living in the White areas than lived there before, because their numbers are still increasing. Secondly, statisticians have no idea how many Bantu are living in the townships illegally. We all know that there are thousands. I read a report the other day, and I could hardly believe it, where it is suggested that as many as 90 per cent of the Bantu employed in the building trade are there illegally. I would like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether he has any knowledge of this. In 1970, according to a reply given by the chief minister of the Transkei, there were 185 000 Transkeians for whom work was found outside the Transkei by the labour bureau. In 1971, according to a reply I received in this House recently, 191 600 Bantu were given work outside the Transkei. That is a considerable increase. What we must remember is that these are only those who can legally get permits. There are thousands and thousands who come down here and elsewhere without permits. The number is, therefore, far greater.

I don’t want to rub this in, but when Dr. Verowerd rejected the Tomlinson Commission’s recommendations that White capital and initiative had to be used, we warned that his policy would fail. Dedicated as civil servants may be, they are not entrepreneurs. With the stark failure staring them in the face, the Government is now prepared to take in White capital and knowhow on an agency basis. This will not succeed because it will be inefficient. With an agency contract the agent cannot lose, and this is not the way to build up an efficient economy. How often has the Government changed its policy even in this regard? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member is going to sleep terribly badly tonight because he heard of Majuba in this debate this afternoon, as I could gather from his observations about it. I should very much like to have a serious discussion with the United Party this afternoon on a very important matter. There is one thing about which there is not the slightest doubt: The United Party’s relationships policy has become a colossal farce in South Africa, and never more so than during the past week. It is the most terrible mix-up that has ever had to pass for a relationships policy in South Africa. I put it on a par with what happened in 1929 when that party also came along with such a colossal farce and mixup. They asked for one country from Cape Town to Cairo—and fought an election on it. You can imagine, Sir, how we would have been at the mercy of the more than 300 million Black people if that had been the case. This being so, I want to start with a quotation on this occasion. I am not the only one who wants to talk seriously to the United Party. The quotation is from a leading article of the Rand Daily Mail. It reads—

But, Sir, if you think that this quotation comes from a leading article of last week’s or this morning’s Rand Daily Mail, I have to disillusion you. This article was written exactly five years ago, on Tuesday, 3rd October, 1967. The country can now judge what it has received from the United Party over this long period.

On this occasion I want to put certain questions to certain members on the other side. I want to start by asking the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to tell us clearly in this debate what the third phase of their so-called colour policy is, of which it was said in the five morning papers of Thursday, 4th May:

In asking them to explain their third phase to us, I am therefore doing so on behalf of the liberal and other English newspapers in this country that say that “it is shrouded in mystery”. If those papers say this, you must know it is late in the day.

Now I want to ask hon. members opposite, and primarily the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, something in connection with this report that appeared in the five morning newspapers. With reference to the report headed “U.P. Colour Policy may change”, I first want to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout whether he was aware beforehand that such a report would appear in an English newspaper, or did he see it in the newspaper for the first time? I am just asking him for a reply. He owes the country a reply.

If that hon. member does not want to reply to me, I want this House to be a witness to what is happening here. I want to ask the hon. member for Hillbrow: Was he aware of it beforehand that a report such as this was going to appear in an English newspaper, or did he read it in the newspaper for the first time? In the second place I want to ask that hon. member: Was he approached in any way beforehand by a reporter or reporters in connection with this report? Was his opinion in connection with this report sought beforehand? I see the hon. member is sitting stock-still. I just want to tell him that we possess certain information, and we know that that hon. member is basically an honest person. Consequently he cannot lightly shrug off these questions, specific questions, that I am putting to him. I now want to say to him and to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: The fact that that hon. member remains silent when I put these two specific questions to him, is already a reply in a certain sense.

I want to put a third question to him. Did the hon. member for Hillbrow have anything to do with that report at any stage? He is sitting stock-still. Sir, this is a very serious matter. We are dealing here with the most important problem facing this country, viz. the relationships problem. This report, “U.P. Colour Policy may change”, which has extremely important implications for the country, appeared in five morning newspapers. That hon. member was mentioned by name in two newspapers, in Die Transvaler and the Sunday Times, as being the person who leaked the report. I am asking him three simple questions now, but he is as silent as the “Graaff”.

Sir, I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that it is very clear that he is losing his grip on his people. The United Party’s policy is leadership over the whole of South Africa, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot even maintain leadership over the hon. member for Wynberg. He had to gag her. I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he was already received that member’s letter. There are people in his ranks who leaked it to his newspapers “that the U.P. will change its colour policy”. What is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition going to do about it? Someone is fibbing about this matter. Sir, either the English-language newspapers are fibbing—five of them—or certain hon. members in the Opposition benches are bluffing the country. Sir, the country is not going to take this lightly. This report contains stunning implications for South Africa. I want to make a serious little allegation here, and I do this with the responsibility I have and with the backing of these English-language newspapers. The allegation I want to make is that there are members on that side who deliberately leaked to the English-language newspapers that they were going to reduce this House of Assembly in Cape Town to a body equivalent to an ordinary “Communal Council” which would have only local powers. I shall be surprised if the Brakpan voters do not take any notice of this. There are members sitting on that side who remain silent when one puts specific questions to them about these important matters. Sir, this report which appeared in the Cape Times on 4th May, last week, is almost incredible—I quote:

And then they go on to say—

The House of Assembly in Cape Town—

In other words, “with a large degree of local autonomy”. And then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has the audacity merely to say, as he said at Rondebosch last Saturday, that he denies the report; in other words, that the policy of the United Party is going to remain the same, while these stories are being put out to South Africa. Sir, the voters want to know where the United Party stands. I want to say to hon. members opposite that the Whites are not satisfied with this crazy set-up; the nonWhites are not satisfied with it either. I want to quote to you what one leader of the Coloured people said on 5th May, 1972—

[Time expired.]

Sir, I want to take the hon. the Deputy Minister up on his last statement that the Whites are not satisfied and that the non-Whites are not satisfied. I am sure he will agree with me that both the Whites and the non-Whites are dissatisfied with the policy that he is now applying in the city of Johannesburg with regard to the housing of domestic servants in hostels. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister, on behalf of the housewives of Johannesburg, with regard to his edict concerning the housing of domestics in hostels. I want to point out to him that the idea of housing single people in hostels is not a new idea in Johannesburg at all; it is not a new idea with regard to the Bantu, nor is it a new idea with regard to the general community. To deal with the Bantu specifically, I would point out that for years the city council of Johannesburg, which has the administration of non-European affairs under its wing, has provided hostels for single people in Soweto; that those hostels have complied with certain minimum standards and that they have been entirely satisfactory. Some time during the 1950s the Ministry of Bantu Affairs insisted that those Bantu who were housed on the roofs of business buildings in the city of Johannesburg must be housed in Soweto itself. The city council of Johannesburg agreed to give effect to this under certain delegated powers, not because they wanted to do so but with the object of ensuring that where people were moved it would be done on a reasonable and peaceful basis. But the hon. the Deputy Minister has now issued an edict with regard to domestic servants that will have far-reaching consequences as far as the employment of domestic servants is concerned. Sir, this is what happened in Randburg a couple of years ago. The hon. the Deputy Minister and the Minister know what answer the housewives of Randburg gave to the Government with regard to the application of that policy. Today the housewives of Johannesburg themselves are up in arms against this system which is not a fair and sound one under present-day circumstances. Sir, domestic servants are employed all over the world, not only in South Africa. In this country, over a considerable number of years, the Bantu have played a very important part in the domestic life of the community, as everybody in this country knows. Even members on the Government side and their families have been well served by Bantu domestics over a considerable number of years. They have housed them on their premises. Bantu domestic servants have looked after their children; they have prepared their food and maintained their homes. This step that has now been taken by the hon. the Deputy Minister can lead to a complete dislocation of domestic life in the city of Johannesburg. Here I want to quote a remark, which I think is very apt, and which was made by people in the course of a protest against this edict—

I think that is the crux of the whole situation. Sir, we know the important part that the domestic servant plays in everybody’s home. Throughout the years employers of domestic labour have been able, under the supervision of the local authority, to provide satisfactory accommodation for their domestic servants, either on their own premises or in blocks of flats erected for this purpose in Johannesburg. We in the United Party have always adopted the attitude that these things should be left to the local authorities who know the circumstances under which people live and the conditions which apply in their own areas. It should be left to them to decide whether they are going to permit an employer to house his domestic servant on his own premises, or whether that domestic servant should be housed in a hostel. But in Johannesburg, as in Randburg. and as in any other big town, including Brakpan, the system has applied over the years that local authorities have provided the necessary rules and regulations to enable domestics to be satisfactorily housed. We believe that as long as there is satisfactory accommodation provided, there should be no compulsion to force domestics to leave this form of habitation that has been provided, which is satisfactory to both the employer and the employee in order to be housed in hostels. In regard to the history of Alexandra township, when it was decided to clear up Alexandra township to make it more habitable, because of the tremendous slum condition into which it had deteriorated, and because of the tremendous congestion, the policy was to provide hostels for the enormous industrial development that was taking place on the northern side of Johannesburg, and that was the first objective, to house the single industrial employee, both male and female, in these hostels in Alexandra. But thereafter the Deputy Minister, who has for a long time been wanting to apply this policy, decided to try it out once again in Johannesburg. Some years ago he issued a similar edict, but found that there was so much opposition to it that he dropped it for the time being. Now he has decided to impose it again, and it is going to cause considerable difficulty. The particular issue I want to put to the Minister is this, that it is expected, if his policy is carried out, that some 60 000 domestics will be affected, which means that one will have to provide not only accommodation, but also transport over one of the most heavily congested roads in the country, and you will then introduce into that particular system this enormous amount of transport required to bring people to their work on time. Does the Minister realize that it will mean a complete change in the entire structure of the home life of the city? Does he realize what effect it will have on the hours of commencement of work? Does he realize what effect it will have on the care of little children, and on the enormous number of housewives who today are obliged to work? Does he realize that already other committees, sitting at the instance of this House, have virtually accepted the fact that in our cities today there is a high density of buildings? This arises because there are families staying there, with both husband and wife working, who have to be near their work in the cities, thus causing this density of buildings around the perimeters of the cities. Does he realize that these women can only work because the domestic looks after their homes and their children? It cuts right across every section of society. It does not affect any particular political or any particular religious section. It affects every section of the community, and it is a very serious step which the Minister is taking. My view is, and that is the view of the people of Johannesburg, as it will be the view of the people of any other town or city in the country, that if hostels are provided, as they should be, then it should be at the option of the employer and/or of the employee to take up that form of accommodation. I do not want at this stage to comment on the type of structure provided, because I personally have not seen it, save that I have read that the provision for leisure time that is made there, that is to say the area provided for it, is far from satisfactory. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to put very briefly the first point I want to discuss in this debate. I am putting it merely as a fact …

Is this a debate, or do you merely deliver a speech?

Look, if you are trying to waste my time, go and do it somewhere else.

Order!

I want to make it very clear that there cannot be any argument today about the fact that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout’s views on the Bantustans, and representation in Parliament, etc., will in future become the future policy of the United Party.

This is not the member for Bezuidenhout’s Vote.

I am saying this with special reference to the support he has gained in the meantime from other members on that side of the House. Even the Leader of the Opposition fell in with this policy of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout a long time ago. This is not only the policy of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout; this was also the policy of his National Union Party. Since the hon. member for Bezuidenhout joined the United Party, they have been adopting the policy of the National Union Party step by step. I do not want to dwell on this point for any great length of time. Since we have at this stage accepted that they are going to recognize Bantustans, as the Progressive Party recognizes them—with their limited things, or whatever they call them—the “issue” will then be the urban Bantu. Here in my hand I have a publication entitled “Voorwaarts/Onward”, which was published in December, 1971. In the introductory paragraph of this publication the writers say that there was such a great demand for the United Party’s race relations booklet that they decided to have it reprinted. In the meantime they were publishing in this edition of Voorwaarts/Onward a number of matters in regard to their relations policy.

I am glad you are reading it.

I have read it. What is interesting, is that we have reached the level where the urban Bantu will actually be the point at issue. Let me tell the hon. member for Transkei what the learned Dr. Eisselen had to say in regard to the Bantu in the urban area, namely that the homelands were only a temporary solution to our problem. Just as Italy and other countries in Europe rejected such a standpoint, we as the National Party also reject that standpoint. Our standpoint is very clear and we shall not be frightened by a report such as that one. These hon. members will have to come and tell us what their standpoint is in regard to the urban Bantu.

Read to us from it.

I should very much like to do so, but the hon. member for Turffontein should not try his petty politicking on me. Amongst other things, the following is said here—

Then I read from the next paragraph—

Does the hon. member for Turffontein agree with that?

What does it say there?

Does the hon. member for Turffontein agree with this paragraph which I have just read?

Yes.

Very well, if the hon. members agree with that and say that this is their policy, I should just warn them that some of their people are saying that this is not their policy. Now I come to the interesting part. That was the end of this paragraph, and they printed the next paragraph between brackets. I quote—

This is followed by a list, from (a) to (f), in which they mention cases where exemptions were made. These include, inter alia, Bantu holding letters of exemption granted under any law, enrolled Parliamentary voters—i.e. as it was in 1948—registered owners of immovable property, etc., chiefs and headmen who were appoined, and so forth. Exemption is also granted to professional people, advocates and the wives and minor children of those exempted. In other words, as regards these particular aspects of their policy relating to the urban Bantu, the United Party has precisely taken up the standpoint they took up in 1948. Surely this cannot be otherwise. In regard to the urban Bantu we are back precisely where the United Party was in 1948. Now I want to put a few questions to the hon. members of the Opposition. Let the hon. member for Transkei, or any hon. member on that side of the House, rise and say whether he accepts, and whether he can spell out to us and to the electorate today, that all Bantu women in South Africa who are in the White area, will be exempted from the pass laws.

It says so there.

I know it says so here, but why are the hon. members afraid of saying it aloud? The hon. members may as well say it aloud. Let us continue. In due course all these questions will have to be answered. Unfortunately my time is somewhat limited, but we have just experienced a debate …

Tell us about one Bantustan which is a success.

That is something you will be told in the course of this debate. Tell us first how one of these rules, which brought that party to a fall in 1948, can return that side of the House to power. Then these hon. members go further. We have just had a debate on labour. Whenever we make the statement that the floodgates are going to be opened, those hon. gentlemen explode.

Because that is not true.

That hon. member says it is not true, but let us just read again what it says here—

Then they mention a few points, of which point (d) reads as follows—

Note the word—

In other words, they are advocating the total abandonment of the policy of job reservation and the job reservation legislation. But this is not what these hon. gentlemen told us during the course of the labour debate. In that debate they told us they were not going to abolish job reservation. Therefore, in merely looking at those two specific points in regard to the urban Bantu, we see that the National Party’s accusation against the United Party in respect of its Bantu policy, namely, in the first place, that it will not apply any influx control, is correct. Exemptions are granted here, and who are we to accept that if that party comes into power, it will not do the same thing and grant exemptions throughout? Who are the voters to accept that the United Party, if it comes into power, will not grant exemption to all Bantu? In other words, our charge against the United Party in regard to influx control, is correct. In the second place, our charge against the United Party is that job reservation will be abolished by them and that, in the words of the hon. member for Yeoville, the Bantu will be placed in a position to sell their labour on the best market. Do hon. members want to tell me that in spite of these things there will still be job reservation? Therefore, if the United Party were to introduce job reservation, or controlled employment, it would be immoral to say that a person could sell his labour in the best market. In this publication of theirs one finds the phrase “arbitrarily denies to human beings the right to use their talents”. If language has any meaning whatever, those words mean that they will be able to sell their labour in the best market. Incidentally, one may well take a look at the Afrikaans used in this publication of the United Party.

We can substantiate our accusations on no influx control under United Party regime, and that there will be no job reservation under United Party regime. Let us take note of the fact that this is the situation in the light of which we are to discuss the position of the Bantu in the urban area under their policy.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just spoken, tried to imply that the United Party was opposed to influx control. And yet it is a fact that influx control was introduced by this party when it was in power. The hon. member stood here holding the policy of the United Party in his hand, and then he tried to attach incorrect interpretations to it.

I wish to speak about the so-called positive aspects of the policy of separate development. I wish to direct my remarks in particular to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. I think that he is the only person who is really enthusiastic about the implementation of separate development. [Interjections.] No, I am being honest. He always describes any aspect of the implementation of separate development as something fantastic or dynamic. In fact, everything qualifies as being positive. I must say that he has a tremendous command of the Afrikaans language, perhaps thanks to Oxford. He knows how to use his adjectives well. Whenever he is called upon to explain a particular aspect of Government policy, he is bound to use more or less the following sentence—

If you cannot understand it, I cannot help it.

I want to concentrate on some of the aspects of this so-called “dinamiese beleid” and let us see how it crystallizes in practice. Whenever the word “tuislandsentries” is used, it is in fact used in order to justify the denial of certain fundamental rights to Bantu who happen to be outside the Bantu homelands. They say that they are denying those rights because those rights are not in terms of their policy of “tuislandsentries”. They say this irrespective of the fact that those people happen to be permanently outside. This is another way for saying to the Bantu that in accordance with this dynamic policy, they can enjoy full freedom as long as they are within the Bantu homelands, but the moment they set foot outside, then they must be prepared to accept perpetual “baasskap”. I have no desire to speak about the prevailing conditions outside the Bantu homelands. I want to be fair to the hon. members and therefore discuss some of the concrete examples of this “dinamiese ontplooiingsbeleid wat tuislandsentries in Suid-Afrika ontwikkel”.

I, together with some 20 other hon. members on this side of the House, had the privilege during the last recess to visit the Ciskei and the Transkei. We had the opportunity to observe the implementation in practice of some of these so-called positive aspects of the Government’s policy. We had the privilege, for instance, to visit resettlement towns such as Sada and Dimbasa. These towns are designed in order to give thousands of Bantu the privilege to enjoy the freedom of the homelands and to safeguard them against the perpetual “baasskap” existing outside the Homelands. When we entered the first of these towns, Dimbasa, I noticed a large number of Bantu milling around a building which, from a distance, resembled a trading store. My first thought that business was brisk in that town, was dispelled as soon as I discovered that the people standing around there were in fact standing in queues to receive free rations. Be it as it may, this obviously is a privilege a Bantu can enjoy living in the homelands—the freedom to stand in a queue and receive free rations— because we know if he happens to be outside a homeland, he must be economically productive and work for a living. The reason for this soon became apparent. These towns are situated miles away from centres which can offer job opportunities to them. The only people I saw who were in fact economically active in those towns were the cripple and the blind. They were engaged in elementary spinning and weaving projects. The only other people I saw who were economically active happen to be a few Bantu males, the only males around in this town. They were, funnily enough, in accordance with this “tuislandsentriese beleid” busy, building more houses so that they can resettle more families in these towns.

So that they, too, can queue.

Yes, so that they, too, can enjoy the freedom to stand in queues as I said earlier. Of course, the bigger the resettlement towns are, the more people can enjoy the freedom of living in these towns where, in fact, the wives and the children are separated from the husbands and fathers. The fathers are given the opportunity to return to South Africa where they can enjoy perpetual “baasskap”. Such a father can return to South Africa on a contract basis …

For twelve months.

… to his old work where, of course, it is convenient for him to forget about his family in the resettlement town. Here in South Africa, because he is also a human being with natural desires, it is possible for him to get another wife and to start family number two.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

He can live happily here until officialdom catches up with him and then family number two is moved presumably to one of these resettlement towns. These are the concrete, positive examples of the Government’s policy. What does the Government think it is achieving by all this? It is not solving a single problem! It is in fact creating problems all the way. The more we implement the policy of separate development, the more social and economic problems we will face in South Africa. These problems are not temporary in nature; they are endemic to the system of separate development, are in fact permanent features of it. Why is this so? Let us look at the Transkei, which is the only possible homeland which one can describe as a shop-window of Government policy. What does one find in the Transkei? Today the population density of the Transkei is already the greatest in South Africa, namely 100 people per square mile. In Natal the population density is about 90 per square mile. I do not know of a single Natalian who will be so mad as even to suggest that Natal can become an economically viable state, in spite of the fact that we have largescale industrialization, in spite of the towns in Natal, in spite of our harbour, and in spite of the fact that we have intensive agriculture throughout Natal. We expect that the region which is most suitably situated must become an independent state but, as I have already stated, the population density is already higher than 100 persons per square mile. One must ask what the answer to all this is. Surely the future of South Africa lie in industrialization, but this Government will never be able to achieve it. In the first place I do not think they have the ability and the vision to tackle such a great task. Secondly, as long as they try to operate within the framework of the agency system and try to force decentralization, in some cases purely as a result of political and dogmatic reasons, they will never be able to put this into practice. I want to say that towns such as Sada and Dimbasa will become the order of the day the more the Government implements its policy. It is completely unnecessary. Under United Party policy we accept the fact that an urban Native will have the right to have his family with him and can have a stake in the land in the sense that he can have freehold title, and we will thus eliminate all the problems that are in fact encountered in these areas. I know that the hon. the Deputy Minister— that is why I said that I wanted to direct my remarks to him—also visited Sada and Dimbasa and he, too, was shocked by what he saw. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful for the opportunity I am getting to make a speech after the hon. member for Durban Central has spoken. He and I are, if we look at age, more or less of the same vintage. If we look ahead, he and I, if our lives are spared and if we remain in the same parties—unless he comes to his senses in the meantime and becomes a Nationalist —will still on many occasions in the future have to discuss the race and population problems of South Africa. Now I want to issue this challenge to the hon. member at the back there as one back-bencher to another. This debate was introduced by the hon. the Minister in an able manner. What I want to ask the hon. member now, is that I and my contemporaries on this side of the House and he and his contemporaries on the other side of the House, should take as a basis this debate as well as all the questions put by this side of the House to the hon. members of the Opposition and all the questions put by the hon. Opposition to our side of the House, and that we should meet, anywhere in South Africa, in a debate where I shall give the audience the answers which that side of the House gives there to those questions which hon. members of the Opposition have put to this side of the House during this debate.

Do it right now in this House.

Mr. Chairman, then, on the other hand, we shall afford hon. members on that side of the House the same opportunities all over South Africa to reply to the questions put in the course of this debate by this side of the House on the policy of that side of the House. I am issuing this challenge because it is absolutely essential in South Africa today that the rising generations should take due cognizance of the replies given by the two major parties in South Africa in respect of a policy for handling the population problems of South Africa. It is absolutely essential, as the National Party has been in power since 1948 and as we have been engaged for more than 20 years in a policy laid down by us long ago as the ideal for South Africa, that we should debate that policy in a basic and scientific manner and test it against the demands made by South Africa and a modern world for peace, security and prosperity. The young people of South Africa should be afforded the opportunity once again of also taking a look at the solution offered by the United Party. I present this as a challenge to hon. members of the Opposition.

Is that to me?

To the hon. member and any other member. Whether it is in Durban Central, Hill-brow or Rondebosch, we shall be there to answer their questions. They must be prepared to answer our questions.

Then I want to say that I was once again very impressed by the speech the hon. the Minister made here today. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate him on the fact that my own alma mater, the University of Pretoria, conferred an honorary doctorate on him at the beginning of this year. I want to say that this has proved a few things to me; in the first instance, it has proved to me that there are universities in South Africa which have developed out of the native soil of South Africa and which are playing a special role in our society, and which have in recent years shown gratitude to those politicians who, in accordance with the norms and standards of a university, were prepared to make a contribution, on the practical political level, to the continued existence of the White man in South Africa, and to render a service to South Africa.