Mr. Speaker, I move—

Tell us something about Caledon.

… and as you remember, Sir, his party lost the following election.

And you won six by-elections?

Now, Sir, Nemesis has not followed this hon. Prime Minister so rapidly, but then his party has not been exposed to so severe a test. He risked six by-elections in five carefully selected seats … [Interjections.] … in which the state of the registrations on the roll left no doubt whatever that the Nationalist Party was not unaware of the imminence of coming by-elections. Sir, what were the results compared with the position in 1970 at the general election? They must have held very little joy for the hon. the Prime Minister, because they indicated that despite his heavy sacrifice of Ministers he had regained none of the ground which he had lost in 1970. In fact, they indicated a steady erosion of his support as a percentage of the total votes cast. But, Sir, when we look at the one seat for which the hon. gentleman was not prepared, the Klip River seat in Natal, what do we find? We find the tide running against the hon. gentleman very strongly indeed. We find a swing of nearly 7 per cent in the only seat in which he did not have the priceless advantage of surprises. It is an indication, Sir, that the writing is on the wall for his party, and it is right that it should be so, despite the nervous laughs on the other side of the House, because after nearly a quarter of a century in office we are no nearer the solutions of the big problems of our country. Despite the experience of these hon. gentlemen over that period, despite what they should have learned, despite the practise that they have had in dealing with these problems, we find that in many respects they are more dangerous than they have been at any time in the last 25 years. And, Sir, the people are sensing it; the people are becoming aware of it; they are beginning to look for other solutions, and they are beginning to realize how sterile is the thinking of this Government in a time of change in South Africa.

Are they looking your way?

Mr. Speaker, I think I can say with great confidence that they are looking our way and that they like what they see on this side much more than what they see on that side.

Sir, this session we are gathered under the cloud, under the shadow, of three rather dangerous developments in South Africa. The first concerns the increased terrorist activity to the north of us and on our borders; the second concerns the spiralling inflation in this country, rendered even more serious by drought in certain of our most productive areas, and the third concerns deteriorating labour relations and racial unrest in South Africa. I want to say at once that fortunately there is common ground—there is complete unanimity—between the Government and the Opposition in total condemnation of and opposition to terrorism, whether it is resorted to internally or externally. And that total condemnation includes those who give succour to terrorists or allow terrorists to use their countries as bases of operation against their neighbours. It is because of this accord between us that we supported the Government when it gave warning of its readiness to cross international boundaries, in accordance with the doctrine of “hot pursuit”. It was because of that accord that we on this side of the House also supported the Government when it decided to send police to Rhodesia to assist in denying entry to terrorists, because we were very conscious of the fact that the ultimate objective of those terrorists was South Africa itself. But against that background, Rhodesia’s action in closing the borders with Zambia—it is true after very severe provocation but without any prior consultation with South Africa—has spotlighted the sensitivity of the situation and the dangers of escalation. I believe there is a lesson to be learned from this, and I believe the lesson to be learned is that attention must be given to ensuring that there is a clear understanding by Rhodesia that assistance by our police, even though in our own interest, is not and cannot be unconditional. The public are with us in this police action. They have the greatest sympathy with those who have suffered at the hands of terrorists, whether as officials of the law or civilians going peacefully about their daily lives. And I believe, Sir, the people of South Africa are determined to see terrorism rooted out, to see it condemned by the international community. But at the same time they are concerned about any action which further endangers our own men and increases the risks to which they are exposed, without prior consultation. This is a time, Sir, for cool heads and full evaluation of every action. Rhodesia is to be congratulated on taking the first step to normalize the situation by reopening the frontiers as far as she is concerned. It is to be hoped that Zambia’s tardiness in reacting will not unnecessarily delay a lessening of tension and the seeking of opportunities to reach an understanding by negotiation. Events in Rhodesia have also underlined another lesson, of which we ourselves have experience, and that is that terrorists can only succeed if they have the goodwill and support of the local population. I think it was Mao Tse Tung who said that “a friendly local population is to a terrorist as water is to a fish”. If the local population supports the Government, if the Government has its goodwill and support, the terrorists cannot succeed. Goodwill and support, of course, are dependent primarily upon three things. I think they are dependent, first and foremost, on people feeling that they are getting a square deal; secondly, on their knowing that they enjoy improving living standards and, thirdly, on their feeling that there is a proper regard for their dignity as human beings. Sir, these matters are of particular importance in a country like South Africa, where the living standards of one group are patently higher than those of the overwhelming majority of the other groups. In such a society inflation and the consequent rise in living costs assume a very particular importance, because the man hardest hit by inflation is the man living on or below the breadline, and to whom an increase in cost just means less in an already meagre bread basket. In our country, as a result of numerous historical, sociological and political factors, the man living below the breadline tends to be the Black man, the non-White. That is the man whose goodwill we must nevertheless retain. His plight, Sir, is multiplied many million times. Common humanity, of course, common sense certainly, and our very survival undoubtedly, demand that the plight of these people and what they are suffering as the result of ever higher living costs, should be considered with the greatest urgency. They should be so considered because our security depends upon the retention of the goodwill and loyalty of these people.

Sir, of course, it is not only those below the breadline who have been hit by rises in the cost of living in the past year in South Africa. All fixed income earners, all people Jiving on pensions and all middle and low income earners are today suffering because of the dismal failure of this Government to check inflation and the resultant fall in the purchasing power of their money. Sir, I do not think I need much in the way of figures to drive home the fact that living costs are rising rapidly and disastrously for a large part of the population of South Africa. All hon. members on this side of the House or on the other side of the House who are in touch with their constituents will know of their grumbling, their anxiety and the uphill struggle that many of them are having. In fact, virtually everybody is affected, whether it is a so-called prosperous businessman worried about the effect of inflation on costs and his established way of living, or a middle income earner worried about the cost of school uniforms for children, new clothes, the running costs of a car, or even the cost of a decent meal. At the bottom of the scale there are the very poor, millions of whom are struggling to dress decently and have decent places to live and to have something decent to eat; these are suffering the worst. They are not only worried about what is taking place at the present time. They fear that the burden in the coming year is going to be an even heavier one. They fear that the burden in the coming year is going to be an even heavier one because for so long things have been getting so much worse so rapidly. Sir, I think it is a case I need not prove with figures but I should like to mention just a few for the record. I believe that up to a month ago, up to December, for the 12 previous months the cost of living has increased by round about 7 per cent. I know that I will be faced with barrow-loads of figures from members on the opposite side of the House, suggesting that there are other countries in the world in which the cost of living has risen faster. Indeed, over a three year period the figures I have been able to get make it clear that there are such countries. Sir, I have said before in this House, and I want to say again, that the level of inflation is not something which can be taken in isolation. We have to know whether in spite of inflation people are better or worse off than they were before. That is the simple test. That means that we have to have regard to the growth in the national income and we have to have regard to the growth in population. We find that when we look at those countries whose cost of living has risen faster than ours, in many cases the growth in their national income has been up to as much as twice more than that of South Africa. The growth in population has been smaller. The result is without any doubt that our people are feeling the pinch more than people in many other countries of the world who are living better because they can afford to live better.

But I do not believe most South Africans worry very much about how other countries manage their own affairs. What they are very worried about is how South Africa manages its affairs and how it affects them. Sir, my authority for that is this very Nationalist Party which is in power here. I cannot help thinking back to the days of 1947 and 1948 and of the fuss they then made about rising costs of living in South Africa. We heard it from platform to platform at a time when the living costs in the previous four years were rising at the rate of less than half of what they are rising at the present time. [Interjection.] Oh yes; it was 3,03 per cent over the period 1943 to 1947 as opposed to over 7 per cent last year. That is well below half, Sir. Now, there is no doubt that in this year things are bad. There is no doubt that they are going to get worse because this Government has no solution at all. And they are going to get worse for a number of reasons. First of all we have not yet felt the full impact of devaluation in South Africa or of the floating of the rand. That is going to be tough. Between 1970 and 1971 the wholesale price of imported goods went up 4,5 per cent and the wholesale price of South African goods went up 4,7 per cent. But in the six months from June to November last year, imported goods rose by 4,8 per cent over that period, and then devaluation was only beginning to have an effect. And there are going to be other factors which will push up costs. There is going to be the increase in rail tariffs by my old friend, the hon. the Minister of Transport. There are going to be, without doubt, higher petrol costs. In all probability there will be increased Post Office charges. Already there have been the affects of the drought on food prices. All this, I think, means that in 1973 the cost of living is not just going to rise; it is going to soar. And just what is the Government doing about it, Mr. Speaker? They are not nearly as concerned about it now as they were in 1947 and 1948.

Can we end the drought?

There you have it, Sir.

End the drought of ideas, yes.

Yes, there is an absolute barrenness of ideas on that side of the House, but the drought will get the blame for these things even when it has been raining. The tragedy is that this is a serious situation for South Africa, because rapid inflation, as we have been having, unaccompanied by rapid growth, can pose a very great threat to our future security in South Africa. We are a country of mass poverty amidst the plenty of an almost exclusive minority. We have to realize that while in other wealthier countries of the world with more homogeneous populations cost of living may be the subject of lengthy and acrimonious debates, here such matters can reach crisis proportions very easily indeed. I believe that we have reached such a point at the present time.

I referred earlier this afternoon to the activities of terrorists to the north of us. Fortunately, we have little experience of them in South Africa. However, in our midst is another guerilla fighter, a guerilla fighter whose name is “poverty”. Its weapon is the strike weapon. Do not let us fail to recognize it. If my information is correct—I believe it is—it is that guerilla fighter, poverty, that is responsible for the wave of labour unrest which is taking place at the present time.

It may have been started by agitators. It could have been delayed by better communication between employer and employee. However, I have no doubt that it could not be avoided if present wage scales in certain industries are maintained in the light of present inflationary pressures in South Africa. Our war is now a war against the guerilla army of poverty, and the size of the forces we fight is, of course, enormous.

I believe if Government members opposite had attended the recent Research Workshop of the Abe Bailey Institute of Inter-racial Studies of the Responsibility of Organized Labour in a Plural Society, they would have learned much of interest to them. They would have heard Mr. J. H. Liebenberg, who was until recently the president of one of the trade unions connected with the hon. the Minister of Transport, make clear just how big the wage gap is between the average White worker and Coloureds and Asian and African workers. He also indicated how it had increased between the years 1968 and 1971. In his view it was between 4 and 6 per cent. He indicated that even if you look at the public sector and if you make the take-home wages the criterion, one would come to the conclusion that there had been very little improvement in the situation since the turn of the century. They would also have heard something else. They would have heard it made clear that since there is no difference between the prices that Black and White pay for their commodities which they buy in the shops, there will have to be greater increases to non-Whites than to Whites if the position is to be improved in any way. They would also have heard Mr. Ferreira, Director of the Productivity and Wage Association, an association which works with the employers, not dissident employees. He gave the results of one of his organization’s recent national surveys which covers nearly a quarter of all Blacks in South Africa. He made it very clear how pitifully low were the wages in the industry of the very large percentage of those people.

Oh, the United Party bosses!

Why do you not pay them more?

I shall come to this “Why do we not pay them more”. Oh yes, I thought that would come.

The left-wingers, verligtes, liberals, as the Government tries to smear anybody who takes an interest in this matter, are not the only people who are aware of what is going on. Only a few weeks ago, there was a Government-supporting newspaper Rapport which wrote a leading article. Let me remind hon. members what it said:

The question we have to ask ourselves today is whether this Government is adequately aware of the problem and is doing their best to remedy it. My charge against them is that they are shying away from it and that they do not seem to understand what it is all about. They seem to lack completely a grassroots conception of the size of the problem, of the widespread suffering, the implications for the future and of the basic principles essential to finding a solution.

Secondly, they seem to refuse point-blank to get out to find out what is wrong and to find a solution. The Government simply restricts its contacts to formal communications with representatives of the homelands, although I agree that this is most important. However, it is not enough where effective action is needed in the urban areas. The Government stubbornly refuses to send representatives—they did this last week—into areas of contact where such matters are discussed not by a handful of do-gooders, but by men representing organizations speaking for thousands of workers of all races, sociologists, economists, academics and employers over a wide spectrum. One wonders why. It cannot be because they have all the answers. From what they are doing it is quite clear that they do not have the answers. It seems as if they choose to stay insulated from reality and are becoming more and more anaesthetized against the hard, cold impact of impartial fact. In fact, I sometimes get the impression that we are governed by a Cabinet of somnambulists.

What do you find when you look at the Government’s record? You cannot help asking yourself whether they realize that poverty exists not amongst the won’t works, not amongst the unemployables, but amongst large sections of those working in commerce, industry and other aspects of our national life at the present time. I know most workers are supposed to have protection, protection under the Industrial Conciliation Act, as a result of agreements, or protection as a result of the activities of the Wage Board in this country. Wage levels and living standards are by our own laws a matter of Government concern, but what does this Government’s record indicate? This Government’s record seems to indicate that they are either disinterested, or that they are absolutely misguided in their priorities. For how many years have there not been pleas for the Wage Board to speed up the making of their determinations? For how many years has the Government done precisely nothing about it? How long has the Wage Board been allowed to forget its functions not only in regard to recommending wage increases, but also to establish a living wage. No one will and no one can deny that there are thousands of workers today who are in receipt of wages totally out of touch with reality. Even where new awards are under consideration, it takes so long to implement them that when implemented they are very often still behind the basic needs of the worker concerned. The Government has purposely restricted the range of jobs available to non-White groups in those very areas where the vast mass of them are involved in their everyday lives and in their work, i.e. in the urban areas. Thirdly, the Government has purposely restricted training in those areas; they have limited it to the homelands. Fourthly, the Government has failed to establish adequate means of communication between employer and employee in South Africa. Fifthly, this Minister of Labour seems to have done nothing to educate or to persuade White workers and employers to accept a change in the traditionally discriminatory labour pattern in South Africa—a change which is inescapable if the economy is to continue to grow and poverty is to be alleviated. He has not even praised the activities of the hon. the Minister of Transport in regard to what he has done in respect of his section of the administration. He has not even made it clear that this is an example to be followed with enthusiasm by the rest of South Africa.

Historical processes, the backward vision of a Government which has been in power for too long and 25 years of compounded error, have left a legacy of confusion and complexity which is creating obstacles and putting them in the way of change. However they try to explain away the mess, that does not excuse them from the responsibility of trying to find a solution. This is the guerilla fighter in our midst: Poverty. He is a far greater danger to us than the guerilla fighters in the north. I think the nation is entitled to an answer from the Government in respect of this issue.

As I speak to you now, Mr. Speaker, there are many thousands of workers in Durban and elsewhere who have come out on strike in increasing numbers. The Government’s answer is that this is due to the work of dangerous agitators working with ulterior motives. That may be part of the truth, but agitators need grievances to succeed and the bigger the grievances, the more fierce the action of those who regard themselves as aggrieved by those grievances and the more readily do they respond to suggestions by agitators. I am sure the Government will try to deal with the agitators. At the moment I have reason to believe, in so far as information is available, that these agitators come from outside and that they are not bona fide members of the workers communities involved in the strikes. This makes it easier for the Government to deal with them. However, unless we realize what is going on in South Africa, the time is going to come when those so-called agitators will come from the communities of the workers and will not be regarded as agitators by the workers but as national heroes working for the well-being of the working community.

I believe that we on both sides of this House believe that we have a mission to perform in South Africa. We believe we can show our peoples the way to a better life, to more prosperity and happiness. We may differ in respect of the policies we follow. Hon. members opposite stand for separate development; we would like to see a federal relationship. However, unless we deal with the immediate problem facing us now, we may find ourselves in a position where neither of us can offer a solution which can be imposed and accepted in South Africa. I have asked myself: If we on this side of the House were in power today, what would we do in respect of these disturbances?

No one knows!

The hon. gentleman says he does not know. Well, I must congratulate the hon. the Prime Minister on his fairness. He admits quite frankly that he does not know what to do. Let me tell him.

You do not know what to do.

You said, “No one knows”. Surely, that includes you too! Let me tell him what should be done. I think that the first thing which must be done, is that there have to be emergency measures taken to materially increase the wages of our lowest paid industrial workers.

There is nothing to stop it.

The hon. gentleman says there is nothing to stop it. In other words, the Government has the power. Then why does it not use it? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman need not get excited; I will deal with his point.

I am not getting excited.

Secondly, having had an emergency increase, I believe we must go back to the basis we had during the war years and after regular adjustments of wages and salaries to keep pace with rises in the cost of living. I read with great interest an article in the most recent edition of the South African Journal of Economics, an article which I recommend as interesting reading to all members on the other side of the House. In it the author points out that if people were to increase the wages of our poorer industrial workers today, even at the rate of 20 per cent per year for 10 years, it would result in an increase in inflation to the extent of only one point per year because of the slack that could be taken up in many of the industries concerned. I have no hesitation in saying that, if that is correct, there should be material increases in the wages of our lowest industrial workers and that steps should be taken to adjust incomes regularly to the rising cost of living. Many people will say that South African businessmen would not be able to afford this. I want to say, as I have said before on many occasions, that the South African society cannot afford to pay starvation wages to hundreds and thousands of its workers. If the price for it is moderate inflation we have to pay that price, because our very security is bound up with that situation.

Hear, hear!

I believe such a policy will result not only in a mitigation of poverty, but also in a tremendous stimulus to our economy, because before long those higher wages would have a multiplying effect throughout the entire South African economy. They could herald a new period of prosperity and growth in South Africa.

But what else must we do? I do not believe that increases in wages can be undertaken without increases in productivity. With a better paid labour force there will be a greater willingness to co-operate in schemes to increase productivity. I also believe that paying higher wages would stimulate management throughout industry and commerce to make their labour force more productive. The step that I suggest would also be a step in the direction of decreasing the wage gap between the skilled and unskilled worker in South Africa, between White workers on the one side and Indian workers, Coloured workers and Bantu workers on the other side. This gap is something that has been talked about a lot and is something that I believe has become a source of shame to many of us. It is something we have difficulty in defending. I think that we must act and see to it that a change is brought about. It is not only I who say so. There are many people on that side of the House who have made speeches in that direction before, while many Nationalist newspapers have been writing along those lines as well. But the Government must give the lead. The Government cannot just leave it to private enterprise. I noticed the tendency in the statement by the Minister of Labour to put the blame on the industrialist. Does it make sense to expect individual industrialists to take the lead when, for example, they are then unable to compete with industrialists who have not put up the wages of their workers? It is only the Government that can have a unified approach to this matter. Let me remind hon. Members opposite that when it comes to fixing prices—particularly I believe in the brick industry—then the price controller and the Minister, officially, only have regard to the wages fixed under wage determination and not to the wages actually paid. If a man pays more, no regard is given to this fact in the fixing of prices. Only the Government can ensure uniform action to alleviate the situation that has arisen in the present time, in a manner which would be fair to all employers in our competitive society. I believe the Government has the power to do it. The hon. the Minister over there indicated that he felt so too. All I can say is that if the Government does not have the power to do so, which I believe it has, then we on this side of the House would be prepared to support legislation to make sure that it has that power. At the same time we must remember that even if we increase wages and even if we narrow the gap, there will still be a ceiling on the contribution which non-Whites can make to the national welfare of South Africa, a ceiling which is imposed by this Government as a result of the limitation of the sort of jobs they can do.

But, Sir, I want to make it perfectly clear that the responsibility here is that of the Government and not of the employer. The responsibility is fairly and squarely on their shoulders. It is not a very elevating sight to see this Government skulking behind industrialists and employers in trying to get away from its own responsibilities. It is the only body that can bring about uniform change. We are entitled to demand that it does something about the position.

There is something else that should be mentioned here, and that is the impression that this Government has created over the years that advances by non-Whites must be to the detriment of the White workers. How often in this House have we heard the Minister of Labour tell us that section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act applies only to 2 per cent of the workers force of South Africa, and that that provision in our law is necessary as a threat to employers that the Government would act if necessary to stop the progress of the Black workers. As a result, many employers are afraid to take action. The officials of the Department of Labour, with their years of experience of negotiations in matters of wages and jobs, are the group that could make the greatest contribution in this regard in South Africa. It is the responsibility of the Government to see that this impression that has been created is taken away, and that employers are encouraged to go ahead opening new fields to our non-White workers.

The tragedy of our situation today is that many employers now want to negotiate, but that they find that, because there has been a lack of communication, the workers themselves are unwilling to negotiate. The machinery for negotiation has not been created. Here I want to pay a tribute to those enlightened employers who have used the limited machinery available to them to the best of their ability, or, alternatively, have used their own initiative to discuss the problems with their workers to find the solution and to anticipate the dangers and the resentments which would have resulted.

Now we come to the most difficult problem in the whole of our industrial relations, and that is the establishment of channels of communication between employers and employees, where the employees are not recognized as such under the Industrial Conciliation Act. We know the result has been that many employees do not identify themselves with the business of their employers. They feel that they are nothing better than a nuisance, a problem which has to be dealt with. I believe that one of the things which is necessary, is urgent action to establish channels of communication between employees and employers in order to create a sense of participation in all the activities of the employers by the employees. You will recall, Sir, that many years ago the Bantu Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act was before this House. The Government embarked on an experiment of creating works committees in factories and other undertakings. We of the Opposition undertook to support this measure as a trial. We have been disappointed, because the Government failed to show any enthusiasm for its own plans and its own policy. The objects of the Bill which the then Minister of Labour stated, were forgotten and the responsibility which the Government seemed about to accept, was rejected. Do you know, Sir, how many works committees there are in South Africa today? I believe there are 33, of which only 17 are functioning. I believe it would be competent for many, many thousands to be formed under the Act. I have been given a figure round about 11 000; I believe it may be even greater than that. I am glad to see in the statement by the hon. the Minister that he is going to introduce legislation to encourage the establishment of more works committees. I hope it is going to be an imaginative law. I hope it is going to indicate a determination on the part of the Government to make it possible for employers and employees to learn to understand each other better. I also want to make it clear that the United Party in power would accept the machinery of works committees as a starting point. And through them it would seek to forge links between our existing trade unions and those workers not registered as employees under the Industrial Conciliation Act. I believe that through works committees, through links with trade unions and through experience in collective bargaining, we could reach the stage which hon. members know we would like to see, and that is that these workers not accepted as workers under the Industrial Conciliation Act could become affiliated members of the existing trade unions, because we believe that if that were to happen—and I believe that the Government could take steps in that direction—then we would find that we would have far more chance of ending agitation, and that agitation would be replaced by the legitimate process of collective bargaining, which we have seen in our trade unions in South Africa in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this matter is so important that it goes to the very essence of the future position of the European, the White man, in South Africa at the present time. You see, Sir, people on the other side always like to talk of White survival. I think they know we on this side of the House also want the White man to survive and I think the time has come to issue a warning to this Government. That is that unless we act to end unfair discrimination, poverty, misery and frustration in South Africa, there is not going to be a future in South Africa for either the White man or anybody else. Here I want to express agreement with what was written in an article by a veteran Nationalist journalist in Rapport a few weeks ago. He spoke about the lack of progress under this Government towards a happier, more contented and more prosperous South Africa. He expressed deep concern at deteriorating race relations. He called for action against unjust economic discrimination. He said the present situation was indefensible and that even though the first stage of correction would cost many millions, this could not be postponed any more. He pointed out something else. Mr. Speaker. He pointed out that it would cost South Africa nothing to do away with the many ugly, humiliating and bad aspects of the Government’s apartheid policy. In other words, Mr. Speaker, he is one of those who realizes that if you want to retain the loyalty and support of our peoples against the enemies mustering against us outside South Africa, then you have to have a proper regard for the dignity of all our peoples as human beings. There are many examples I could give of this, but I am afraid time does not allow of it this afternoon. Other speakers will tell us what the situation in that regard should be.

I believe that Government action over the years has become circumscribed and limited by reference to theories which are not only outworn and outdated, but which have become overtaken by events, theories which emphasize the sterility of Government thinking at the present time. I think nowhere is this more evident than in the ultimate fallacy of the Government’s non-European policy. The Government believes in retaining separate identities of the various peoples in South Africa.

Don’t you?

It believes in retaining the separate identities and expressing them in separate states in separate constitutions. Sir, they fail to see that that policy cannot succeed where there is no realistic appreciation of the position of the urban Bantu, of the Coloured and of the Indian population. You see, Sir, in their policy theory is more important than the actuality. In theory they recognize only two alternatives—separation or complete integration. In fact, they embrace neither separation nor integration and they continue to flounder in a morass of uncertainty which exacerbates race relations and is endangering the security of our country. We, Sir, by contrast, have always accepted that there is a third alternative. We have always accepted that there is an alternative which avoids the dangers of full integration and the impossibility of total separation, and that is a federal relationship amongst the peoples of South Africa. We believe that a federal policy of government is the South African answer to our unique political situation. It is the answer, Sir, because it recognizes the three fundamentals, the three inescapable realities of the situation in South Africa at the present time, and those three realities are, firstly, the different levels of culture, heritage and development of the peoples in our country; secondly, the fears and anxieties which arise from those differences; and, thirdly, the interdependence of all the peoples of South Africa. By contrast, the Government emphasizes our differences; it exploits our fears and anxieties and it ignores our interdependence to the detriment of us all. I believe that the plans we have for a federal arrangement provide a method of dividing powers so that the central and the local community governments operate directly upon the people, but each does so within its own sphere, and each within that sphere is independent of the others while all are interrelated. It is thus a means of saving democratic government from destruction by fear. I think this is vitally important in South Africa because much of the political thinking here in South Africa has been based on an unproved assumption, and that unproved assumption is that the sharing of authority with other races must inevitably give rise to a Black-White power confrontation, and this assumption leads to the conclusion that since the Blacks are in the majority, the confrontation must be avoided by either depriving them of any share of power or giving them power in entirely separate territories, even if most of them do not live in those territories.

I ask, Sir, is this assumption of confrontation and conflict necessarily a sound one? I know that within a unitary system it may develop. It is probably exactly for that reason that so many people have adopted federal forms of government. They recognize the differences between people, and they accommodate them in separate regional or community units. They then find that they are able to co-operate in matters of mutual interest precisely because their own separate interests are satisfied within their own units, and the consequence, more often than not, is that racial differences play a very small part at the federal level and party policies and attitudes are determined by other issues. Why, Sir, should this not happen in South Africa? We are not so different.

Where does this happen?

Sir, I would suggest that that hon. schoolmaster should pay a visit to a country like Switzerland …

I have been there.

… or to Western Germany. If the hon. the Minister has been there, then he must have been blind and deaf throughout his whole stay there. I believe, Sir, that a federal arrangement is important for South Africa for quite another reason, a reason that has been exacerbated by the activities of this Government over the years, and that is that we are becoming more and more the victims of an over-centralized bureaucracy. More and more power is being diverted to Pretoria, and less is being left for the local authorities. It is not a peculiarly South African disease although I must say we are suffering from it pretty badly. I have alluded to it on many occasions. Other countries too are finding that there is a danger that governments which are increasingly forced to use the tools of science and technology in the service of growing populations are falling more and more into the hands of a bureaucracy, a bureaucracy of professional experts who have no direct responsibility to the electorate. When this happens the man in the street tends to abdicate, tends to feel that government is too complicated for him, and he tends to take less and less interest.

Do you want to make it more complicated?

No, I want to make it much less complicated. I can make it much less complicated if only the hon. gentleman would listen.

Will you tell us about it?

Of course. You see, Sir, the centralization of government in one place, the growing concentration of power in the hands of faceless individuals devoted to uniformity, have several disastrous results. First of all you get inflexible uniformity increasingly imposed on the public, more and more the desire to tell us what we should read, what we should see and what we should think and how we should spend. Our area of private freedom is constantly shrinking and the more our liberties are eroded away, the higher the taxes are to pay for the machine to limit that area of freedom. I think South Africa has got to decide, as countries like America and France have had to decide, whether this trend is to be reversed or not. I think it is time for us to make up our minds whether the individual exists for the State or whether the State is there to serve the individual. As far as I am concerned the State is there to serve the people. To ensure this happening, we must get more power back to the communities and more funds available to the communities and we must tap more local talent and give people the opportunity of expressing themselves and doing the things that are desired by their own communities. I think we can say that if one of the objectives of the federal system is to save democracy from destruction by fear then the second purpose is to save democratic government from destruction by decay, which we are seeing through over-centralization of government.

There is a third reason why I believe a federal answer is essential for South Africa. That is that not only are we living in a time of change but the pace of that change is increasing rapidly. We find that not only is the nature of South Africa changing but the nature of our people is changing. More and more we are living in big urbanized complexes where industrial development takes place. More and more we are looking for different standards of living for developing different needs. And this is just as true for the Black people as it is for the White people. The effect of 25 years of Nationalist policy has been that you have roughly eight million Bantu outside the reserves at the present time, far more than in them, and the excess of people is indicating that instead of following Government policy of gathering together in obedience to long standing ethnic urges, these people are forming communities of common interest and developing new desires and new standards and losing touch with their ethnic origins. You find it happening even in the homelands. You find in many homelands large concentrations of people not belonging to those to whom those homelands are supposed to belong. I think that what is really happening in South Africa is that new patterns are being formed, which are not in obedience to the ethnic urges the Government talks about but in growing disregard of them. What people are doing is that they are seeking better opportunities and creating new communities and the co-operative interests predominate in those new communities. Even if it were physically possible to stop this development, I believe it is economically impossible. I believe that because of our economic interests we have to accommodate to these changes. This means that if separate development as the Government envisages it, is enforced, it is going to lead to the economic deterioration of the position in the White areas and to stark poverty in the so-called homeland areas. It is going to do the very thing that this “kragdadige” Government always says it is not going to do. It is going to weaken South Africa and place it at the mercy of enemies in a hostile world. Never at any time has our security in the last 25 years been more in issue than at the present time. We are confronted by both internal and external threats, threats which impede our progress, which cause disquiet, which absorb our energies and our efforts.

I have already spoken this afternoon about terrorism on our borders and to the north of us, about the threat of internal unrest because of the poverty of so many of our people, of the threat to our economy because of uncontrolled and increasing inflation, because the Government is not able to make proper use of our human and physical resources. I have spoken about the threats of bureaucratic domination from a power-hungry Government. However, I am satisfied that there is a threat that is even greater than that. That threat is the absolute inability of this Government either to admit its mistakes or to learn by them, whether they are in the field of economics or in the field of sport or in any other field. There is no sphere where this is more evident than in the sphere of race relations. The Government has had a full 25 years to prove that its policy will not work. That is all it has proved. Its so-called solution has fallen apart; it has left us with greater problems than we ever had before.

Is that why you half adopted it?

The hon. gentleman asks if that is why I half adopted it. No, Sir, I did not half adopt it. There is no such thing as half an adoption in the law. There is complete rejection or total adoption.

The Government has placed us in a position where it is quite clear that changes have to be made and have to be made rapidly. We believe what is needed is a federal arrangement which is going to allow our various peoples to participate in the management of their own affairs, which is going to allow them to consult with others about their common problems, which is going to ensure to all a universal right of security, which will enable us to use all our resources for the betterment of all our people. It will recognize that constitutional changes can only be regulated by the existing electorate. I believe the time has come now to take a step in that direction, to take a step in the direction of a federal arrangement. I know there is this fear fostered the moment there is a suggestion of delegation of power. There is a fear that identity will be lost; that there will be domination. I think that is nonsense. We know that no policy of government can function in South Africa unless it safeguards the position of the Whites by means of constitutional guarantees or by placing them in a position of power. However, by the same token no policy can succeed in South Africa unless it has regard to the legitimate aspirations of the other peoples in South Africa.

I believe that the needs of the Whites in South Africa are perfectly reasonable needs. I believe they want security in a country where they are outnumbered four to one. I believe they want to be sure that their civilization, their achievements and their standards will be protected and that their property and their enterprise will be safeguarded. I believe the needs of the Blacks are also reasonable. I believe that they seek relief from political impotence, from economic stagnation. I believe that they desire the right of self-government, education, employment, medical and social welfare. I believe both Black and White need an acceptance that politically and economically they are interdependent. I believe that this interdependence can best be made to function and to work under a policy in which there is federal arrangement.

What should the structure of such a federal arrangement be? We believe that it should be structured in three levels of government. First of all there will be this Parliament, secondly there will be a federal assembly and thirdly there will be legislative assemblies for each group. The starting point would be the Parliament as it exists at the present time, which would retain its authority and its overall regulatory control.

Mike, is he still correct so far. [Laughter.]

I do not know whether the hon. gentleman thinks he has been responsible for anything humorous. He knows very well that there is complete unanimity in this party in respect of this policy. [Interjections.] Before this debate is over, even the unbelieving Thomases on that side will be believing. Parliament as it exists today will determine the extent of any change in the powers and functions of the federal assembly and the legislative assemblies. Parliament will remain paramount in all matters affecting the external and internal security of the State as well as the identity of languages and of the different groups. Its powers will be determined by itself because it will be sovereign and in so far as they affect the keys to the safety of the State, they will only be changed if the White electorate approves of such changes at a referendum.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition a question? Will this Parliament have the veto at all times?

If a body is sovereign, it could interfere anywhere at any time. It is the sovereign body in the Constitution, as it is at the present time. Within the federal plan there will be a number of legislative assemblies in regard to which I will say more in a few moments. Each one of those legislative bodies will appoint a basic number of representatives to a federal assembly and there will be a much larger number of representatives elected by the legislative assemblies to that federal assembly on a basis of proportional representation. How many each will elect, will depend upon a formula which will take into consideration the contribution made to the country generally and to the well-being of the State by the people represented by those legislative assemblies. [Interjections.] There is a great deal of interest in this plan this afternoon. I cannot tell hon. members how much pleasure it gives me to try to explain it to these hon. gentlemen. Now I will go on to deal with the functions and powers of the federal assembly. Initially these will be determined by Parliament and Parliament will allocate the funds for their exercise. Apart from operating in its own sphere of government that assembly will also act as a consultative body which will form a common forum for all groups in which they can express themselves and discuss matters of common interest to the entire people. In other words, it will be like the sort of thing the hon. Prime Minister is envisaging for South-West Africa. The only difference is that we have proceeded far further in our thinking than he has. It is like the sort of plan that Advocate De Villiers of Nasionale Pers is envisaging for South Africa, only once again we have proceeded far further in our thinking than he has. That, then, accounts for the federal assembly.

Let us look at the legislative assemblies which constitute a most important element in our federal concept. I mentioned that there would be a number of such assemblies. Each one will be elected by an identifiable group within the South African population. They will replace the four existing provincial councils, the homelands authorities, the Coloured Persons Representative Council and the South African Indian Council. Their function will be to administer and control those affairs which are of peculiar and intimate concern to the community concerned. They will operate on a basis similar to but more realistic than the existing provincial councils. That means they will have greater powers and be very much more important bodies.

Greater powers? Such as what?

Such as social welfare, the law of status affecting that group, education—higher and lower …

What about taxes?

They would have taxing power. Please go on; is there anything else you would like to know?

Will the members be elected on a proportional basis?

They will be elected to the federal assembly on a basis of proportional representation. They themselves will be elected on an ordinary democratic basis to be determined by themselves for their own communities.

One man, one vote?

Well, what do you give them? It is like we have in the Transkei at the present time.

I am not arguing with you. I am trying to get information.

I am trying to give it to you. Initially there will be four legislative assemblies for the Whites covering the four existing provinces. There will be the power to change for geographical reasons and concentrations of population.

Will the provincial councils fall away? [Interjections.]

Do you know, Sir, when one gets a question such as that, one can understand why the hon. gentleman had difficulty in understanding the Swiss constitution. The provincial councils will fall away. They will be taken over by legislative assemblies for the Whites in each province.

We go a little further. There will be a number of Black legislative assemblies, probably one for each homeland or a group of homelands and probably one for the permanently settled urban Bantu. There will be more legislative assemblies for the Coloured people. There will be a legislative assembly for the Indian people. Each legislative assembly will function only in respect of the racial group for which it is established. We accept that the final constitution and authority of the legislative assemblies will be the subject of lengthy consultations and negotiations between this Parliament and the group concerned. We plan that they should have the maximum powers consistent with good government. We want them to be able to exercise significant control over the intimate affairs and the destinies of their own people, their own individual groups. They will provide each community with its own safeguard and its own security.

Finally, to ensure maximum consultation between the legislative assemblies and Parliament and to supplement the channels of communication provided by the federal assembly, there will be a number of joint standing committees—call them consultative committees, if you wish—consisting of members of Parliament and of members of the particular legislative assembly. The hon. the Prime Minister will remember the sort of thing that was recommended by his select committee for a link between Parliament and the Coloured Representative Council. Only the hon. gentleman did not see his way clear to accepting that very wise recommendation. In this way each community will be in direct contact with Parliament, apart from being in direct contact with the other communities through the federal assembly.

What is being proposed is a framework which is not constitutionally complex at all. It has its own built-in safeguards and affords a framework within which we and future generations can build with a minimum risk of conflict and friction between the groups, but gives us absolute freedom in respect of those matters which, because of their indivisibility, have to be retained at the central level. I want to recommend this plan to the people of South Africa … [Interjections.] … and I recommend it with a great deal of confidence. I do so because what has been so amusing has been that, as it has slowly seeped through to members on the other side of the House what it is about, some of them are beginning to think and to scratch their heads. They are beginning to understand that it is not what they thought it was. They are beginning to understand that it is not what they have been talking about on the platforms. Least of all, it is what has been talked about by some of their Ministers and leading speakers at by-elections.

Will you tell us something about the functions of the federal parliament?

The functions of the federal assembly are perfectly simple. It will have those powers, first of all, in respect of consultation between the groups. It will be a body for consultation by Parliament. It will have the power to tender advice to Parliament. It will take over control of those areas of government entrusted to it from time to time by our existing Parliament.

What do you envisage those areas of government would be?

I envisage a number of things. I believe that something like tourism will be entrusted to such a body … [Interjections.] … under a new Minister of course. Matters like pollution and water affairs will also be entrusted to such a body. I believe that what is entrusted to that body depends entirely upon the confidence which the existing Parliament gets in that body. It depends on the confidence which Parliament from time to time develops in that federal assembly. I believe that confidence will grow with the development of a philosophy of inter-racial co-operation and the successful implementation of a federal concept. I believe that success will breed success and that progress will be in direct proportion to the speed with which we eliminate the obsolete barriers to mutual trust between all the peoples of South Africa.

Then you do not agree with your committee that Parliament will eventually be phased out?

Where does that stand in the committee’s report?

In newspaper reports.

That shows how careful one should be in South Africa at the present time. The hon. the Minister should know that that was never in the report of the committee. He knows very well that that was never recommended by the committee.

If you say so, I accept it. Do you mean then that Parliament will always remain paramount with a White majority now and in future?

Parliament is paramount and has the power to divest itself of any power it wishes, as it has at the present time. If it feels that those powers could be better exercised by a federal assembly, I believe it would divest itself of those powers.

But the veto power will remain with the White Parliament?

The White Parliament is the supreme body and unless it divests itself of that supremacy, as it can at the present time, it remains the supreme body.

Can it take back what it has divested itself of?

It can take back what it has divested itself of and given to the federal assembly. But there is a strong suggestion that where it has given powers to a legislative assembly there should be constitutional checks to prevent it from taking those powers back.

I understand: upwards, yes; but downwards, no.

No, sideways, yes; but downwards only with difficulty. I want to recommend this plan to the hon. the Prime Minister and I am very flattered that he is interested. His questions very clearly reveal that he has not understood it before, but that has not stopped him from making a number of speeches about it from a variety of public platforms. It is also quite clear that the hon. the Minister of Transport misunderstood the plan. He has been guilty of damning it with faint praise from many a platform in the last nine or ten months.

Apparently your own people do not understand it. How must I understand it?

The hon. gentleman will be surprised to know how well my people understand it. He will be surprised to find how holes are going to be shot out of his side in this debate. My people are ready; they are waiting for you!

I recommend this plan for a number of reasons. I recommend it in the first place because I believe it is wise, practical and immediate, while Government policy is unwise, impractical and impossible of fulfilment. I like it particularly because it recognizes three facts about life in South Africa which I believe have to be basic to our thinking. The first is that South Africa is made up of people with different languages, cultures and ethnic identities and that they share a common need for peaceful progress and political security. They all seek the right to determine their own intimate affairs and to be free from complete domination by others. The legislative assemblies place them in a position to satisfy that need.

The second factor is that South Africa depends for its strength, wealth and progress on an indivisible economy, on governmental forms that will recognize not only our essential unity, but will make possible a meaningful delegation of responsibility and power to the different communities of the people of South Africa. The federal assemblies provide for that. Thirdly, in order to survive peacefully, evolution to a federal system of government must be wisely regulated. Only a step at a time in the right direction can be taken, and the retention of the present White Parliament recognizes that fact. I said that I had pleasure in recommending this policy …

I think you have been too clever by half.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister is interjecting. If he has any further questions, I would be delighted to oblige. Quite honestly, the sort of questions we have had so far are the sort of things one would expect in Sub A at school. The hon. gentlemen quite clearly have not studied their briefs.

Sir, I cannot believe that we have so little confidence in ourselves as White people and in responsible members of other races in South Africa that we cannot trust in our ability to work together on matters of mutual interest. Responsible men of different colours in South Africa are already co-operating in many private and public situations. I believe that co-operation can be extended into higher political fields. That is the object of this federal policy. If we succeed as we believe we shall—what a prospect of peace, progress and success we will open up to future generations in South Africa! That peace and progress depends ultimately on our maintaining our security as individuals and our identity as individuals and as a nation. It depends on our maintaining our security against enemies from outside and agitators from inside. But we must be secure in the trust that we have for one another as individuals and as groups. Now, higher wages and fringe benefits cannot buy that sort of thing. You could only get that trust and that willingness to work together on a basis of full confidence if you can be sure that everybody who lives in South Africa loves South Africa, when all who live in South Africa feel that they belong to South Africa, that they are wanted in South Africa and that it is to their advantage and to the advantage of their families to cherish, to uphold and to defend the full life that South African can offer them under a federal arrangement.

Mr. Speaker, we have just been listening to the initial attack of the Opposition in this session. It was a rather remarkable speech, in more than one respect. It was remarkable for what it suppressed concerning important matters, about which the hon. the Prime Minister, amongst others, put questions across the floor of the House. It was, inter alia, remarkable for the suppression of what was significant. But I also found this speech remarkable for that to which the hon. member gave a great deal of attention. As could be expected the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made the Natal Bantu strikes one of his main dishes. He did this perhaps as a result of the plea made by the hon. member for Yeoville last year that the Bantu workers should be incorporated into the trade unions. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not let this opportunity slip of making further propaganda for such a course today. But before I come to that, and before this side furnishes a proper reply to these aspects, I want to refer to another reason why this speech was remarkable, and also perhaps why this session is remarkable.

You know, this is the first session for many years which is commencing now without the members of the Opposition or their newspapers having predicted in advance the collapse of this Government in the coming session. We have had this for many years now; a few weeks before the session the English-language newspapers would predict the fall of the Government in the coming session. I think the reason for this, the reason we have had this remarkable change, is present in this Chamber today. The reason is that Caledon, Malmesbury, Wakkerstroom, Klip River, Vereeniging and Johannesburg West are not represented here today by United Party members. [Interjections.] The reason is that these seats are represented here today by a party which, in all the countries of the free world, has been governing the longest, i.e. for 25 years. That is what makes this session remarkable. You know, Sir, that Johannesburg West, situated in the heart of the Witwatersrand, that point on which the United Party really built up all its hopes and expectations for the swing to the United Party which supposedly had to take place, that constituency in which there even was a rejuvenating revolution in the United Party, was taken with an increased majority, together with Klip River which the United Party had described as being “in the bag”. The result of this is that the United Party is today no longer setting its sights on the next election; interestingly enough, it is now setting its sights on the 1980 election.

Such a return to reality in our politics is surely encouraging, and one should appreciate such an understanding of reality. But I think it is necessary for us to find this concept of reality on the part of the United Party in regard to a few other matters as well, and not only in regard to this matter of “ ’80”. I think we ought to find it in regard to a few other matters as well, and I am now going to refer to the first of those matters, with reference to the criticism of the Opposition Leader.

I come now to the Bantu strikes. This is the first matter in regard to which I think as a realistic approach is very necessary. After the hon. member for Yeoville had made this fervent plea for the affiliated membership of Bantu workers of the existing White trade unions, we expected the Opposition Leader to avail himself of this opportunity to make further propaganda for that cause today. This has now happened. Let me make the following clear against the entire background of the economic position and the economic struggle of people in this country: As regards the existence of differences in standards of living in this country, this Government has never adopted the standpoint that the standards of living of the different groups should not be raised. The Government did in fact accept that there are differences in the standards of living of the different population groups, as determined by historical factors, but this did not prevent us from constantly endeavouring to ensure that the living standard of each group should be raised. On the contrary, it was precisely with the object of ensuring the non-Whites a better standard of living here in South Africa that this Government has during its 25 years of office spent millions and millions of rands, inter alia, on providing better housing for Coloureds, Indians and Bantu in this country. The result of expending these millions of rands on housing for the non-White groups is that many of our non-White workers in South Africa today are far better accommodated in houses than their counterparts in Europe or elsewhere. This is a fact today; all who journey through other parts of the world see this and realize that many of our non-Whites today are better accommodated here in houses than their equals in Europe and elsewhere. In the same way this Government has spent millions of rands on increasing and improving education and social services for non-Whites so that they could achieve a higher standard of living, and as far as remuneration is concerned, this Government has always declared itself to be in favour of the principle that the wages of non-Whites, of which the Bantu comprise a very large part, ought to be increased gradually. That is the standpoint of the Government, which it puts into practice in regard to the non-Whites in its own service as well. Also testifying to this attitude are the constant pleas made by the Bantu Labour Board at Industrial Council meetings for the increase of Bantu wages in the various industries. As a result of this attitude of the Government, as a result of this positive action on the part of the Government, an additional R32 million in wages was paid out only last year to 400 000 Bantu workers, thanks to the action and the efforts of this Government’s Labour Board in regard to Industrial Council agreements. But what I find so highly irresponsible about the present campaign is the popular slogan that Bantu should suddenly receive more; in many cases they should suddenly receive double the wages they are receiving at the moment. Who must pay for this sudden doubling of the wages of the Bantu? How employers are to keep their factories operating profitably if all these demands are to be acceded to, no responsible person in this country can tell me. No responsible person is able to say how those people are to keep their industries going if they have to double or more than double these wages suddenly, as is being requested at the moment. The fact of the matter, Sir, is that however necessary higher wages for Bantu workers are, they can only be paid if the employers concerned are financially able to pay them. For what is the alternative? If those employers are compelled to pay wages which they cannot afford to pay, there is only one alternative and that is that those factories are going to close down, and what is the unemployment position going to be then? If those employers are compelled to pay these unrealistically high wages suddenly, and they have to dismiss those Bantu workers, rendering them unemployed, can you imagine what a powder barrel is then going to be created in this country? Will the inciters, the people who are behind these agitators, then pay the higher wages which are being demanded by the Bantu? Of course not, for the objective of many of these inciters is in fact to cause chaos in South Africa. Sir, I wonder, in view of the attitude of the Opposition, whether the Opposition and its newspapers, who are so readily taken in tow by these agitators, realize what they are doing? I wonder whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his people who are issuing one statement after the other on these matters, really know what it is they are doing.

What about Die Nataller?

We are aware that in the past, as is the case at present as well, the inciters saw Black unrest as the only remaining means whereby they could bring the Government to a fall. We are aware that they see Black unrest as the only means, the only remaining means, with which they can bring this Government to a fall.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Recently we have now found a new movement under the name of the Black Workers Project. It has just emerged. Seditious circulars are being sent out by it to trade unions and other organizations and individuals, and the one object of those letters sent out by that Black Workers Project is to create a new social order for us in this country. I have one of those letters here, from which I want to quote a few extracts because I think it is of importance for the House, and I think the public should take cognizance of it. Now, this is the Black Workers Project, which sent out this circular on 24th October, 1972, and in this letter they stated the following. But before I quote the gist of it, I just want to read the following. They say—

Already this sounds significantly strange enough. But in this circular which was sent out, right and left, the following appears. They say—

Then the Black Workers Project goes on to say the following—

They say that there is such a shortage of “recreational facilities and all sorts of other deprivations in all sections of the Black community for us Blacks to remain docile and unresponsive any longer”. These are the inflammatory things which are being sent out by this organization, this organization in which Nusas plays a part. It is this organization, in which Nusas plays a part, in which these inflammatory things are being said. It is this agitation and it is these people, with Nusas concerned in it, who are at the moment exploiting the present wage situation in South Africa for their own particular purposes. In addition they are supported by the left-wing Tucsa which lets no opportunity slip of issuing Press statements on any incident or strike which has occurred to prove how just the recognition of Bantu trade unions is and to warn us in the sombrest terms that a disaster is going to befall us if we do not recognize Bantu trade unions in this country.

What about the Confederation?

It is action of this kind which puts one in mind of the statement made by a leader of the mixed trade union movement a few years ago when he stated it as his conviction that the man who unites the Black workers in this country behind him will become the most powerful man in South Africa. But what one finds most astonishing about the Opposition in this connection, what astounds one most about the Opposition, is their idea, as we heard it again from them today, that the incorporation of Bantu into the existing White trade unions—call it affiliated membership or whatever else it may be called—can bring us progress, peace and quiet in this country. Sir, does the conduct of these Bantu workers in Durban not demonstrate very convincingly that Bantu workers, as a result of these, in many cases, unreasonable wage demands which are being made, or in many cases where they refuse to talk to their employers—does this not demonstrate again that our Bantu workers in this country are not ready for trade unionism as we know it in South Africa? Trade unionism is in essence a negotiating process. One must be able to talk, negotiate and bargain with the employer across the table. That is the essence of trade unionism. Do you know what procedure these people adopt, what the reaction is according to the very latest departmental report on the Durban matters?

You are making the same mistake that Ben made about the bus strike years ago.

Listen carefully now to what I shall quote from the report, from which the attitude of these Bantu workers is clearly apparent. Their attitude was described thus by our department’s observer—

Surely this is not the attitude of people who can be brought into the trade union movement. If we think of our Afrikaner workers with whom we on this side have a great deal to do in our constituencies, I can tell you that it took many, many years in this country before we were able to make our Afrikaner workers trade union-conscious. Trade unionism is something which was imported from England and was foreign to the Afrikaner workers. To this day I, as Minister of Labour, still have to make appeals to the Afrikaner workers at labour conferences of right-wing trade unions to join and support the trade unions, for they still do not regard trade unionism as being peculiar to South Africa. How much more will the Bantu worker, with his different nature, not struggle to make use of this foreign bargaining machine! [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that the nature of the Bantu is such that he is still to a very large extent susceptible to intimidatory pressure and to intimidation, as our labour history amply demonstrates. This is amply proved by both the Botha report and our experience over the past few years, right up to the present day.

Quote from the Botha Report!

Yes, they are susceptible to intimidatory pressure from agitators who in most cases use a matter such as wages as a convenient means of bringing factories to a halt—with only one object in mind, viz. to bring about general chaos in South Africa. They use these wage demands for political purposes; therefore to say that these demands originated solely because of economic considerations is surely absolutely naïve, and if the hon. member is so naïve, he will probably have to struggle along in his naïveté and I will not be able to help him with it any further. This agitation is not purely for economic reasons and if the hon. member is too dense to realise this, I am afraid it is too late in the day to be able to do anything with him.

It is not a question of being “dense”.

If all that was at issue here was purely economic reasons, there would perhaps have been some substance in the argument of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Everyone who has knowledge of this situation, and we have far more information at our disposal than I can mention in this House today, as well as everyone who has knowledge in other fields as well, knows that the aim of the Black workers is similar to that of students in overseas countries, inter alia, in France. In France the aim of the students was to bring about a change in the social order of that country. It may be very convenient for the Opposition to place the blame for the present situation on the shoulders of the Government, and it may be very convenient for the Press, but who employs and pays these people? Is it the people on this side of the House who employ these people? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is following the example of his Press very slavishly with the reproach that no channels of communication exist between the Bantu workers and their employers. What was the attitude of the employers over the years in regard to opportunities for communication? What was the attitude of the workers over the years in respect of the expansion of the works committee system and the expansion of the channels of communication? Our labour legislation as it stands at present on the Statute Book, and this legislation is doing useful work, makes provision for statutory works committees which may be established at the request of Bantu workers. What is very significant is that only 18 such committees have been established. At one stage there were 40. I am saying this for the sake of those who now claim that the Bantu have a need for trade unions. I think that these eighteen statutory committees, which were established at the request of Bantu workers, can also bargain. Apart from this another system of communication has developed in the labour world in recent years. This is, namely, the non-statutory works committees. Let us take such a committee at a factory as an example. The management of such a factory, as well as appointed Bantu and elected Bantu workers, are represented on such a non-statutory committee. These, then, are the groups comprising a non-statutory committee. Of these kind of committees 118 have been established in South Africa. While this process was continuing, over the years, I asked employers for suggestions which could lead to the improvement of this works committee system for which the Act makes provision. To my disappointment I must state today that I have over the years received no positive reaction from employers to my request as to how the works committee system may be improved. For the hon. members to come here and allege now that there is no machinery or opportunities within the policy of the Government for communication is, I want to say to him with all due respect, utter nonsense.

How many do exist?

I have just given the hon. member the figure. Now the hon. members will ascertain further what may be done in this regard. The fact that the strikes have now had to move employers to establish works committees, and I was compelled to say this the other day to industrialists who came to see me, is a great pity. It is a pity that it was first necessary to have a wave of strikes in order to bring home to them the need for channels of communication. The creation of such channels of communication is within the framework of this Government’s policy and it is a great pity that there had to be such failure on the part of the employers. This failure to expand the channels of communication served as an encouragement to the agitators and other people to make their reasonable or unreasonable demands. It is a pity that this gave rise to and create grounds for this situation in which we find ourselves at present. As I have already announced …

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Could the hon. the Minister give us an indication of when the Government realized for the first time that the employers were not making use of machinery established by the Government?

These 118 committees have been established over the years. At the same time I asked them to submit suggestions to me for the improvement of that system. The result of that I have just mentioned, and I can say that I am disappointed that I did not receive any reaction. That is the development of the situation.

Since 1953?

That is correct. It is the employers who have to establish these committees; this Government cannot take them by the scruff of the neck and force them to establish these committees. It is their duty and their task to do so. In this legislation which has been announced, the non-statutory committees will be given this status enabling them to bargain in the same way as the others. I hope that our employers will in future make greater use of these new statutory works committee system which will in future also receive the status of statutory committees. Meanwhile, until such time as that measure has been piloted through this Parliament and the Other Place, I want to ask the employers in this country to do as these 118 did and not to hide behind the Government, as the hon. member for Yeoville would now so dearly like to do. I would be grateful if the other employers in the country will in the meantime also proceed to establish these non-statutory committees. I want to ask them not to hide behind the Government as the Opposition now wants to do in this regard. I want to tell hon. members that the employers are free to do this. I think that they ought to proceed with this for it is not really going to make any actual, practical difference whether the legislation has been passed or not, for those non-statutory works committees can fulfil the same useful function. At the same time I wanted to express the conviction here today that the works committee system is the only system which can be used for the Bantu worker in South Africa with his particular nature. To think, as Tucsa or as the Opposition does, which is now bringing up the rear with this affiliated membership story of theirs, that the position of the Bantu and the country’s economy can only be improved if the Bantu are incorporated into our existing trade unions is not only an illusion but will certainly be the most dangerous and the most foolish step any Government in South Africa can take, viz. to recognize Bantu trade unions in this country in the light of the facts to which I have just referred. This Government definitely has no intention of experimenting with South Africa’s stability in such a—for some—popular but nevertheless fundamentally reckless manner. To the employers who are therefore in earnest about the maintenance of good labour relationships in their own respective industries, factories and places of employment, I therefore want to make the request that they now make full use of this, the only practical, acceptable machinery of communication. Let reasonable and justifiable wage improvements be made gradually and in an orderly manner. Otherwise we will all suffer. If this does not happen it would be the workers, the employers as well as the country which suffers as a result. As I said on Friday in a Press statement, however necessary wage improvements may be, the Government cannot allow wage demands to be converted into disturbances which could prejudice the orderliness of the State. The situation, I wish to repeat, is being very closely watched. This Government will not hesitate to take action against those who are responsible for the incitement.

I think that to describe this restrained handling of the situation as the hon. member for Yeoville described it last week when he said that something was now developing which could lead to a second Sharpeville, is simply the height of irresponsibility. It is the height of irresponsibility to say that a situation is developing here which could result in a second Sharpeville. It is not only irresponsible, it is also un-South African. The hon. member for Yeoville is a very well-informed person who often travels abroad. He knows that among our enemies abroad there are two expressions which are most damaging to South Africa. The one is to draw comparisons with Sharpeville, and the other is the word Nazis. The hon. member saw fit last week, in the course of one week, to hurl at us the reproach of Sharpeville and Nazis in two public statements. I want to say here today that it is a great pity that this hon. member should now want to project the embitteredness which he acquired as a result of his own party’s treatment of him in the Transvaal on to his country. To compare this situation with Sharpeville is not only irresponsible but in my opinion un-South African as well. It is not only our country which is prejudiced by this, but also the image of the United Party. It is those people who in season and out lay claim to being such good South Africans. The United Party would like to be regarded and respected as being good South Africans. Now I want to tell the hon. member for Wynberg, and all the other hon. members on that side of the House, that in order to be regarded and respected as a loyal citizen one should not only profess to be one, one should also behave like one. If hon. members want to be respected as being good Afrikaners they should behave like South Africans and not unfairly foul their own nest. I also want to tell the Opposition that if they mean well with and want to do the right thing by South Africa they will refrain from detracting from the only workable machinery we have. They should then preferably support this Government in the expansion of this, the only workable practical means of communication. I think that if hon. members on the opposite side had during the past 20 years talked to their friends who are manufacturers they would also have been able to make a major practical contribution to cause this system to flourish even more. In any case, I want to assure hon. members that the Government will continue along its adopted course of raising the standard of living of the various population groups. This will be done in that we will assure them, gradually and in an orderly manner, of a higher income. This will be done in an orderly manner, for this is the only manner in which they and South Africa can in any way benefit.

I come now to the second matter to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred, viz. the cost of living. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also raised the question of the cost of living as one of his points of attack. That South Africa, like other countries in the world, is struggling with the question of increasing costs of living as a result of imported inflation, as a result of local increases and as a result of wage increases, is known to us all. I think, however, that what the Opposition finds difficult to understand and appreciate is that South Africa, as a result of this Government’s handling of our economy and of our system of price control, is still one of the best countries in which to live. During the Parliamentary recess, as we have just had, many members of Parliament travelled abroad. In this way the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, for example, recently travelled abroad extensively. Other hon. members also went abroad. I think that it is a very good thing that Opposition members as well as Government members go overseas, for then they can realize anew on their return in what a land of Canaan we are living. This I realized myself the other day when I had to pay for my food out of my own pocket. [Interjections.] I take it the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also paid his own way. On my recent visit abroad it so happened that the London Times was engaged in an investigation in this regard. On 22nd December the London Financial Times gave a very comprehensive summary of the cost of living situation in 34 cities of the world. This authoritative British newspaper, in its edition of 22nd December, tabulated these 34 cities in respect of meat prices, house rentals, entertainment and almost any other conceivable item. When they compiled this table with price comparisons in respect of clothes, fuel, cigarettes and even liquor, they arrived at the conclusion that the three most expensive cities in the world out of those 34 are New York, Brussels and Paris. It will probably be difficult for the Opposition to realize which three cities were the cheapest. The cheapest of all was Moscow; second was Belgrade, and the third was Johannesburg. Now I do not know which Opposition members would prefer to go to Moscow or Belgrade. They will then, according to this inquiry, be living in the cheapest and in the second cheapest cities in the world. It was with reference to this annual survey of the London Financial Times that The Star of South Africa wrote about the position in its edition of 6th January. It was described with this headline: “Johannesburg not so pricey”. That is precisely the experience of everyone who goes overseas. No wonder that an eminent British industrialist such as Mr. Oliver Jessel made such a favourable comment when he was here last year. He visits South Africa frequently; he probably knows the world better than any of us. He said—

The fact of the matter is that we in this country have a standard of living which is among the highest in the world. It is true that we are having a cost of living struggle; what developing country is not? If we think of the standard of living of all sections in this country one can compare our non-Whites with the rest of Africa, since hon. members now want to discuss Black matters, and it will be seen in what better position our Blacks in South Africa are as compared with those of the most countries of Africa … [Interjections.]

In regard to the general standard of living in South Africa, 350 out of every 1 000 Whites possess motor cars. Only America has more motor cars per 1 000 inhabitants than South Africa.

The Whites yes.

Yes; surely that is what I said. If we consider how many of our people in South Africa today are living in houses, in comparison with the number of Whites and non-Whites living in apartments overseas, sometimes without a bath, it gives us an indication of the standard of living! A moment ago hon. members referred to telephones. In our country 68 per cent of all White households possess a telephone as against only 19 per cent in France and 35 per cent in Western Germany. Surely that is an indication of our standard of living. When one adds to this the fact that South Africa has one of the lowest income tax levels in the world—in any case much lower than during the time of the United Party—it is a sign of a high standard of living. When one takes note of these things, any unprejudiced person must rightly admit that it is a privilege to be able to live in South Africa.

It is true that we are struggling with price increases. I am afraid we shall have a very tough struggle in this field as a result of further wage demands which have to be considered. But in the last resort, any’ country’s actual success ought to be measured against that standard of living. When we speak of a standard of living I do not think the National Party Government need apologize to anyone in this House or in this country for the high standard of living which we have made possible for our people.

But now I come to the third matter which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised here, and that is his federal policy. The Opposition leader said again today, that the United Party believes that the federal policy is the solution. Again this has now been presented to us in such a muddled way that one can understand why, firstly, the United Party’s own supporters are struggling to understand it, and secondly why any other group of people outside the United Party to whom it is explained, feels afterwards that it is as clear as mud after having heard about it. But, Sir, what do we find today? We heard today how the hon. the Leader of the Opposition took as an example of the United Party’s federal policy the successful negotiations between the Prime Minister and Dr. Escher; they were supposedly an indication of this.

No, our example came first.

Mr. Speaker, that interjection really demonstrates how difficult it is for the United Party, its Leader included, to distinguish between illusion and reality. The fact of the matter is that we have here the essential difference with the National Party’s policy of separate development, with its advisory and liaison bodies, which are entirely in line with Dr. Verwoerd’s view that we can ultimately have a commonwealth of nations in this country in which it will be possible to discuss certain matters of common interest together. But just as a commonwealth does not have coercive powers over the respective units in that commonwealth, so no advisory body, whether it is established in South Africa or anywhere else for that matter, has any coercive power over the Governments of the territories or countries concerned. This is purely a body for the sake of exchanging ideas. Any advisory body is of this nature. It is then left to the Governments concerned to decide what they want to lay down in the legislation. That is in no way the United Party’s policy. What we had here today was again a kind of egg dance, which I really find pathetic. In a certain respect it is pathetic, for one feels that the United Party is constantly trying to hoodwink the public as regards the true state of affairs. [Interjections.] Today we have to hear how tourism would be included in this federal matter. Please, just imagine, tourism and pollution! Yes, these will now be transferred to the federal parliament. But this really does not tally with what their own chief secretary had to say about the matter. You know, this was when we had that “phasing out” statement. I think it was that gentleman with the fine handwriting who wrote next to it that this Parliament should in due course be phased out. Then there were denials and counter-denials, afterwards they did ask the chief secretary, Senator Bill Horak, about this matter. It is rather significant to know what Senator Bill Horak had to say about this. He then had the following to say about this matter in an interview with the Star of 25th August, 1972—

Mr. Speaker, it is these things which cause the actions of the United Party to be such a major swindle in South Africa. They are hoodwinking the people, so as to conceal the true objectives of this policy from our people with a sugar-coated pill, with disconnected statements, the worst to be found in history. The National Party’s standpoint of separate development is diametrically opposed to this. But the United Party’s policy of phasing out, that this Federal Parliament should ultimately phase us out here—we should now disappear according to Senator Bill Horak—meant only one thing, and that is that Whites and non-Whites will govern together here in the highest body in this country. No second meaning can be attached to it. Now, I want to put this to the United Party: The National Party knows from the history of nations throughout the centuries that where non-White nation governed together with a White nation in the same body, as the United Party wants in this federal parliament of theirs, it eventually leads to a mixing of Whites and non-Whites in all spheres. The history of the world tells us this. [Interjections.] Although we are a small White nation here in South Africa, we are a proud nation. We are proud of our own history, and no matter how much we would like to co-operate, and are doing so, with the non-White nations here in South Africa, and in Africa and in the rest of the world, we will definitely not do so in a way and along a political course which will eventually affect or destroy our White identity. No one in the world must be in any doubt about this. We respect the identity of any non-White group in the world, but it is not our intention, in doing so, to act in such a way that we are eventually going to sacrifice ourselves in the process. It is in this vitally important sphere Mr. Speaker, that I found a report which I read the other day in the Daily Telegraph to be so exceptionally significant. You know, Sir, Uganda sent a delegation to England to go and inform the English public that they were still very good friends, and that there was no ill-feeling between the people of Uganda and those of Britain. Their entire attitude was in fact to come and tell them that the Ugandans and the British were still, in their words, brothers and sisters, for they spoke the same language and read the same books. This is what those two delegates from Uganda came to say. According to this report in the Daily Telegraph of 13th January, those two gentleman said the following at the press conference which was held [Translation]: “It is true that the Asians have left Uganda. It is a pity, but in point of fact it is now Britain’s baby. They will simply have to take in the Asians now.” The important point in this view, which brings home to me concerning this federal policy this governing together in one body, are these words which were used by the delegation. They said that Britain need not concern herself over this situation, and these are the words of one of the delegates—

Yes, these are the precise words of the delegation from Uganda. [Interjections.] When I read these words, I as a South African imagined what the position would be with South Africa if that was our attitude. In Britain there are at the moment almost a million non-Whites out of a population of 50 million. If it were to happen that they will in due course no longer be noticed, it may perhaps happen—in parentheses this is not the impression I got of the average Briton, but it could happen—that one million can be absorbed in the course of a few decades or so; 15 million could absorb a million, but, Mr. Speaker, could you imagine the situation here in South Africa—3½ million Whites as against 17 million non-Whites? Could you imagine that 3½ million Whites, as this Ugandan Minister said, should subsequently disappear? [Interjections].

Order!

Let me say this. If it could perhaps happen in Britain, it cannot happen in South Africa, for it would mean the disappearance of White identity. [Interjections.] Let the United Party object to this conclusion and this application to them if they wish, but this United Party course of joint decisions in the same federal parliament, the one which will eventually take the place of this House according to these words of Senator Bill Horak, leads throughout the world to such a situation. It is for that reason that this side will continue to present the United Party and its policy for precisely what it is. We owe it to South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, today we have had another example of the actions of this Government, and of the hon. the Minister in particular, that have become so characteristic over the years. What does he do when he is in trouble? He raises a lot of dust. He has now become the chief raiser of dust on the opposite side. Mr. Blaar Coetzee used to have to play that role, but now he has to do it. He reacts to stimuli that are of opportunistic value to him; he looks for scapegoats, as he did today; he conjures up imaginary dangers in order to run away from reality and to avoid the real problems facing South Africa. I want to say immediately that we are not going to follow him in this. We are not going to follow up every hare he is chasing up here. Sir, we are consistently going to hammer on two things, because we want to ask these questions: To what extent have the reactions we have in South Africa today been unleashed by the policy of this Government? To what extent is it a consequence of this Government’s philosophy? These are the questions that have to be answered.

†Sir, I want to deal with other issues, but I have to react to certain points made here by the hon. the Minister. He has told us that the Government has done much to improve the conditions and the rates of pay of the non-White workers. This very last week the Wage Board promulgated in the Gazette a wage determination for the heavy clay industry, where they stipulated a weekly wage of R7-59 when the poverty datum line in South Africa is probably close to R80 a month. He tells us that conditions in South Africa for Blacks are better than they are elsewhere in Africa. Sir, we grant him that, but it has no relevance any more. The Black man who is working at Coronation Bricks in Durban is not aware of the rates of pay in Kampala. He is conscious only of his daily struggle to survive. I am distressed, when we face this labour situation here and when we read in the latest newspaper, “Durban is crippled by the strike spread; more essential services are paralysed”, that this hon. Minister, who is obviously sitting on a powder-keg and is not aware of it, should come along and put up the kind of performance he has given here this afternoon. I can now see why he only got 15 votes in the recent leadership stakes. Obviously the Nationalists in the Transvaal have far more insight into human nature than we have given them credit for. Sir, I am pleased that the hon. the Prime Minister is here with us, because there are several issues which I am sure he will permit me to take up with him later on in the course of my speech. I would like to extend some gratuitous advice to the hon. the Prime Minister. If this is the best his Minister of Labour can do, then I think he should also shanghai him, as he has done with his previous colleagues; I think he should send this hon. Minister as Consul-General to Lusikisiki. The hon. the Minister made great play of works committees. Does he not understand what is involved? A works committee has no legal standing. It cannot bargain. Its agreements, whatever agreements might be reached, have no legal standing. Is this the best that he can give the Black people in this new era in which we live?

He does not know.

No, he does not know anything about it, obviously not, because every time when we talk about trade union representation for Black people, then he comes forward with only one cliché: “Yes, but they will go on strike, and what will happen then?”. But what is happening at the present time? Are they not striking? They are called illegal strikers, and I say to the Government: Are you going to lock them up? Are you going to lock up the 30 000 people who are striking in Natal? We are wasting time if we approach this matter in that spirit. Sir, what emerged from the hon. the Minister’s speech? He said nothing positive. All he did was to suggest that there are agitators behind the scene. Let me say to him that if he wants to spend his time and look at some of the factories in South Africa, he will find that the conditions of work in many of them are intolerable. If he were to study, as he ought to do, the wages of our Black people, he will find that they are scandalously low. That is obvious. This situation that has arisen in regard to the labour unrest in Natal is largely due, I maintain, to the general ethos that has been generated by this Government with its apartheid philosophy, which entrenches discrimination. That is why this situation has arisen. Obviously there are agitators. But no man is more receptive to the pleas of an agitator than the man who feels that he is being unfairly treated, and no society could provide better breeding ground for strikes than a society in which the majority is discriminated against by the minority. In this connection our businessmen must carry the blame too, because some of them are too greedy; they want more than their fair share. But having said that, the Government cannot escape its own blame in the matter. Is it not the Government which refuses to give the Black workers proper education so that they could be paid more? Is it not the Government which refuses to give them industrial training notwithstanding the pleadings from this side of the House? Is it not this Government which has introduced job reservation which inhibits the occupational development of Black people? Is it not this Government which turns every Black worker into a migratory worker and as such makes it impossible for him to acquire any skills? Is it not this Government which, as far as the Black man is concerned, has caused this psychosis of insecurity, because he cannot live here? He is here only as a temporary sojourner. His family life is broken up. Is it not this Government which has persisted with this ante-diluvian industrial relations machinery which has now broken down completely? Instead of blaming everybody else the hon. the Minister should admit that his whole labour policy lies in ruins and that he and this Government have brought about in South Africa, has established here, a dangerous polarization and that they have set our country on a collision course. Quite apart from this highfalutin stuff we have heard about, after 25 years of Government rule, what does it mean to the Black man? Low wages and inadequate machinery to redress his wrongs and harassment of a kind that no white man has ever been subjected to in this country. After 25 years of this Government it is becoming apparent to us too that this Government has lost touch with the situation, that they have grown sluggish and complacent, that they are no longer able to fathom the basic tensions in our society, that they are no longer in a position to provide a moral and political lead to South Africa. Then they always ask us what must we do? Never in my life have I found a Government which is so anxious to rule through the Opposition. But we have indicated, as my Leader again has done today, what should be done. The basic point of difference is that we regard the Black worker as a permanent entity and not as a temporary sojourner, as a bird of passage. From this it follows that we hold a completely different approach, because we would extend to him proper citizenship rights. We would not use industrial legal machinery to separate wives from husbands and children from parents, as is being done at present. We would give them a feeling of belongingness. We would provide them with proper education. We will give them the training that we indicated before we would give them. We would repeal job reservation because it gives the White man no protection, and it debars the Blacks from the opportunities of advancement. We accept the principle of the right of industrial representation for the Black worker and we also accept the principle of equal pay for equal work for equal qualifications and for equal responsibilities. What is needed in South Africa—this is apparent—is a change in direction, a break from the rigidity of apartheid and acceptance of the flexibility and freeness of a federal system. We will tear down this dogmatic and bureaucratic apparatus of what I think one could call “silly apartheid” and we will extend to all the people the choice of personal association. We are in the position to build bridges between our communities, but this Government will forever be digging trenches. [Interjections.] I should like to say to the Government: Why do you not make the adjustments which are necessary? But they cannot, because if they do make these adaptations, it will mean that they will have to negate everything they have done over the last 25 years. I say to them that in the interests of South Africa, they should stand back so that someone else might try to save the situation [Interjections].

*Another question that my hon. Leader referred to, is the question of terrorism. Of course it is a threat to us, and it is going to become an even bigger one unless it is handled correctly. What is the immediate aim of this terrorist movement? I think it is clear in this case. In the first place, they want to pin down the security forces of Southern Africa and place the countries here under economic pressure. In this they have already achieved a large measure of success. In the second place, they want to check this outward diplomatic movement of the Prime Minister’s. In this they have also achieved success. In the third place, they want to dramatize the confrontation with White Southern Africa, because that is essential for propaganda purposes. In this they have also achieved more success than they deserve, because this Government, with its obsession with an ideology that is rejected by the whole world and its clumsy handling of local situations has been creating a fertile breeding ground for terrorism. In fact, only a week ago we found that the British Foreign Secretary no longer referred to them as “terrorists”; he referred to them as “freedom fighters”. Because of his having done so, there has been a major change in emphasis and a completely new political strategic dimension has now come about in South Africa.

Now, what do we need here to be able to handle this matter, to cope with the local as well as the external difficulties? What is needed here, is that we develop our economic potential to the full and that we raise the standard of living of all our people so that peaceful relations may be established locally. In the last place, it is necessary that a common loyalty to South Africa be brought about. This is in fact where the tragedy of the South African situation lies, because on virtually every one of these levels we are losing ground. All of this can be traced back to the Government’s race philosophy, because it is its policy of apartheid that unites all the countries in the world against us. It is its policy of petty apartheid, with which it is encumbering us, that is consolidating the non-Whites in this country against the Whites. That is the essence of our problem. I say that I consider this petty apartheid to be one of the greatest dangers which we in South Africa have to face. It is a canker; it is something which will eventually destroy our entire national economy. It is as a result of this petty apartheid that we have not only become vulnerable to attacks from outside, but also unable to defend ourselves from within. What was the reaction every time we discussed petty apartheid? They actually tried to make some kind of joke of it. The problem is that today it is everything but a joke. Every time we mentioned this, we were told to explain petty apartheid and asked what we meant by it. There are various ways of defining it. On a previous occasion this was done by my hon. Leader in such a way that it was quite acceptable. For the purposes of this discussion, we can accept …

Give us examples.

I shall come to that. I shall do so with pleasure. For the purpose of this discussion, we can accept that petty apartheid may be seen as the official enforcement of those unnecessary, unjustified, humiliating and discriminatory measures which are founded exclusively on the colour of the person’s skin.

It is interesting to note the reaction shown by the hon. members on the opposite side of the House in regard to the question of petty apartheid. The one group—and that includes the new hon. member for Johannesburg West, who has again left the Chamber so early—accepts that petty apartheid does exist, but now gives out and tells us that when the Bantustans become independent, the necessity for that will disappear. The second group, the ranks of which the new hon. member for Wakkerstroom has joined, also admits that petty apartheid exists. He says it is a permanent institution built into the Government’s race philosophy as a whole. What worries us, however, is the standpoint of the hon. the Prime Minister, who has also left us already. The hon. the Prime Minister says that there is no such thing as petty apartheid. In an interview which he had with an overseas newspaper some time ago, he said that he was not aware of any annoying aspects of apartheid. He tried to take the matter further. In an interview with Hoofstad last year he commented on this matter as follows (translation)—

In other words, all these petty and humiliating measures that are applied at present, to which all his newspapers are referring and which are being criticized by academics form part of this major principle. And it will not be possible to remove them either, because if one did the whole principle would be lost.

† I would imagine that very few of the supporters of the Prime Minister on the other side of the House …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? [Interjections.]

Order!

I would imagine that very few of the Prime Minister’s supporters on that side would be happy with these mental gymnastics by the hon. the Prime Minister. What is interesting is that he went further at the Natal congress of the Nationalist Party last year in trying to justify his points of view. He did it by suggesting that apartheid does not embrace any form of discrimination. It only means differentiation. In order to prove this point, he sought the use of the rhetoric device to assume that one morning when he woke up his skin was black. According to the newspapers he succeeded in doing so and concluded that his position would not have been different except for some minor matters of geography. This illustrates a point of view which I feel is fundamentally so dangerous for South Africa, and I want to deal with this in a little more detail.

If there are any members on that side of the House who share the view that petty apartheid does not exist and that their position would not be different, I think one can abuse them of this point of view. We could all indulge in a little mental exercise. We could project ourselves and we could all assume that we belong to the other race group. Let us do so, and I invite hon. members to join me in doing this. I would like to hear at the end of this exercise how many are sitting on that side of the House who would willingly exchange their white skins for skins that are not so white. Then they must stand up so that they can be counted. I do not want to deal at this stage with the Coloureds and the Indians, because the Government does not even make a pretence that it has an answer to this problem.

They have appointed a new commission of inquiry. We know exactly what happened before. Did they not 15 years ago appoint the Tomlinson Commission? After that commission had sat for many months, the hon. the Minister of Finance told us that the recommendations were antiquated and obsolete 15 years after they had failed to carry out any of its cardinal recommendations. I suggest to you, Sir, that this new commission will go exactly the same way. This is why I shall not even deal with the Coloureds or the Indians.

I shall deal with the Black man because with regard to him the Government tells us that the policy of “separate freedom” has reached an advanced stage. I cannot deal with the whole field of petty apartheid. According to all the public opinion surveys that have been done, the Black people seek two main things: Not the franchise, but they seek decent education for their children and proper work opportunities for themselves. Let us take these two aspects. Let us look at education. The latest figures which I have at my disposal show that this country spends, yearly, R15 per Black child at school, but we spend R230 per White child. This is 15 times more than it is for the Black child. The hon. the Prime Minister says there is no discrimination in this field. Let me tell him that at Black schools the student/staff ratio is 60 to one, and that at White schools it is 20 to one. A Black teacher earns from a third to a half of what his White counterpart earns. In the whole economic labour force in South Africa at the present time, only three out of every 1 000 Black people have reached the matriculation standard. In the case of Whites the comparable figure is almost 100 times greater. Do you know that of the Blacks who go to school today, 75 per cent have to leave before Std. VI; 99 per cent before they get to matric? When they have gone to high school, the chances of the White child of matriculating are nearly 50 per cent while the chances of the Black child matriculating are only 3 per cent.

Whose fault is that?

Overall, the chances of the White child of matriculating are 30 times greater than they are for the Black child.

What was the position under the United Party?

However, the hon. the Prime Minister says there is no discrimination. He says there is no petty apartheid; he says all this is part of this great principle! I ask only this simple question: Who is there in this House or anywhere else in the world who, with the statistics I have put before you, Sir, will regard this as differentiation and will not see it as blatant discrimination?

Let us look at the labour field. In 1971 it was found that 77 per cent of the Black workers in this country earned less than R60 per month. The per capita income of the Whites in this country is 13 times higher than it is for the Blacks, but, Sir, this is not discrimination! The hon. the Prime Minister is not aware of any form of discrimination. Let me say to the hon. the Prime Minister: Assume that you are a Black worker and you would find that you are not an employee in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act and hence you would receive none of its protection. You would find that you are subject to the provisions of the Physical Planning Act. You would be subject to the provisions of job reservation. These are all the disabilities you would suffer as a Black worker, but the hon. the Prime Minister is not aware of this. He says his position would be exactly the same. If the Prime Minister were a Black professional man, he could only practise in certain areas. If he were a Black businessman, he would be subject to the provisions of the Group Areas Act. There would be a lack of credit facilities. He would also be discriminated against as far as income tax payments were concerned. In fact, as any Black worker, as any Black man, he would have no security of domicile and of family life. He could be endorsed out for a host of different reasons over which he would have no control. But the hon. the Prime Minister tells us there is no discrimination and no petty apartheid. If the hon. the Prime Minister were a Black policeman operating on our borders in the North, defending South Africa against terrorists, I am sure he would be mindful of circular No. 25 of 1967 issued by the Department of Bantu Administration which states that if a Black man becomes unproductive, he is liable to be endorsed out. “Unproductive,” according to this injunction, includes the aged, the unfit, widows and women with dependent children. I am sure that Black policeman would have great peace of heart when he thinks about this. If the Prime Minister is a Black man and he comes to the stage where he gets a pension, he would only receive one-fifth of what his White counterpart gets. Why then tell us that there is no discrimination when there is great discrimination in the country? I want to say to the members on that side of the House that they must stop pedalling this kind of political saccharin because in its least offensive form it is a kind of placebo for which we as a society have grown much too sophisticated. In its more severe form it is indicative of a state of schizophrenia which will have dire consequences for all of us. To indicate that there is no discrimination in South Africa, as the Prime Minister has done repeatedly, shows either gross ignorance of the facts in South Africa or indicates a callous and cynical disregard of the facts of the situation, which borders on the fanciful. Under these conditions what does the Black man get out of all this? He is not conscious of this great principle of separate development. He is conscious of a Government which introduces measures all the time to hem him in. Do hon. members realize that there are 80 different Acts that deal specifically with the Black man? In any one year you have almost one million Black people, that means 3 000 a day, including Sundays, who are prosecuted for misdemeanours which apply to nobody else except the Blacks. But that is not discrimination; that is done by a magnanimous Government that has nothing else in mind except their welfare! Look at it from their point of view, what do they see? They see a Government which they played no part in electing, a Government which regulates nearly every step of their daily lives, a Government that determines where they may live, what jobs they may do and in a sense the rates of pay they can get, what transport they may use, what entertainment facilities they may use, where they may practise as professional men, where they may conduct trading operations, which countries they may visit when they go overseas, etc. I therefore hope that this is the last time that we will have from anybody on that side of the House this pretention that there is no discrimination or petty apartheid because it has riddled the whole pattern of our race relations. Mr. Speaker, this situation must be changed. As I have tried to indicate before, this Government cannot bring about this change, because they are wedded to their own philosophy. They turned apartheid into a fetish and separation into a kind of State religion. This Government is unable to bring about the change which we need, they cannot bring about this change, because it would be a negation of everything they have tried to do over the last 25 years. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the House has become accustomed to the word “inflation” on the part of the hon. member for Hillbrow. As far as that is concerned, we have not been disappointed today by the great verbosity with which he has regaled the House. The only difference is that today there was a different sound to his words, one indicating a tilt to the Progressive Party as never before. If you would not call me to order, Sir, I would be able to say that today the hon. member acted like a real agitator in relation to the forces that are bent on bringing the Whites here in South Africa to their knees. We may be sure that what was said here today by the hon. member will tomorrow, and in the days to come, be large front-page news in overseas newspapers.

What about Peter Hain?

Yes, it will be used by people like Peter Hain and others, and for only one reason: To discredit the White man in South Africa.

I can understand that the hon. member had to speak that way today. That hon. member, in particular, finds himself in the position where the leader of the United Party in the Transvaal, who is not present in this House, is the person who will inevitably have to peg his claim in Hillbrow next time. With this sound in his speech the hon. member for Hillbrow is now trying to neutralize the influence of Mr. Schwarz.

But today he comes along to fight with us about our treatment of the Black worker, and the Black man in general. He spoke here of discrimination against the Black man. He also used other words. But is that hon. member of the United Party actually in a position to come along and accuse the National Party of not acting correctly, when in their own ranks there is so much dissension that yesterday we were forced to read the following newspaper heading—

If you do not know him, he is now the leader of the United Party in the Transvaal.

… quarrel in the toilet.

And the chief executive officer of the party goes on fighting. These are the kind of people who want to come and teach the White man and the National Party a lesson. I think one should reject the standpoint he adopted with the contempt it deserves. He might perhaps obtain support if he made that speech in Hillbrow, but I challenge him to repeat the speech, which he made today in this House, in any constituency in the platteland. If it would not be unparliamentary to say as much, I would be able to state that we surely know them to be those hypocrites, Sir, who tell one story in the cities and another on the platteland, stories like the ones the hon. member for Durban Point is so fond of telling, for example that the National Party members are now the negrophiles of this country. That is where we stand with the United Party, and that is what cognizance should be taken of.

Put it has been said here now how badly we are treating the Black man. Are those accusations, about how badly we are treating the Black man, true? He says this as a result of the events in Natal. Those were very unfortunate events, but must they be laid at this Government’s door? This afternoon the hon. the Minister of Labour settled that matter very efficiently, telling the whole country where it and every worker in this country stood as far as the National Party and the National Government are concerned. Sir, is that suggestion true? I say it is not. The fact of the matter is this: The United Party is not interested in the Black worker as such. What the United Party and the Progressive Party are interested in, is that the Black man should be given the right to become a member of the White trade union. That is what they are interested in, and I shall tell you in a moment why they are interested in that. That is the only reason why they are now making such a fuss about the Black worker and his treatment. Only last year, on 12th April, the hon. member for Houghton said—

The hon. member for Yeoville then said (translation)—

That is what was said here last year by the hon. member for Yeoville, who is usually the main speaker on the United Party side when it comes to labour matters. They are not interested in the welfare of the Black worker, because if that were the case they could, as the hon. the Minister of Labour rightly said this afternoon, already have taken steps long ago to encourage their people, and those bodies loyal to them, to improve the Black man’s living conditions. But they did not do that. They aimed at creating the impression here that the National Party is simply not interested in the Black worker in this country, not that they are that worried about the Black worker’s circumstances and his lot.

Sir, it has always been the National Party’s standpoint that it is the Government’s duty to see to the interests of all population groups and all workers in this country, and as far as that is concerned, the National Party’s record is an unblemished one. That has been done, but not at the cost of the White worker in this country. We now have this situation in Natal today, and the National Minister of Labour is being accused of not having created, and of not having wanted to make available, the opportunity and the channels through which communication can be achieved. But the hon. the Minister has already referred to that this afternoon, and he has said very clearly and unequivocally to the House and to the whole country that for years a system of statutory work committees has existed, but that interest on the part of the Black worker was so limited that at the present moment only 18 of those work committees are functioning—only 18. In other words, the Black worker is not interested in this medium of making contact and communicating. On the other hand, Sir, by means of non-statutory work committees the possibility has been created for the employer to achieve the essential communication. What have we thus far found in this connection? We have found that as far as that is concerned the employer has simply not done his share. This afternoon we also specifically want to point a finger at the employers of Natal, where the trouble is brewing at the moment.

And Arthur Hopewell is a director of one of those companies.

Yes, the hon. member for Pinetown is accused of being a director of one of those companies. The employers are not interested, and when confronted by the monster created by the United Party, its Press and their supporters, they turn around and asked the Minister and the Government to help them. Sir, surely that is not the course that should be followed. The course is very clear, and in view of its interest, channels and media have been created by the Government, and all the employer should have done was to have made use of those channels. We can only trust that the United Party will now also use its influence in the future to encourage and activate employers to make use of these channels that exist, to achieve again for the future, as in the past, that essential industrial peace that we need in South Africa.

But there was another matter in this connection that we may not overlook, and that is that in this debate and in this sitting the United Party is going to have the opportunity, and it has the opportunity today, to dissociate itself, to free itself and express its opposition to those forces responsible for the events now taking place, inter alia, in Natal, bodies like Nusas and others, which are responsible for that “Black Workers Project”, to clearly free themselves from those people and adopt a standpoint in opposition to them so that the entire country can see that the United Party has become a responsible Opposition, because thus far they have not been all that responsible. I really do hope that the United Party will make use of the opportunity to take action in this connection.

But one is now faced with this negative aspect. The United Party has already seen itself as someone who is going to succeed, as a result of these events, in dealing the National Party a really good blow. It may be the United Party who will increasingly be dealt blows in the course of this debate. But there is also another side, and that is the positive side. This involves the question of where this House, where the White man, in particular the White workers in this country, stand in respect to the National Party. Where do they stand as far as the National Party is concerned? In the first place, the National Party and the National Government have always endeavoured, really tried hard and gone out of their way to display a sincere interest in the interests of the workers. I have already referred to that. But up to the present day the National Party—and this is now one of the fine monuments, thanks also to the active steps taken by the present Minister of Labour—has ensured that a proper standard of living will be established for every worker in this country, and the Government will also continue to do this in the future. Now the hon. member for Hillbrow comes along, as he did here this afternoon, and with great verbosity and many figures wants to indicate how some workers are living below the breadline.

Sir, I want to state expressly that this must not be laid at the door of the National Party and the National Government, but that such accusations should be laid directly at the door of the United Party’s fellow-travellers. The hon. member for Hillbrow, in particular, is the last person who should be talking about this, because he was an employee of Mr. Harry Oppenheimer. Yes, the hon. member for Yeoville was also one. But we do not have to tell you today, Sir, how there is a large group of employees of that particular undertaking who are living below the breadline. Then they come along and make such a big fuss here, as if they are the only people who have a heart and a soul when it comes to the interests of other people. Surely that is not only a downright lie; I want to state that it borders on deliberate deception as far as the House and the country are concerned.

I think it scandalous that responsible people, and a responsible member like the hon. member for Hillbrow, should lend themselves to such stories as these, which are disseminated abroad. I say again that there is only one intention as far as that is concerned, and that is to discredit this Government, and thereby the Whites in this country—to such an extent, in the eyes of the world and in the eyes of their own people, who are not always well informed, that the Government can be rejected. Everything they do is aimed at bringing this Government to its knees. However, this afternoon I want to say that knowing the White man in this country as I do, and in particular also the White worker, he will also show his gratitude to the National Party in future elections. He will vote for the National Party, and only for the National Party. I say this because the White worker in this country knows that in this Government he has a very loyal friend. This is a loyal friend who will never leave the White worker in the lurch. There are problems about non-Whites being brought in in certain respects. The White worker also knows, however, that he will never be replaced by a non-White worker. The White worker knows that the non-White worker will not be allowed to work shoulder to shoulder with him. The White worker knows that he will never be made subservient to the non-White worker. The White worker knows that in the National Party he has a friend who will ensure that the trade union to which he belongs, or can belong, will remain White; not only for the present, but also as far into the future as possible.

These are assurances we can again give the White worker outside, and this will contribute towards ensuring that that side, the United Party, is never brought to power in this country, because everybody in this country knows: A United Party administration means the end of the Whites in South Africa. Today I can speak on behalf of a large group of workers. They are people who earn their bread every day by working with their hands. I can tell you that in 1973 they sent us to the House of Assembly with the message that we could tell the National Government that the White man and the White worker stand behind the National Party, more united than ever as a result of what the National Party stands for. To the United Party we can say that their future is very dark, that in truth they have no future and that an election is awaited to finally wipe out what at present still passes for a United Party.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the speech of the hon. member for Springs. It is very clear to me that the hon. member, like the hon. the Minister who took part in the debate, does not have the answers to the questions my hon. Leader so specifically asked. Because hon. members on that side of the House do not have the answers, they once again tried to steer this debate in another direction. Hon. members on that side of the House again tried to create the impression that the Nationalist Party’s policy is consistent and that it is the only policy for South Africa. As far as I am concerned, this was again a mere matter of words. If one takes the trouble to analyse the policy of the Nationalist Party one realizes very quickly how inappropriate this policy is and how dangerous it is for South Africa and all its people. There are certain basic aims which any good government, which thinks that it has the interests of South Africa and all its people at heart, must set itself. In my humble opinion the following are the four foremost aims. The first aim is to unify all South Africans, regardless of their race, colour or political convictions, in joint loyalty to our fatherland. The second aim is to administer, protect and maintain our position in a civilized way, thirdly to maintain a sound and expanding economy and fourthly to ensure the security of South Africa on an international basis. Those ought to be the objectives. Permit me to say that we would be wrong to think that we could achieve these objectives under the archaic policy of the Nationalist Party Government, which was obviously designed for another era and for other purposes. In saying this I am not making any loose statement. In the course of my speech I shall give the reasons for this statement.

I want to begin by saying that the tragedy of South Africa is that while even the majority of Nationalists fully agree that these ought to be the aims, the Nationalist Party Government, which is supported by them, is endangering the achievement of this and even the progress we made in this direction in the past. We know that what the Nationalists are chiefly interested in is loyalty to the Nationalist Party, and this leads to a predisposition to sectional interests which does South Africa a great deal of damage. As far as the protection and maintenance of civilized administration is concerned. I should like to say that this can only be maintained in South Africa by the protection of White leadership, which throughout our history has been the bearer of this civilization. We also know—and in this lies the danger for South Africa—that the policy of this Nationalist Party Government is aimed at the destruction of White control over large areas of our country situated in the heart of South Africa. This Government is not only reducing White control directly through the creation of independent Black states, but also indirectly through neglect—and one can even say through encouragement—of the depopulation of the platteland, so that the number of Whites is still decreasing and the number of Bantu increasing. This is the case to such an extent that each White person who leaves the platteland is replaced by no fewer than 26 Bantu.

Mr. Speaker, as far as the South African economy is concerned, can there be any doubt that the policy of the Nationalist Party Government must eventually weaken our economy and that it even seriously threatens the economy’s existence by its insistence on senseless economic apartheid? Here I need only refer to continually more control over Black labour and its use, the application of job reservation during a manpower crisis and the concentration on the development of areas which in many cases furnish a lower profit on the nation’s capital investment than more profitable development elsewhere.

As far as the security of South Africa at international level is concerned, I want to put this question in all seriousness: What Government has ever done more to endanger the security than specifically this Nationalist Party Government.

Nonsense!

I am not talking nonsense. At a time when even the most powerful countries in the world are looking for friends and allies, we find that South Africa is in this extremely dangerous position of not having a single military ally and also very few friends. How tragic and how great a pity that South Africa, which was once one of the most popular small nations in the world, finds itself today without military allies and with so few friends! The tragedy of it all is that so much of this unpopularity must be ascribed to small pinpricks and small administrative decisions related to the execution of the homelands policy, by means of which the Government evidently hopes to furnish South Africa with international understanding and friendship. Instead of that we have not only brought almost general international condemnation on ourselves, but it is also there that the security we still have today can be destroyed and with it civilized administration in South Africa. It is a fact that this Government, with its almost 25 years of rule, allowed sectional emotions to confuse sound relations in so many spheres. I go further. This Government indicated that it is acting so far beyond the limits of reasonableness, particularly in respect of the homeland, urban Bantu, Coloured and Indian questions, that it has quite rightly forfeited the confidence of all sober, moderate, South Africans. The truth is that this Nationalist Party Government is today regarded as the last remaining bulwark of sectional Nationalism and disunity, of extremism and non co-operation, except conditionally, which is totally unacceptable to all true South Africans. When this Government came into power it was entrusted with a specific mandate to bring about separate development between the various races in South Africa. If today, after almost 25 years, one asks the question, “Has the Government in any degree succeeded in the execution of this mandate, or is there a chance of its ever succeeding?”, the answer is, of course, “No”. As all the facts prove, the urban Bantu population has more than doubled in the past 20 years: an increase from 2 400 000 to 4 900 000. It is also true that this Nationalist Party Government has spent millions of rand more on housing for the urban Bantu population, and also on railway routes to bring them to our cities to work for us. A very good example of this is the fact that the amount in respect of third class Bantu railway transport increased from R128 million in 1955 to about R300 million in 1970. The tragedy of the present situation is that although the Government could not succeed in reducing the urban Bantu population, it still insists upon passing legislation which makes it increasingly more difficult for the urban Bantu to make a living. At present this unreasonable and anomalous state of affairs exists. On the one hand the Government is executing building projects for dwellings for the urban Bantu and providing facilities, while on the other hand it is making laws which estrange a man from his wife and children and encroach upon his dignity as a human being. These are laws which, from the nature of the case, make of every urban Bantu a homeless loafer, since there is nothing for him in the White areas. The Nationalist Party Government must surely realize that to continue with such a policy is extremely dangerous for South Africa because it can only lead to yet worse race relations in South Africa. The Government wants to make the voters outside believe that its policy of separate development is the only way to protect the Whites in South Africa. Its policy can be interpreted in so many words: Give the non-Whites as many rights as the Whites deserve, but give it to them only in their own independent homelands. The basic faults of this policy, which we have already so frequently opposed on this side of the House, is that it cannot be implemented in practice.

†Mr. Speaker, this policy simply cannot work. It cannot work for the simple reason that the homelands are far too small and far too impoverished to hold at any one time more than half of the Bantu population of South Africa. We know that this means that South Africa with a White population of less than 4 million is placed in the position where these Whites will have to live permanently outnumbered by millions of so-called foreign Bantu. We must remember that this Government has reached the point of no return in regard to the creating of independent homelands, which means that millions of Bantu, who will always live and work in the urban areas of South Africa, will to all intents and purposes be foreigners. Quite naturally these millions will follow the lead of their particular governments who will be as free as any African state to do exactly as they please. I would like to put this question to the other side of the House. What will happen, for example, in time of war? Is it to be expected that we will intern each and every one of these millions of so-called foreign Bantu if their governments do not side with our Government during time of war? Now that it has become apparent to every thinking person that the independent homeland concept offers no solution whatsoever in the short or long term to South Africa’s race problem, the question that must be posed is what alternative the Government does offer to the country. What rights, if any, does it intend giving to non-Whites in place of those rights which have disappeared with the failure of separate development? Mr. Speaker, history has proven quite conclusively that it is highly dangerous—one could even say that it is suicidal—to deprive people of their basic citizen rights in perpetuity. I would say that the interests of the Whites in South Africa demand that the Government either modifies its race policy or that it evolves a plan that will go somewhere at least to meeting the aspirations of the millions of politically underprivileged Bantu in South Africa. We on this side of the House realize that this is no easy problem. Moreover, we say that this is a problem that will have to be tackled with the greatest degree of skill, statesmanship and dedication. But what is important, is that with the virtual abandonment of separate development, the Government must now apply its mind to two very crucial questions: What rights it can or should give to the urban Bantu and how far it can go with the emancipation of non-Whites without disturbing essential White control. Here again we concede that there is no easy answer. But because time is running out for South Africa on this issue, a positive step must be taken, and must be taken now, something which no longer relates to the homelands, but which bears directly on the political future of the millions of non-Whites who will continue to remain permanently in South Africa. If the Government does not have the courage to face up to this problem now, then quite obviously it must make way for a Government that can and will handle this particular problem. This is a challenge that the Government cannot and dare not run away from any longer. It must, in the interests of South Africa, make provision for the millions of disfranchised Bantu in South Africa. You see, Sir, it would be absolutely fatal to just go drifting along, as we have been doing under this Government for the past 25 years, hoping that perpetual baas-skap—which after all, is what the Government’s policy boils down to—will eventually solve everything. We must remember that it was precisely the fruits of this dangerous philosophy that the late Dr. Verwoerd sought to avoid. He believed—make no mistake about this—that total separation was the answer. The hon. the Prime Minister has conceded that it is not. I want to suggest to the hon. the Prime Minister that, having made that concession, he just cannot sit back and do nothing; because the people of South Africa demand that he comes up with some suitable alternative.

What is important, is that the individuals in South Africa who eventually break Governments, have accepted the fact that the urban Bantu are and will remain a permanent part of White South Africa. We have, as a nation, passed the point of no return on this particular issue. South Africa has accepted that the urban Bantu in ever-increasing numbers are here to stay. It is the conflict between the indisputable physical presence of the urban Bantu and the Government’s myth that they are merely temporary sojourners that gives rise to our very dangerous political situation. In other words, it is unrealistic Government policy against all the accepted facts that gives rise to our highly explosive race situation in South Africa. It is no good the Government trying to tell us that they have the answers. We have seen that they do not have the answers. We mentioned today the question of the labour upheavals in Durban. We know that the Government have done practically nothing at all to try and stop it. This to me is a symptom of what is happening in South Africa. I believe that the time has come when the Government will have to act in a far more positive way in regard to South Africa’s race relations. You see, Sir, what this Government will not face is the fact that the non-Whites in South Africa have aspirations and that its handling of relationships across the colour line is causing frustrations and friction that will one day have dire consequences for South Africa. You see. Sir, increased political aspirations are quite normal and can be expected among our non-White people. Political agitation, and the cause of such agitation, is something which should concern each and every one of us. Mr. Speaker, when you find that new political movements have a distinct anti-White tinge, then I suggest that each and every one of us should sit up and take notice because this is a trend that we cannot allow to develop in South Africa. Sir, I want to say—I feel this quite sincerely—that the Government has realized that their policy of separate development has failed and that they are now desperately playing for time. But what is worrying is that in this process they are playing a very dangerous game of brinkmanship with the whole race question in South Africa, and I want to suggest that the people of South Africa will not allow the Government to play this very dangerous game for very much longer. We know that a certain amount of good is being done for the non-Whites. We are quite prepared to concede that. I refer, for instance, to the quality of medical services, the clearance of slums, the provision of primary education, the slow but sure improvement in job opportunities and job mobility and earnings. All these, Sir, are desperately needed and certainly very welcome. But I want to say to the Government that all these weigh far too lightly in the scale against the absence of basic human rights and true family happiness. I think that we in this country have had all the warnings that we want. My hon. Leader has today set out meticulously and concisely the federal policy of the United Party.

Do you understand it?

Sir, hon. members on that side of the House can laugh as much as they like, but this is the answer to South Africa’s problems for the future. We have heard a lot here today about the better standard of living which our non-Whites enjoy compared to non-Whites in other states in Africa. Sir, what a laughable situation it is! What do our non-Whites here care about what is happening in any other state? Their only concern is the fact that the pay packet that they bring home on a Friday is not enough to buy the bare necessities of life. Sir, as my hon. Leader so rightly said, this is far more dangerous than terrorism on our borders. I want to appeal to the Government to apply its mind to this whole question of the urban non-White in South Africa. Sir, I have made a point of talking to urban non-Whites—not politicians, not agitators—and, believe me, there is a growing dissent that will one day bode ill for South Africa if we do not do something about the whole position now.

I want to conclude by saying that the speech made here today by my hon. Leader in support of the motion moved by him was one of the best speeches I have ever heard in a no-confidence debate. I can understand why hon. members on that side of the House were so reluctant to enter this debate. My hon. Leader was followed by the hon. member for Hillbrow, who also put facts and figures that hon. members opposite cannot deny. I want to say, too, Sir, that we will not in this debate allow ourselves to be diverted from the essential things, the things that mean the future and the future safety of South Africa.

I do not hold it against the hon. member for North Rand for having congratulated his hon. Leader with that speech today, for it was clear to me today that the saving that an opposition may deliver itself of any irresponsibility was proved once more today. What struck me was that each speaker was contradicted by the next. The hon. member who has just sat down delivered a plea and said, inter alia, that this Government would not be able to maintain White rule in South Africa, while the hon. member for Hillbrow pleaded for the Bantu and other races in this country to obtain the same privileges concerning wages and so forth. They contradicted each other altogether. [Interjections.] In passing I want to say that the hon. member for North Rand mentioned here that the policy of separate development of the National Party had led to an increase instead of a decrease in the number of urban Bantu. He went on to say in the same breath that the laws made by this Government made it impossible for the urban Bantu to make a living there, while he has just said that we have doubled their numbers there. If this is so, then how can it be impossible for them to make a living there? The hon. member for North Rand referred here to the so-called urban Bantu and he mentioned that those Bantu had no political privileges. I wonder whether the hon. member is unable to understand that it is this Government that has given those urban Bantu, each one of them who wants to make use of them, political rights which they have never had before in the history of South Africa. Today they have those political rights because they fit into a place or country of their own where they may develop. While they visit and work here they still have these political rights. I think the sooner the hon. member comes to realize that it is a fact that we have different populations here in South Africa, and that there is a White population here where we are, the better. This is our country and we shall not cede it to anyone, not to the Bantu either. However, we are prepared to assist the Bantu in developing his country so that he may have his home there.

Hon. members on the other side contradict themselves. When it suits them they kick up a row about the civil servants whose salaries are inadequate. But when the Government increases those salaries, they immediately caution that the cost of living will rise and that inflation will triumph. The same goes as regards the wage issue which, unfortunately, has arisen in Natal. I cannot always understand the policy of the United Party. I think they cannot understand it themselves, but I do not really want to deal with their policy now. When the United Party talks of the wage gap, do they mean that we should all get the same salary, for example, the milk boy of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and someone else? Or do they mean that the same salary should be paid for the same work? Except in State institutions and a few other institutions such as the town councils, there is little work done by the non-Whites which is done by the Whites as well. There are medical services, nurses, teachers, etc. There are but few of them. But to me it is always a fact that as one develops one’s income grows. In the private sector there are many firms where we have wages and it does not matter whether the wage earner is a Coloured, an Indian or a White person, but practice teaches us that as a rule such a Coloured person usually earns the minimum wage, while the White person who has been in practise throughout the years earns a much higher salary. Mr. Speaker, it is so clear when one takes the first development we have in the homelands as an example. It is the first development which any nation has, i.e. in the field of agriculture, and with that same fertile soil the Bantu is still not able to produce the same results as the White for the simple reason that he does not have the experience and that he will have to acquire it in the course of time. Let us take commerce. It is something with which the Jewish nation was bora. From the days of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob they have been engaged in commerce and for that reason they are better at it. In commerce and in business throughout the world it is clear that they have grown up with it. Little Ikey knows all about his father’s business for they talk nothing but business so naturally he is able to carry it on more effectively. Surely we know this. It is known in South Africa as it is throughout the world. It is like this in every sphere of life. To me this is the clearest example to mention because I think it is at the same time one of the most just. This is why one finds that in the case of a job, a profession, one finds a nation that has gained all the necessary experience in the course of the years as a result of which that nation is able to do the work better than any other. In industry we find that the White person who is used to it, is as a rule—I do not say always, for there are exceptions to the rule, and in the case of the steel or furniture industries we sometimes find a Coloured person who surpasses many of the Whites, this, however, being the exception to the rule—a few rungs above the Coloured person or a person of whatever nation and I say this with due respect to the Coloureds or other nations.

I want to say that these people who are striking in Natal at present are not doing so of their own accord. We heard from the Minister today—I agree with him—that it was the employers who were lacking in setting up those bodies. I think the hon. members on the opposite side who have so much to say about labour have never slept near a man who has done nine hours of labour and I think they know very little of actual labour and labour conditions. They, however, are always the ones who make the most noise. When I speak about labour I speak from experience and I speak about the factory workers in particular. I am mentioning this just in passing. I want to proceed by saying that the work in connection with which the people in Natal are on strike at present, is the very type of work—again I am saying this with respect—which is done by the Bantu who are unable to bargain. Those Bantu are not developed to the extent which enables them to have discussions and plead with such a body, and that is why the Bantu have never been fit for trade unions. I cannot put my finger on their origin, but strikes such as this take place mainly as a result of agitation. I should like to mention an example. The hon. member for Hillbrow has just spoken, and now when I consider that those people are to hear his pleas, the propaganda made by him for his Party, the talk about Sharpeville and that kind of thing, I believe it to be the very kind of thing which incites these people. If the hon. member for Hillbrow had addressed 1 000 of the workers at one of those factories today, they would all have downed tools. It was nothing but an inflammatory speech which the hon. member delivered here today.

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

I withdraw it. Mr. Speaker. Hon. members on that side of the House are making such a fuss about the minimum wages paid in those factories, but many factors are closely wound up with that matter. When one takes into consideration the wages earned by the people, the housing and the rent they pay for such housing, the education, the medical services as well as the transport services, one sees that there are other factors as well. I want to mention an example. I once had a Coloured person working in my factory. He told me that he was doing the same responsible job as a certain White man and that the White man was earning more money than he did. I agreed with him but asked him what he paid for his flat which he got from the Department of Community Development. His reply was that he paid R16 per month for his flat. I told him that that White man also had a flat from the Department of Community Development, that it was a three-roomed flat, too, but that he paid R90 per month. We forget these aspects. It is the Government that is making that contribution for them. Let us go further. A few minutes ago the hon. member for Hillbrow wanted to get hysterical over this kind of thing, the privileges they had to do without. Let us be honest. The hon. member for North Rand referred to the urban Bantu who did not have rights in our country. The United Party talks about inflation and similar problems and they say that a contribution for the prevention thereof must be made. I do not begrudge any of those nations this. We help them to develop themselves, but the time has come—and we are working on this—when those people cannot reap only the best. Surely we can also teach them to make a contribution for the services rendered to them and to us. Up to now it has only been the Whites who have been making this contribution. Surely we must lend a hand in edifying those people. We cannot simply just give them everything all the time, for then they, will never learn to help themselves; then they will lose all their self-respect. Surely those people must be led, surely they must be informed and surely they must be shown. They must make their contribution.

Now I want to refer to the minimum wages in Natal in regard to which such a fuss is being made at the present time. Minimum wages are, as a rule, fixed by industrial councils on which the employee and the employer are represented. Virtually every industry of which I have knowledge adjusts those minimum wages every two years at least. This does not apply to the minimum wage only, but when adjustments are made, they are also made applicable to those who earn more than the minimum wage. The minimum wage is nothing more than what may be called a commencing salary. If one goes into this and it does not matter which industry it concerns, one will find that the people who are at all productive, sometimes earn as much as three times that minimum wage. This holds true even in the case of Bantu. That minimum wage simply is a wage which has been fixed in order to prevent exploitation. Then there is something more I have to say in this regard. I read in the papers that that minimum wage is between R6 and R7. There usually is a shortage of labour and with all due respect to the good labourer, I want to say there are many labourers who do not deserve to be paid R6 or R7. What is one to do? Does one simply pay up? Should these people simply be paid higher wages? The problem is that that manufacturer cannot do without them. The manufacturer must have them. Even if a worker just stands there and throws a shadow, even if he stands next to the machine and occasionally do some work, and even if his output is only half of what it should be, one needs that worker. The manufacturer needs him, but in many cases the wage is in point of fact by no means the wage they deserve to be paid. However, they must be paid that wage. One cannot do otherwise. That minimum is laid down by law. He must be paid that wage. In many cases he is not worth that wage.

Let us cast a backward glance over the scene. The hon. member for North Rand said that this Government was playing for time.

It is Johannesburg North. You are mistaken in his name as you are in your politics.

At the same time someone remarked here—I think it was the hon. the Minister—that the United Party was preparing itself not to win the next election, but to do something in 1980. There is no need for us to play for time. We have had 25 years and we shall probably have another 35 years. This Government has given the labourer in South Africa development and security. Our history of 25 years shows this to be so. When we consider the strikes taking place in other countries, then the problem we are experiencing here at the present time is of minor importance. I think it is a trifle. As was mentioned by the hon. the Minister, I do not think that this originated solely from amongst those workers. I know them and I am convinced, as regards the labour done by the Bantu in Natal and the level at which they move, that they do not have it in them to come together and to agree that a thousand of them should strike. There are other influences behind those strikes. I am as convinced of this as I am of anything in the world. I think we should not be obsessed with the so-called minimum wages which are too low. We must have regard to all the other privileges, to the results of the labour done and to the productivity of the labourers who do the work. If our Government simply were to allow wages to soar, in what a position would we land ourselves? I have mentioned here the increases granted to the Railway workers. The United Party is the first to forget that they pleaded for those people last year and they are the first to say, “Look what the Government is doing now! Look where the cost of living is going! Look how high the spiral is going! Look at the inflation caused by this Government!” They forget all these things! That is why I said that it was nice to be in opposition and to deliver oneself of the most irresponsible things, but the time is arriving for the Opposition to take some responsibility too, to act correctly and to deliver their speeches here and in their constituencies in such a way that the population of South Africa will have more confidence in them. Then perhaps things will go better for them. Then they will not lose six by-elections in a row without more ado.

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend Mr. Schalk Pienaar wrote an article in Rapport, and I would just like to say to the hon. the Minister of Labour that it is not only the English-speaking newspapers and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who see the matter this way. Concerning this matter of labour, it is his own newspaper which has for weeks now been urging him to do something. I am sorry to say that the hon. the Minister has not shown any signs this afternoon of taking much action.

I also read it.

I cannot hear. The hon. the Deputy Minister is so fond of mumbling over there. In Rapport Schalk Pienaar wrote this:

He referred to the strikes and terrorism. After I had listened to the hon. member for Mayfair, I asked myself whether Schalk Pienaar was mad or whether the hon. member for Mayfair was not aware of what was involved? If the hon. member knows what is involved, then it is very clear to me that Schalk Pienaar is totally at sea in referring to these matters or events as something which could possibly cast a shadow over South Africa. I just wish to say that the mentality of the hon. member, as he revealed it this afternoon in his speech, is typical of the Nationalist Party. I shall tell hon. members how it works. For 25 years the Nationalist Party has tried to induce an outlook on life which amounts to South Africa being the home and the country of the Whites only and all the other non-White races being strangers at the gates of White South Africa. This is the type of mentality which causes that hon. member to believe that whatever he does for the non-Whites, he does by way of a favour and not because they have deserved it.

But where do you get that from?

Does the hon. the Deputy Minister wish to question the fact that they are treated like strangers? Shall I follow up that argument of his? What rights do the Bantu in South Africa have today? What are they other than strangers and work units? Surely we know this is the case. The minimum rights they get, are such that they would not satisfy any ordinary person. Now the hon. member for Mayfair says that he cannot understand how one hon. member can plead for the safety of the Whites and the other hon. member for the improvement of the lot of the non-Whites? He cannot understand it; but surely this is very clear. That hon. member must understand that the prosperity of the White worker depends on the economic prosperity of South Africa, and that one of the chief supports of that prosperity is directly connected with the labour of the non-Whites. Therefore, in pleading for a change of mind concerning the lot of the non-Whites, we are also pleading, directly or indirectly, for the preservation of the White man in South Africa. But, more, the economic prosperity and safety of the White man is directly bound up with the good relationships prevailing in the field of labour in South Africa. In spite of this the hon. the Minister of Labour says today that these strikes have nothing to do with the economy, have nothing to do with anything material, but are the work of agitators who stir up the workers to achieve other results or objectives. I take it that the hon. the Minister is talking about aims in the political field. Their intention is supposedly to achieve aims directed against the Nationalist Party, after this party has governed White South Africa for 25 years and tried to make all the people believe that the Bantu are their friends. It was 25 years of apartheid which was supposed to be the answer for the Whites and the Bantu. Today, however, we are to understand that these strikers want to use the position in the field of labour at the expense of the Whites who for 25 years have ostensibly led them so well. After all, this is utter nonsense. I shall tell the hon. the Minister what is in fact the truth regarding the goodwill of the non-Whites, i.e. the Bantu. I want to refer to a newspaper article by a person who should know. For ten years now he has been the leader or the so-called Prime Minister of the Transkei, i.e. Matanzima.

Matanzima.

Matanzima. I am prepared to be corrected on the pronunciation. But what does Matanzima say regarding the policy of this Government which must be responsible for the good relationships between Whites and non-Whites? I quote from Die Burger of 29th January, 1973: “‘The Blacks are now beginning to despair,’ says Matanzima.” This is what a leading figure in the Bantu world is saying today. Then my friends opposite say, “Oh, it is only agitators.” No, Sir, I think this problem goes a little deeper than that. It is time my Nationalist Party friends, and particularly the hon. member for Springs, stopped raising these cries to the effect that this side of the House wants to sell out the White man in South Africa. Personally I believe this is a disgrace … [Interjections.] I want to tell that hon. member that he should give the matter more thought. In referring to the safety of the White man in South Africa, one is concerned, in the first instance, not with material aspects, but with the spirit of one’s people. When one White man brands another White man as one who wants to sell out his people, he is breaking down the spirit of that people. That is what that hon. member is trying to do. The spiritual strength of one’s people is the basis on which the safety of the people must be built. Peace and loyalty among the Whites and trust, so that they may share one another’s views and face the problems of South Africa as a united people and not as people who want to sell out one another, is what is necessary. That hon. member does not do South Africa any good by putting forward that kind of argument in the House. The first point concerning security is what I call the spiritual strength of one’s people.

The second point is the intellectual strength of the people, the brain-power. If I were to judge this afternoon by the hon. member for Mayfair, then I would despair of the brain-power of my people—a person who can be so shortsighted as far as the problems of South Africa are concerned. I want to say to the Nationalist Party that as far as the education of my people is concerned, the Government has left us horribly in the lurch in the course of 25 years. This is beyond doubt: If there is one people in Africa which needs education just because it is in fact in this unique position, then it is the people of South Africa. What have my Nationalist friends done? Are they satisfied that we are spending enough on the education of our children? Are they satisfied that we are doing it in the right spirit? Are they satisfied with the FAK being in a position to go on corrupting the spirit of our children, as they did recently? No, Sir, that is the sphere in which we must safeguard, and develop our people, i.e. not with this kind of story that the one is selling out the other.

My third point regarding White security and national security is economic strength. This afternoon the hon. the Leader of the United Party advanced very convincing arguments, in the course of which he stated the economic problems of South Africa and pointed out how little the Government had done by way of facing up to them. And what does the hon. the Minister of Labour say to that? He says, “See how many telephones you have! ” He says, See how well it is going with the people! See how many motor cars you have!” Is he talking about the population, or is he talking about the aristocracy, the Whites?

About the Cabinet?

We are not talking about the Cabinet only. Sir, can you understand that in this era, in 1973, we should hear from the highest ranks, “There is no unemployment in South Africa?” Can you understand that an hon. Minister of Labour can come to this House with these words: “Why do you complain? See how many telephones and motor cars you have!”, knowing full well that he is referring only to the Whites and leaving out the rest of the population? What kind of comparison is that? After all, the hon. the Minister is not only the Minister of White labour; surely he is in control of the total labour force. Incidentally, I have never yet seen an hon. Minister hide as conveniently behind the manufacturers of South Africa as he did this afternoon. But I want to ask him something: If the disruption should continue and become so serious that the damage to South Africa is really greater than is the case at present, will he still blame the industrialists, or should we then start looking to him? Does it not become the duty of the hon. the Minister of Labour to keep the peace in South Africa? Are we now to wait for the situation to explode before he steps in with his extensive powers? Or should he not rather prevent the fire instead of merely trying to extinguish it? The hon. the Minister is almost like a fire brigade: he merely quenches the fire. We want to ask him to prevent the fire from starting, and that the hon. the Minister is not doing. Economically the people are suffering hardship today. I am not only referring to the non-Whites—I include my own constituency. I include the aged. They talk about the “poverty datum line”. Let us have a look at what the aged are getting: R41 a month. Do my hon. friends who are so fond of talking about the economic prosperity and the wonderful policy and standard of living, feel proud in these times?

If a people is weak economically, it is also weak in other ways. Those days when the Nationalist Party could say: Poor but White, are past. No-one believes in that, because in the modern world poverty means weakness. The hon. the Minister should ask his workers whether they want to be poor, knowing that if they are poor they have no assurance that they will remain White. Economic prosperity lies at the root of the security of the population of South Africa.

Lastly, I wish to confine myself to the aspect of friendship, friendship among the various races which make up the South African population. What does that friendship look like? I have already said that a leading figure and a Minister have begun to despair. How does it look when the hon. Minister of Labour says that they are trying to use their labour position to get closer to the position of the White man by attempting to obtain political rights? Where is that friendship then? Has the Nationalist Party succeeded after 25 years, or has it failed? Is this cause for saying that we have no confidence in the hon. the Minister of Labour? Let him read his own Press, in which the Government is being attacked daily by way of these statements: Find the answers; you do not have a policy for the urban Bantu; and you do not have a policy for the Coloureds. Then that hon. Minister puts questions to us. What political audacity to put questions to me when his own Government has appointed a commission to determine the lot of 2 million people, namely the Coloureds? What audacity to put these questions to us! This Government deserves to have a motion of no confidence moved in them. The Government has deserved it after a period of 25 years. 25 years during which they have governed and accomplished nothing which they can point to today and say: There it is like a monument after 25 years! The house of cards is beginning to collapse everywhere, abroad and domestically. And what do we find?

And the little card (kaartmannetjie) is still on his feet.

Yes, my friend. The hon. the Deputy Minister has another name, but I shall not mention it now. He might feel bad. He has another name. However, he wears his ministerial hat with great ostentation of late. I hope he progresses beyond the hat.

I wish to warn my hon. friends in this House that this is not a matter which we must handle lightly. Hon. members should not think that we are only pleading for the Bantu when we say that their lot must be improved. We are pleading for the security of South Africa. Hon. members should not think that the Whites will be secure if the Bantu are not secure. Security of the population is an indivisible matter; one cannot break it up. One cannot consider the possibility of dividing South Africa into a Black man’s and a White man’s land. The economy, the strength, is that of one labour population, White and non-White. The sooner my friends opposite realize that they are failing the White man, of whom they are so fond, as they will fail South Africa in the long run, the sooner they will do something about the problems in respect of which the Minister has so far shamefully failed.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we listened once again to the representations made to this House by the Opposition. I just want to reply in brief to the question put by the hon. member for Maitland and the astonishment he expressed when he asked, “How is it possible for any party to manage to govern for 25 years?” I may just tell him briefly that it is possible for any party to govern for 25 years and even much longer than that if it implements the will of the people. The implementation of this will is reflected in the fact that this Government has been looking after not only the growth of the economy of this country, but also those masses, i.e. the workers of this country. If one’s working community is satisfied and is being cared for and looked after, it always votes for that Government. We do not have unrest in this country. We have been hearing about unrest for the past few days. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is smiling broadly at hearing me say there is no unrest. I do not know whether he is seeing spectres and would like to have unrest. But I can give him the assurance that the inhabitants of the Republic of South Africa, all the races living here, are satisfied. This does not mean that there is no room for improvement. We believe this to be so. But I just want to pause briefly and put it to the members of the Opposition that many opportunities exist and that improvement will in fact come about in the future because the non-Whites, who have been the subject of this debate for the past few hours, will probably attain higher standards as well, that they will probably, as they grow and develop, also enjoy more privileges in the future, and that, as regards their salaries and income, or, as the hon. member for Maitland said, their bread and butter, things will also be better in the future. We trust this will be so. This is what I want to tell all hon. members, and now I should like to dwell for a moment on the non-Whites in the mining industry. You know, Sir, years ago the mines’ labour force was drawn exclusively from the Bantu population of the Republic of South Africa. The same industry is still in existence today. From where do we draw our Bantu labour force for the mines today? Is it not true that we have to bring them in their thousands from Malawi and from Mozambique to come and work in our mines? Have the Bantu of the Republic of South Africa perhaps disappeared, or have the standards of the Bantu of the Republic of South Africa improved to such an extent under this National Party over the past 25 years that large numbers of them who worked in the mining industry in the past no longer turn to the mines today? If any other hon. member should follow me in this debate today, I should like him to give us a little more clarity in this regard. Is the reason for this not the fact that the Xhosa and the North Sotho and the Sotho and our other Bantu people here in our country are economically more independent today, so much so that they no longer turn to employment in the mines? Their standards have improved.

Let us also pause at the Bantu in our cities. Let us just see how their standard of living has improved over the past few decades. Let us not overlook this. Then I want to say this: After all, from 1933 to 1939, when that party was in power, we had a poor-White problem. At the time the Whites were road-workers and bicycles were their means of transport.

Who was the Government just before that period?

You.

We were called in to help.

Let us take the standard of the non-Whites in the cities today. I shall come to the dangers later on. Let us see what the Bantu are earning today as against what they earned in those years. Let us take the salary scales of the non-Whites from 1948 up to the present and ask ourselves what the percentage increase amounts to already. No, let us be honest. We glibly speak about the wage gap, and there are many journalists who say that the gap should soon be narrowed a great deal. We want to put this question to any of those members, for by and large the economy of this country is still in their hands. Do any of those big businessmen see their way clear to announcing tomorrow that they are going to treble the wages of their petrol attendants while making the profits they do, those limited profits? We know that the cost of living has risen tremendously of late; I admit that. Do you in the building industry see your way clear today to paying R18 and R20 per week to the non-Whites, who can do certain kinds of work only, if they work a five-day week? That is true, but then I want to say that the Bantu in that industry—many of the contractors take on piece-work, and I do have some experience of that industry—are earning much more. In my constituency an ordinary Bantu working in the building industry earns R16 a week at present. If one does not pay that and give them holiday pay as well, one cannot get one of them to work for one. I now ask what the kind of work is that is done by that man; what specific work does he do? As time goes by we shall probably have to pay those people more. Since we are faced with a rising cost of living today, we should ask whether the ordinary businessman can afford to narrow this gap all at once, in all spheres, as is being advocated by the Opposition. I say this cannot be done. This cannot be done at all. It is impossible. But this stone is being thrown at the Government. The Government always has to take the lead. What lead have these people given, I ask again. I want to ask in whose hands those factories are in Durban, where the Bantu are so dissatisfied with their wages. In whose hands are those factories? In the Government’s hands or in those of the Opposition?

You will be surprised.

Who forbade the Opposition or the businessmen to pay their people more? Nobody! If one is honest and that person is worth more to one, surely one will pay him more. I too have in my employ Bantu who started at a low wage. They have worked themselves up, however, and today they are earning considerably more. Some of them are earning up to three times as much as they did three years ago. However, they are Bantu who have proved themselves. All gaps cannot be eliminated all at once. That is an impossibility. Those people—we are convinced of that—have been incited. After all, the necessary machinery has been established, as the hon. the Minister of Labour pointed out in his speech. That machinery has been established and is still in existence. Who uses it? No, this is a political trick used by the United Party to say that the National Party is unfit to govern this country. I think they also welcome these things that are happening. That is what is going on. This is the case. So far none of these hon. members who have taken part in this debate have said that they are making an appeal to the Minister of Labour to raise minimum wages in all spheres. Has one of them risen and done so? Has one of them risen and said, “Let us raise the minimum wages; as a businessman, as a factory-man, I am prepared to do this.” I want to repeat that every person is free to do this.

No, political capital is being made out of this, and if this is the political capital the United Party is using in an attempt to cause the downfall of the National Party, I want to tell the hon. members—I want to sound a word of warning—that they should wake up out of that long sleep of 25 years, for they will most decidedly not unseat the National Party by those means; they will keep them in power for more years than that. That is what they will do.

I do not wish to comment on the Coloureds. I do not have any thorough knowledge of the Coloureds. What I do know, however, is that the Coloured person who has qualified himself for his trade, is the Coloured person who is building Cape Town today. Those people qualified themselves for their trade. They concentrated on acquiring a trade, and that greatly benefits this country. Now I want to ask hon. members to rise and tell me whether Coloured employees of building contractors or builders have been underpaid.

They have all their unions in the industry …

That is the crux of the matter; they want unions. They want to give the non-Whites unions so that the agitators—I call them agitators—in these various companies may oust the Whites and throw open their unions to the non-Whites. We shall not permit that. I am being honest in saying that the Bantu may have the right to their various unions and trade unions, but only once they are in their own homelands. I want to make it clear this afternoon that just as I shall one day be a foreigner in their homelands, so I consider them to be here—and I make no secret of this—people who are selling their labour to me. I must be honest with them by paying the person who earns his bread a wage for doing so. However, in the White area he remains a foreigner. I did not make the act of 1936; it was made by a previous generation, but I have confidence in the Act, which will do justice to what is due to the Bantu and other peoples. But especially the Bantu will have to convince me first that they can make a success of what I have granted and entrusted to them before I shall trust them with more. This is my answer, and I make no secret of it. They must make a success of it, for I did not inherit anything. I had to work for what I got and for what my descendants will inherit. I wish some hon. members of the Opposition could have worked for it like that, for then many of them would not have adopted this attitude of disparaging the National Party and everything it does, as they are doing now. They are doing so in order to make political capital out of it and to incite the Black man against the White man in this country. I am levelling this accusation at those hon. members, for today it has become clear from beginning to end that this is the case. The name of Mr. Harry Oppenheimer was mentioned this afternoon. I want to repeat that the mining industry, with the expenses it has and which was only recently affected by the increase in the price of gold, has always taken good care of its Bantu. I have seen them coming from their homelands in an emaciated condition; within six months of their arrival there is such a change in their condition and complexions that hon. members will not believe me—they are fat and in good health. To say that the mining industry is not taking care of its Bantu is wrong. The mining industry has to incur major expenses today in order to create facilities for the non-Whites. There are probably many countries and many persons overseas that do not have the facilities and privileges which our non-Whites in the mining industry have today. This is true, and although I have never been abroad—and I do not have any wish to go abroad either—I shall probably, if I get there one day, visit parts of Europe, the inhabitants of which, so I have been told, are living in much worse conditions than do our local non-Whites. The hon. member for Johannesburg North, who grew up in Johannesburg and knows the urban Bantu, should be honest and rise and tell me how the standard of living of the Bantu has been raised over the past decade. Come now, let him tell me. I can tell the hon. member that the filling station which has the biggest turnover on the Witwatersrand belongs to a non-White person; many of the largest transport companies in that part today belong to non-Whites. Am I correct? I want to tell him that there are Bantu who have inexpensive housing, who have many other facilities which the Whites do not have and who have much bigger incomes than hundreds of Whites. This is a good thing, because we want to raise that section of the population to a higher standard. Because we are uplifting them economically, I believe that they will also be worth much more to the economy and future of this nation. If that is done, it will also be possible for me to use them in more spheres in the future. However, to wipe out the gap by saying just one word this afternoon, would be foolish. I wonder what the Opposition would say if the Government did that. I should like one of those hon. members to rise and tell this side of the House, “Down with the gap between the salaries of Whites and non-Whites! Down with it!” If that happens, I want to give them the assurance that not one of them will come back. In that case we would not only have a two-thirds majority here, but hold all the seats in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Stilfontein with a great deal of sadness, because I believe he is a very sincere person. However, I believe he is suffering from the same delusion as the entire Nationalist Government. You see, Sir, he finds a certain amount of satisfaction in the fact that the position of the Bantu has improved very considerably over the past 25 years. Surely we expect this to have happened! The point the hon. member misses and the point this Government misses is from what has the Bantu improved over the last 25 years and to what—from very little to still very little! The point my hon. Leader made today is that, unless something drastic is done to give the Bantu labourer of South Africa a reasonable income and standard of living, we are looking for trouble in this country because today he is living far below the poverty datum line.

How much would you give him?

My hon. Leader told you how much. He said, “A very drastic increase.” It is no good throwing figures around. What we want to establish, as my Leader so brilliantly did this afternoon, is the principle that it involves, because we live by principles and not by rands and cents.

Mr. Speaker, at this stage I wish to move—

Agreed to.