Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last night I said that events were moving in a way and at a tempo in Natal which it was not possible to forecast or foresee. Since then there have been numerous and conflicting reports, and an escalation of the strike to other industries and other factories. In some instances a serious and perhaps dangerous situation has arisen. Generally, however, I believe that there is a sense of calm and I think that not only Natal but South Africa can be deeply grateful that the events of the last few weeks have not escalated into a far more serious situation than has been reached. We can be deeply grateful for the behaviour of the police, to whom I wish to pay tribute. I believe that the police have acted in the finest tradition of their service and that much of the calm which prevails is due to the way they have behaved. I believe that we are fortunate in that the mood of the strikers has remained as it has and that the employers are doing all they can to come to a settlement.

*But, Mr. Speaker, I accused the Government last night of contributing to the situation which had developed there and also of contributing to the escalation of the labour unrest in Natal. I want to deal today with a few facts concerning this matter.

The first fact is that the strikers are striking for higher wages. What they are demanding is higher wages. The Government’s reply is simply that the employers pay too little. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Government is condoning the demands. The Government does not deny it but says: “Yes, you are being paid too little.” [Interjections.] But, Mr. Speaker, the whole charge from the ministerial benches is that the industrialists pay too little. The blame is laid upon supporters of this side of the House. I say it is irresponsible to put all the blame on the employers. This is an indirect condonation of the demands. But what has the Government done about it, the Government which is responsible? I accept that one cannot simply double wages without having increased productivity. But what does the Government do to increase the productivity of the mass of our Bantu workers? In Durban there is one technical institution at Umlazi. It is a model of its kind which trains a handful of people. It trains a handful of people which does not even represent a drop in the bucket of the labour force of Durban. But what is more, after these people have been trained, they are not allowed to work in a White area. They are not allowed to work in the factories where the strikes are occurring today. They are only allowed to work in the homelands. The only contribution, therefore, to productivity in Durban is being cut off from Durban as a result of Government policy. What is the Government doing to create the facilities so that the productivity of the mass of Bantu workers may be increased? This is a sine qua non for a fair and reasonable scale of renumeration for the unskilled and semi-skilled workers. There must be opportunities for improving their position.

In the second place, the Government has the machinery which should deal with this matter. The hon. the Minister of Labour was far more concerned about miscegenation. He did not use the words, but he was near to saying that if one should hold joint talks, joint consultations or should govern jointly, one’s daughter would marry a Bantu. [Interjections.] He did not say so, but that was the implication. He is more obsessed with politics than with the responsibility he has as the Minister of Labour.

This Government has the machinery for the fixing of minimum wages. I have here a few examples which are relevant at present.

†I checked these this morning, and all these examples that I wish to quote of wage determinations made within the last 18 months are still effective today. We find that the Government machinery, approved and signed by the hon. the Minister of Labour, believes that a male labourer under the age of 18 years should start working for a major urban authority at R4-90 per week, and the highest wage to which the Government machinery believes he should be allowed to climb is R7-90. It believes that a male over 18 years should start at R6-50 and he may go up to R10-50. But a female working for a major local authority in South Africa, in the eyes of the Government wage determination machinery existing today, may start at R5-20, and the highest to which she is expected to go on the official scale is R8-40. We have further examples, Sir: A female labourer, R5-20, a male labourer R4-90; that is under Wage Determination No. 326 applicable in Durban, Bloemfontein, Bellville, East London, etc. Then we have a wage determination for East London, Uitenhage and Port Elizabeth, where an employee other than a watchman starts at R5-30 per week; we have Wage Determination No. 335 under which a female labourer starts at R3-80 per week. Sir, this is the scale laid down, signed by the Minister of Labour as being in his view a reasonable minimum starting wage. When I say, Sir, that the Government has a responsibility, it has a responsibility in the use of its wage determination machinery and it has a responsibility in seeing that productivity can be improved.

The hon. the Minister of Labour washed his hands of the responsibility and said, “Dit is ’n klomp agitators, en ek het die bewys daarvan.” I accept, Sir, that there are agitators or activists who are behind some of the difficulty and who are preventing an early settlement in many cases. I believe that the majority of the workers would prefer to go back to work. They have no strike pay. They have nothing to live on when they are not in employment, and I believe that the majority would like to work. I accept, therefore, that there are activists involved in this, but the hon. the Minister does not only accept it; he said that he had proof that there were agitators behind this. Sir, what sort of responsibility is this? Here we have an escalation of strikes involving tens of thousands of people—somewhere around 40 000 people now—with fruit and vegetables rotting on the Durban market and housewives turning out to help to clear the trains; with the abattoirs closed and milk deliveries and bread deliveries stopped. In a situation where the Minister says he has proof that agitators have caused this situation, what has he done about getting rid of those agitators? Why have they not been arrested? I believe that the police are doing a magnificent job and therefore the hon. the Minister could not have given them that information, otherwise they would have acted upon it. That is why I say that the Government has contributed towards the escalation. The fact that the Minister knows that there are agitators and has not put them out of action is contributing towards the success of those agitators.

Mr. Speaker, there is a third aspect. These strikes are illegal. Every striker who is taking part in the strike is breaking the law. This House some years ago passed a Bill, which is now the law of South Africa, making it illegal for a White trade unionist employed in an essential service to strike. Here we have Bantu engaged in essential services striking, something which, if a White man did it, would be a crime, and which is a crime as it is now. I do not suggest that it would even be thinkable to arrest all these strikers—30 000 or 40 000 of them—because it is not practicable, but the fact remains that they are committing a crime and they feel that they are being allowed to commit that crime. What has the Government done to warn them? What steps has the Government taken to get it across to the strikers that they are breaking the law of South Africa and that whilst they are not being interfered with, this is illegal, that this is action against the authority of the State? Because once you have broken one law, Sir, you get the idea that you can break other laws, and this is a step along the road towards contempt for the law of the land. I believe that the “traak-my-nie-agtigheid” of the Government, its “could not care less” attitude, which has been displayed by the Ministers responsible—the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Economic Affairs and of Police and the Minister who is the leader of the Nationalist Party in Natal—who have all spoken in this debate, has given the impression that they could not care less that there are hundreds of illegal strikes taking place, and have taken place, over recent weeks.

But, Sir, there is another aspect which is important. In terms of the policy of the Government, every one of the strikers is a potential foreign citizen. This House passed a Bill conferring citizenship and arranging for the issue of citizenship documents to the people who are involved in these strikes. In other words, it has ceased to become an issue solely between employer and employee. It has become an issue between the citizens of a potential foreign state and South Africa. What is a labour dispute carries in it the seeds of international dispute and already, accidentally or unwittingly, the Paramount Chief of the Zulus has become involved in one of the strikes. Here. Sir, you have the seeds of trouble which takes this right out of the field of a mere labour dispute and takes it into the field of international disagreement. We have warned time and again of the danger of placing the economy of South Africa in the hands of the citizens of foreign states. Is it thinkable. Sir, that the City of Durban should be brought to a standstill by the actions of foreigners over whom we in South Africa have no say? With whom does the Government talk; with Kwazulu? Where are the responsible leaders with whom the hon. the Minister of Labour talks? Are they the leaders of Kwazulu, or are they the leaders of the Bantu living in Durban? To whom does he talk?

Mr. Speaker, the time is very near, if we have not reached that stage already, when this sort of irresponsibility on the part of the Government, when the fruits of their policy, which created this situation in South Africa, cannot be tolerated. The Government leaves it to the employers and hopes that things will not blow up, but it is part of the seeds of deliberate Government policy which alienates the loyalty of our people. Even our economy is seen as a fragmented economy belonging to different states. That is why, Sir, it is so urgent that the course outlined by my leader on Monday should be embarked upon at the earliest possible opportunity. How different would it not be, Sir, if we were talking to the Bantu around a table rather than talking about them in this House without having talked to them? Because with whom are members of the Government talking? Apparently with no one. This philosophy outlined by my leader provides the machinery for channels of communication, without which this sort of situation can arise again. I want to know what the Government would do if this happened again, if this went on escalating, if it is not brought to a speedy conclusion. But under our policy there would be the machinery to talk and I want, in the few minutes left to me, to deal with the essential elements which would create such machinery for consultation. Our policy is not a new policy, but an extension of our basic philosophy of self-government for each race community over its own affairs, and of participation for each in the decision-making of South Africa. This has always been our policy; self-government for each race group or, as we call them, communal councils, over their own affairs and participation in policymaking at the centre.

Since when?

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where these hon. members have been sleeping since 1963. I have been attacked at meeting after meeting and in this House over our concept of self-government for each racial community through its own organization. [Interjections.] We believe that that self-government must go hand in hand with participation—with a share—in decision-making at the centre.

Now, what is the difference between us? Let us see where we and the Nationalist Party disagree. The Nationalist Party has bodies for the Transkei, etc. It has a Coloured Council and an Indian Council, with legislative authority over certain matters. We of the United Party recognize these communities and we have said that each should have a council. The new detail to our policy now translates those councils into community governments. It says that for the Whites their provincial councils will now become legislative assemblies, or community governments for the Whites. For the Coloureds there will be a community government. For the Indians there will be a community government and for the Bantu in the homelands where it is practical, a community government under a legislative assembly. But, Sir, this is where we differ. We say that for the urban Bantu, for whom the Government offers nothing at all, there should also be a community government. The hon. the Prime Minister asked whom we would be talking to. We would be talking to the urban council for Durban through the machinery which our policy envisages, through the statutory standing committee linking this Parliament with the community government, the legislative assembly for the urban Bantu of Natal. We would have that machinery there and we would be talking to them through that machinery. Sir, does any member of the Government disagree with this concept of community governments running their own affairs for each race group? Is there anyone who disagrees with it? Now there is silence. They prefer to jeer and to make funny noises, but when I ask them if they disagree they are zipped—“tjoepstil”! They must agree because it is the basis of their own policy. We are then at one. We agree on community governments running the affairs of that community. Where we disagree is where we go on from there. We for instance want consultative committees with this Parliament, which must set up these community governments and which must devolve powers upon them. We want committees which can talk together—not talk about each other, but talk to each other—about how those community governments will operate. But that side of the House does not accept that. They accept bodies which, like Mohammed’s coffin, hang somewhere between heaven and earth, but they do not have the linking machinery which links them to this Parliament—this Parliament which must create them and give to them their powers. Hanging in the air, Mr. Speaker; that is the difference between us at this level. We have the same objective but we want to connect those legislative assemblies, those community governments, with the Parliament, which gives them their authority and their power.

Then we say that they must be linked further, and here in the past we have been wrong, I admit. We have tried to graft the basis of a federal system onto a unitary concept and we have thought in terms of either representation in Parliament or a substitute for Parliament. The answer is, of course, in our policy now. Not “instead of” or “within”, but “in addition” a federal assembly in which each of these community governments can be represented. In that federal assembly we would be talking round a table with the people who are concerned. [Interjections.] We would not be talking about them; we would not be playing “Boerehaat en swartgevaar” politics across the floor of this House, but we would be talking about the economic welfare of the people round that table. In that assembly there would be the representatives of all the community governments of South Africa with a basic representation of three each, plus an additional 120 elected on the basis of their contribution to the welfare of the State … [Interjections.] The Government side can jeer and it can mock as much as it likes; the fact is that it knows this is the only road which can enable Black and White and Coloured and Indian to live together in harmony, because there must be a place in which they meet and talk together. The detail I am prepared to argue about, but one of the essentials is that we must consult with the people; we must consult with the people whom we want to take with us. Two of the items on which we must consult will be the powers of the legislative assemblies which control the community governments and the formula for responsibility—the contribution to the State—and the powers which will be transferred from time to time at the discretion of the sovereign Parliament of South Africa, for that federal assembly to administrate. Those are the essential items for consultation. Without those there is no consultation. As long as the road is clear and the basis is clear and this Parliament remains the sovereign Parliament, then you can negotiate and you can consult. However, when you have partitioned and have divided your country into independent states, then there is no machinery for negotiation, because the controller, the regulator at the centre, will have disappeared. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that I am rising to discuss matters which I regard as being of the utmost gravity, and may it be granted to me that I do not display such irresponsibility as was done by the speaker who has just preceded me. In passing I should just like to deal quickly with the hon. member for Zululand who spoke in this debate the other day and told of the plundering which had taken place, or, as he called, it the looting of Indian stores …

No.

Yes, the hon. member did say that. [Interjections.] I then made inquiries of the South African Police as to whether this was true, but they have no knowledge of it.

Why do you not read what the hon. member said?

He said “looting”.

I also established from the Police that up to this morning no complaints in any connection whatsoever had been lodged. That action on the part of that hon. member, who recently became a leader, is in keeping with the … [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member and his Leader objected to the world “looting” which I quoted. Here it stands in his Hansard. [Interjections.]

Order!

I quote as follows—

[Interjections.] I shall have something to say to the hon. member for Durban Point in a moment.

Why do you not read it all?

I did not rise to read out dictation to the hon. member, but I do want to talk to the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I want to talk to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition about the way he is atrociously playing hide-and-seek with South Africa with his new policy.

That is an outrageous accusation!

But first I want to refer to the hon. member for Durban Point. I have said that I shall try to do so with the utmost responsibility. The hon. member for Durban Point manifested extreme irresponsibility in the way in which he referred to the strikes in Durban and in other parts of Natal. This is not a subject which one discusses in such explosive terms as the hon. member did here.

Keep your cool!

My colleagues and I, the Government, which deals with this matter, is not going to make any political issue of this matter … [Interjections.] We are not turning it into a political issue, although this can very easily be done because it is occurring in that part of the country where the United Party has the strongest influence in South Africa. But we are not going to turn it into a political issue. I want to say that it is abhorrent that the hon. member imputed to this Government causes and blame of which it is undeserving. That is what he did here this afternoon when he said that the Government had contributed to this position in Natal. He also mentioned examples and then, what is more, he was wrong in his facts. He referred to educational facilities there. The educational facilities there, which he said were too few, are not educational facilities for vocational training and training for factories; it is ordinary training. It is the ordinary academic and technical training which takes place there. The second mistake which he made—and I do not know whether he is all that ignorant about this—was when he referred to the people attending schools in Umlazi and in the Bantu areas in the vicinity of Durban. Not one of those people is prohibited from being in the municipal area, for we deal with that Bantu area from an influx control point of view as if it is a border industry area, although it is not a declared one. The hon. member ought to know that.

I was talking about technical training.

To broadcast such ignorance and such reckless things with so much irresponsibility, is an unworthy thing for the hon. member to do. I want to make one more remark in respect of the hon. member for Durban Point. He concluded by trying to give a very cursory treatment of their new federation plan. I shall return to that presently. I want to say to the hon. member for Durban Point that what he said about the Bantu in the urban areas, was said from a totally incorrect premise. He said that we have nothing for the Bantu in the urban areas but a political plan and a general organization. What is the position with the urban Bantu as the United Party sees them? They treat them as a lot of nationless beings.

There we have it now.

Yes, they are being severed from the nations to which they belong and from whose wombs they sprung. They are being severed from that because they have to be dealt with as a unit here in the White area. I say: The United Party regards the Bantu in the White area as nationless beings, except when the United Party tries to imply that they should be members of the same nation of which the hon. member for Durban Point and I are members. We know that that is what they have in the back of their minds. This is expressed by people such as the hon. member for Durban North for example. The hon. member for Durban Point is a Natalian, and as a Durbanite he ought to manifest greater responsibility and ought to realize that there should be as much unanimity as possible in this House on matters such as these strikes. He should not try to make a little political capital from this. He should not try to put the strikes and his Party before the interests of our country and of Natal and Durban. For this he will be brought to book. I want to say that the Government regards this matter as being extremely urgent and extremely serious, so much so that, particularly in view of the essential services which have to be provided and which have to be maintained in the Durban area, arrangements have been made for three departmental heads of the Government to leave for the Durban area today. They are from the Departments of Labour, Posts and Telegraphs and Bantu Administration and Development.

Only now?

No, not “only now”; all the departments have officials in those regions who have during the past few weeks been concerning themselves with these matters. The hon. member ought to know that. Nowhere does this kind of reckless talk, such as that of the hon. member for Durban Point, bring solutions to matters such as these. He should also, on his part, evince a sense of responsibility in this regard. Everyone ought to realize, as we on this side, the Government, realize, that the most lasting and most peaceful solution to a matter such as these strikes, this labour unrest and dissatisfaction, is not illegal strikes such as these which have occurred here. Any responsible body, whether it is a governing body or not, should prove what it can do in this matter and should point out that strikes of this kind will bring the strikers nowhere.

What did you do about them?

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak very seriously to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—and other members who are still going to speak, but in particular to him because he is going to speak again at the end of this debate—about what he told us of his federation plan. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to put his enormously large plan to us here in brief, vague descriptions. Here he has the first opportunity to submit, in the right place, his scheme, properly documented, to us, to the people. There are many things I should have liked to have gone into, but I had to relinquish some of my time to the hon. member for Durban Point. Therefore I have to cut short what I wanted to say. I want to point out things which were vague and in particular things which were suppressed, which are extremely important, and I want to indicate why they are so significant. Why are crucial matters suppressed—and I want to mention two specific examples here. I am not even going to say anything about inconsistencies. I shall simply leave those. Other hon. members will have to point them out to him. The first important matter about which nothing was said by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—when I asked the hon. member for Durban Point a question this afternoon by way of an interjection, he also said nothing—is the following: What are the political powers of this federal parliament of theirs?

It is not a parliament … [Interjections.]

Very well then, of this federal council, whatever they wish to call it? In all these past months the impression and the appearance has been created that the body which will be established is an extremely important one. I called it a federal “parliament” and now he says that it is not a parliament, but apparently a council or a committee. In any case, the impression was created that it will be an important body. We have been struggling with them incessantly to find out what that body is going to do. Then we heard from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself. It will have control, on a consultative basis—says the hon. Leader—over pollution …

No!

… and over tourism. [Interjections.]

Is that not important then?

We all heard it with both ears.

That is not what you heard.

“Pollution, tourism and water affairs”, I have it right! I realize that the hon. gentleman is far more aware of pollution, for that is what his party is doing to politics in South Africa.

The other question which we must get absolutely clear, for it is extremely important, is the basis on which those 120 people are going to be elected. The hon. member for Durban Point spoke of “the welfare”. The expression which they used is “the contribution to the welfare of South Africa”. He also spoke here this afternoon—and I listened and wished that I had had more ears with which to hear—about proportional representation for election on the basis of the contribution, proportionally, to the welfare of South Africa. Why do they not adhere to the original words they used? In the A Argus of 24th August they did not say “the welfare of South Africa”. Here I still have it. There they said: “The country’s gross domestic product.” It was described by their greatest political mentor, the Sunday Times, as a “financial formula”. Why cannot we have the details of this financial formula? In November the hon. member for Durban Point said: “The formula is still being worked out.” This is February and they are still working out that formula. Let us consider it for a while. We must remember what the United Party’s scheme is. What it amounts to in short is that apart from the continued existence, provisionally, and I underline “provisionally”, of this Parliament …

Why underline it?

Ask your Senator Horak. He said it would eventually disappear. [Interjections.] He did say it, and it is not only he who did so. It was also written into the committee’s report by hand … [Interjections.]

Order!

In all fairness, Sir, I would just like to complete my sentence. The newspaper told us that it had been written into the report that Parliament would be phased out.

Here it is.

Could I please have a look at the original report? [Interjections.] The other day I asked my friend the hon. member for Durban Point when we would be receiving a brochure on their policy. He then said “shortly”. Can the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tell us … [Interjections.] But I am still dealing now with the basis for the election of the 120 people. Secondly there will be a group of 15 legislative assemblies, four for the Whites, two for the Coloureds, one for the Indians and eight for the Bantu. Here and there they say 10 for the Bantu, but for the time being we shall continue to say eight. These 15 are each going to designate three to this federal parliament, or committee, or whatever it is. Then there are going to be 45 in this federal body, designated by the 15, as well as the 120 who are elected, proportionally, on the basis of “each community’s contribution to the welfare of South Africa,” alias, as they said the first time, “the gross domestic product”. I have to take off my hat to one of the United Party members so far. I do not usually wear a hat, but I take my hat off figuratively to the hon. member for Durban North, for being the only man who tried to mention figures in regard to how many of those 120 people will be the representatives of the non-Whites. He said that it will probably be fewer than five initially. Five out of 120 is 4%. How do they arrive at that 4%? Can the hon. member tell us, since he now sees 4% as being the representatives of the non-Whites, whether this 4% is their contribution to the gross national product now? Is it for all the non-Whites, i.e. Bantu, Coloured and Indians? Is their contribution to the gross national product 4%? Is he not able to tell us? He will not tell us, for it is far more than that. [Interjections.] How does he arrive at the 4% then? The hon. member must tell us; he owes it to us. We must not play hide-and-seek with one another in regard to these matters. We must ask economists. There are many sitting on this side of the House. [Interjections.] If all of them on the Opposition side were only worth as much as one of ours, it would help them. If they were to ask economists what the criterion of economic welfare is, the economists will say that they could perhaps use the gross domestic product, or the net national income, or the spendable income of the population. In this matter I let myself be guided by first-class economists. I went into the matter and chose the criterion which is going to be the most favourable for the Whites. The United Party should have no objection to that. I then worked it out. Suppose that scheme of the United Party were applied today. What is going to happen in regard to those 120 members? We will then see something disastrous.

Who are your authorities?

Sir, the ability of my authorities is beyond suspicion. I leave it at that. Why does the hon. member now want to turn this into a personal matter? Let us deal with the facts. I am going to give the facts. I have said that I am going to take the most favourable criterion, namely the net national income. The joint contribution of the three non-White groups—I have not worked it out for the three groups separately—to the net national income for a year or so ago is at least 25 to 26% of the whole. Let us say 25%, to take a round figure. That would mean that the non-Whites should have 25% of the 120 members, not so, and the Whites 75%. Surely this is a simple little calculation, and I do not know how the hon. member for Durban North arrived at only five. Perhaps the figure two in front of it was indistinct. The picture then looks like this: The four legislative assemblies for the Whites send 12 members to that body. Please note this carefully now: According to the present political divisions Natal of course sends three United Party members, and the Transvaal, the Free State and the Cape three National Party members each. Surely that goes without saying. After all, we cannot disband the National Party when the United Party comes into power. After all, we are still going to fight elections. Then there are 12 Whites from the four legislative assemblies, and the Coloureds, the Asiatics and the eight legislative assemblies of the Bantu, 11 bodies altogether, send three each—a total of 33. Therefore there will be 12 Whites and 33 non-White representatives.

Now we come to the voters. Here we have an interesting point. Remember what I said a moment ago about the gross national income. According to the division which I have now mentioned to you—that the Whites receive 75% and all the non-Whites together 25%—it will mean that out of those 120 representatives 90 are going to be representatives of the Whites and 30 of the non-Whites. All things considered, what it amounts to is that in this federal body 102 members will represent the White and 63 members the non-Whites, therefore a majority of 39 for the Whites. That is to say if it were to start immediately.

Now there is one thing we must remember and which I want to slip in in passing. The United Party on the opposite side are the people who are urging very strongly that the wage gap be narrowed; it should be closed. As the wages of the non-Whites increase so astronomically it is going to influence this formula of the other party for the non-Whites favourably. In other words, on that basis there will be more than 30. I am merely mentioning this in passing.

Who wrote your speech?—Val Volker?

No, Sir, I write my own speeches, not like that member who gets his from the hon. member for Hillbrow.

Now I tell you, Sir, that these figures, 102 White as against 63 non-White representatives are dominated by a tremendous and destructive qualification: From 1910 to the present day the Whites in South Africa have never been a united political block in any of our political bodies. This we do not have in our country; this we do not have in this Parliament. After all, there will not be one political party only. Surely the hon. members must concede that. Is the United Party going to disband itself and place the National Party alone in that federation? The National Party is not going to disband itself. Those 120 elected people are therefore going to consist of members of all the parties. I said that if we have to apply it to the present day, we must take note of the present day political set-up. In the House in which I am standing at the moment the National Party represents approximately 70% and the Opposition approximately 30% of the members. If we now divide up those 90 representatives for the Whites out of the total of 120 representatives on the basis of the present political division in our country, the picture we get is a sorry one. This sorry picture is that there will eventually be 63 representatives for the non-Whites, 72 Nationalists and 30 members of the Opposition. If the Nationalists therefore want to govern in that federal parliament, it would mean that they will have a majority of nine, but then all the United Party members will have to abstain from voting, every day. However, if they would vote for the National Party, our majority would be more than nine. Will we have that? The hon. members on the opposite side are sitting there shaking their heads negatively. If not, there must always be at least 11 United Party members who will vote for the Nationalists. Will we have that? What do they do to United Party members who vote for the National Party? They are kicked out. No, there is another alternative, a cruel and pathetic alternative and this is what will happen to the United Party. That cruel and pathetic alternative is that the United Party is going to be the cause of those non-Whites always being used as an element for swinging the balance of power in that federal parliament. The non-Whites will comprise a group which holds the balance of power. There will always be a reckless bidding and a reckless haggling for the favour and the support of that non-White group.

[Inaudible.]

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

Mr. Speaker, we should not take it too much amiss of the hon. member for Hillbrow. He is one of the fathers of this policy. This policy of the United Party did not have only one father. We therefore have the situation that the non-Whites will wield the balance of power between the Whites in this parliament. We, this party, put a stop to that. Now that party has come forward with its scheme to resurrect it. That is what they are envisaging with this. That is why the people will never ever allow them to have an opportunity to do so.

The United Party will therefore, according to its system, be constantly delivered into the hands of that non-White element, and do hon. members know what will happen? For the most part they are going to agree with them on matters in opposition to the National Party. Did we not experience it here in this Parliament that they always agreed with the representatives of the non-Whites, and the latter in turn with them? Now the hon. member for Yeoville must not ask me again why the non-Whites cannot vote for the National Party. We do not want such a situation.

Is that so?

Yes, that is why we did away with it. We do not want a situation in terms of which the National Party must receive support in this House from the representatives of non-Whites. They must be kept out of the disputes of our White political parties. Does the United Party not wish to adopt that course too? Why not? It is for this reason that United Party members on the opposite side are even now dragging in the situation in Natal to derive political benefit from it and to impute blame to us of which we are undeserving. This monstrous scheme of the United Party will bring bitterness, strife, enmity and friction between the political parties of the Whites, greater than we have ever experienced before. I am thinking now of the bartering and bidding which I mentioned a moment ago. The United Party is trying to bluff the people by remaining silent about these matters which are so fundamentally important and by professing to us that the Whites will be one great consolidated unit which will be able to take action in that body. Surely the United Party must know that this is not the case. Why are they bluffing themselves by pretending that we will be there in one united unit as Whites? That is an assumption which is far worse than the fiction of a hobgoblin from never-never Land. It seems to me the hon. member for Durban Point is beginning to take this matter to heart now; I really hope so.

He is still pining over the leadership.

Sir, I ask the Leader of the United Party and I ask any member on the opposite side: For heaven’s sake, discuss this matter; tell us what that basis is; tell us why you changed your words; why did you switch from the “gross domestic product” to “general welfare”? What is “general welfare”? Tell us what your basis is. Take any basis and state it to us frankly and unequivocally, and then make a calculation as I made a calculation for you this afternoon. The other day the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not even refer to these 120 elected members.

I shall deal with you.

That I should like to see; if only he would try, Sir. Why cannot we discuss the matter of this basis unequivocally and honestly with one another? After all, it is vitally important for our Whites in South Africa, and of course for the non-Whites as well, but particularly for us. Why not do so unequivocally and honestly and accurately and securely, as the National Party states its case, even though it is a difficult task? The road on which our party’s policy takes us is no easy one; we know it, but we say so unequivocally. Just as, throughout the entire world, each nation has its own government, so, too, every Bantu nation and every non-White nation, the Coloureds and the Indians, in South Africa, can develop their own governing bodies.

Where?

We state it emphatically in our policy and there is nothing unique about it; the entire world is full of examples of separate and multi-national development. Why cannot it happen here? Why is it wrong here? Why does the Leader of the Opposition and his party not state openly …

What about the Coloureds?

If it is relevant I shall reply to that as well. Sir, we state emphatically to the White nation and to the non-White nations that they will eventually have their own government with their own freedom for each of the nations. We state expressly that this Parliament will for all time be the Parliament of the White people of South Africa, and the United Party cannot say that. Sir, we say that we will not co-operate in allowing the non-Whites to form an element of power and wield the balance of power between the Whites. Why cannot the United Party also give us such basic principles on which to work? Why such a temporising with expressions and why such a suppression of basic facts? I said at the outset that these matters were of the utmost importance. I conclude. I tried to deal with this matter in a serious, not in a petty manner, and I am asking the members of the Opposition to furnish us with serious replies to these questions. We are asking, and the people of South Africa are asking: Please, Sir de Villiers Graaff, Leader of the Opposition.

The hon. the Minister a few minutes ago made a plea. He said “For heaven’s sake, discuss this matter; In other words, discuss your policy, but for heaven’s sake, do not discuss ours.” The whole object of this Minister’s intervention in this debate has been to try to get the United Party to change its tactics. He wants us to depart from our attack on the Government’s policy and to discuss our race policy. Sir, there will be ample opportunity of discussing our policy. We will pick the right time. We are certainly not going to devote time to it now when we are attacking this Government and moving our vote of censure. What did this Minister do? He spent his time discussing hypothetical cases. He was making up stories about what could happen here and what could happen there and how we would have to vote and who would not have to vote in order for the Nationalists to win. The Minister of Foreign Affairs sat listening to him with a puzzled frown; he was not able to make out what the Minister was talking about. Sir, this Minister is the guardian of the people who are causing great concern in Natal at the moment. It is a very serious matter, so serious that additional policemen have been flown down to Natal. He himself said that senior officials of three departments have gone to Natal to see what they can do about it. One would have expected that this Minister, the Minister who is responsible for the administration of Bantu Affairs, the guardian of those people there, would have told us what his views on the subject were and what his plans and the Government’s plans were to avoid industrial strikes of this nature in future. What did he say, Sir? The answer was not illegal strikes. I would like to ask him what the answer is.

I did not say they are not illegal strikes.

Are they legal strikes?

I said it was illegal.

You said the answer to the problem was not illegal strikes. That is what I said. But what is the answer? Why does not this Minister tell us what the answer is? It is because of their policy that there is no answer at the moment.

It is the law of the land.

Why does the Minister not tell us how the laws of the land should be carried out? There is only one reason for what is happening today. It is because of the lack of policy on the Government’s side. It is because of the failure of the policy which they propagate. Sir. I almost hesitate to say this again because it has been said so often. The failure of this Government’s policy is its neglect to cater for the urban Bantu. They have neglected that. They have a policy which provides for the rural or the tribal Africans.

Do you accept that policy?

Of course I do not accept that policy. Sir, they have a policy and have made some provision for him but there is nothing for the urban African. We told Dr. Verwoerd originally that the whole policy would fail because of this neglect to deal with the urban Bantu. The Government tells us that their policy is one of self-determination. I have taken this point up with the hon. the Prime Minister before. To talk about self-determination is absolute rot. They have got no right to self-determination.

What is your policy?

The point is that they have no choice. They cannot have a say as citizens of this country—and they are all citizens of South Africa because the Citizenship Act of 1949 passed by this Government made them all citizens of this country. They have no right to choose—and that side talks about self-determination—whether they will remain as citizens of South Africa in a federal state or any other form of state. The only choice they have is to carry on as they are now in the urban areas without any political rights at all, rootless and rightless, and in the Reserves to carry on without economic development or political rights. It is either that or to choose to have political rights in the Reserves and a promise of economic development. That is the only choice they have and the leaders they have made it quite clear. Chief Gatsha Buthelezi has made it quite clear that they have no choice; unless they accept the Government’s policy of separate development they get nothing at all. I said they cannot opt for anything else.

And if you are in power they must accept your policy.

Our policy gives them some rights as citizens in this country. We do not say to the world, to try to bluff the world, that they are choosing what they want. They are not choosing what they want, and that is the excuse the Government makes all the time, that they have accepted self-determination. They have not accepted this. As I have said, one tribal leader after the other has rejected this. What should be worrying the Minister and all the Nationalists sitting on the other side, is the difference in the position as it was two or three years ago, when they had vocal support from some of the tribal leaders among the Africans, and the position as it is today. What is the position today?

We still have that support.

You do not have it any more. You must consider the attitude of the various African leaders, some of whom supported the Government in the past, to see what the position is. The main weakness of the Government’s policy is its attitude to the urban African. What is the position of the urban African? What rights does he have at the moment? The Prime Minister said the other day that if he woke up and found himself Black, he would not basically find much difference except geographically. I think that is what he said.

I replied to a question put to me by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

But you gave the wrong answer. [Laughter.]

That is what he said; but what would be this position? I should imagine that he would no doubt be one of the responsible elderly or middle-aged advisers of the Africans in the urban area in which he found himself. He would be co-operating with the administration in the running of the area. He would tell me what others have told me in the townships, those who do play their part on the advisory board and who do try to cooperate, and that is that they find their position impossible, that the young men who have been urged to exercise patience have become impatient and are not prepared to listen to them any longer. They are frustrated and they blame the elderly men. They say: “You are partly to blame because you are working with the authorities.” They will no longer listen and they are accusing the elderly Bantu in the areas who are prepared to co-operate and who try to work with the authorities of being the enemies of their people. How can one blame them when one considers what is offered to the younger people? What advantages are there for those who are growing up in the urban area? Let us suppose that the Prime Minister lived in Langa, which is quite close by, or in Guguletu or Nyanga, one of these places down here where would he live? The houses there are such drab, uniform houses. If the Prime Minister was a lawyer, or a doctor, or a teacher, a professional man, he would find himself occupying the same little drab house as the lowest paid labourer. If he was a bachelor, he would find himself in the bachelors’ quarters; he would probably find himself sharing a cubicle with another man and if he wanted to study at night or read, he would probably find in the bed next to him a drunken labourer probably sharing the bed with his mistress. That is what he would have to put up with. There is no privacy at all. There is no accommodation for spinsters but they are accommodated all right and that is part of the reason for the terrific overcrowding with the terrible consequences we have. Let us suppose that the Prime Minister took ill at night and that he wanted a doctor. He would find in Langa one doctor for all the thousands living there. African doctors are not encouraged to go to live there—they must go to the Reserves to look after the people there. Who must look after those people there? White doctors cannot sleep in these townships at night.

Would he have a telephone to phone a doctor?

No, he would not have a telephone to phone the doctor. Suppose that he was so ill that he had to be hospitalized. I am talking about this area down here. If he can talk English and Afrikaans or Afrikaans, he would be lucky. But let us suppose that he cannot talk either of the official languages. There is no Mr. Pelser in charge of hospitals to see that he is addressed in his own language there. He goes to hospital and he finds that he has to talk either Afrikaans or English because the nurses cannot speak his language and African nurses are not allowed in the hospitals. [Interjections.] The Prime Minister might say it is a provincial matter. It may be a provincial matter, but is the Prime Minister aware of what these people have to put up with? If he is aware of it, is he doing anything to right the situation; is he doing anything to help these people? There is a lack of communication. Suppose that the Prime Minister living in one of these houses had children whom he wanted to educate. They can go to a primary school and if they are lucky, they may get into a secondary school, but what occupations are open for them, after they have been educated, in the urban area? What can they do? What training is there for them to enable them to take up any trade? What technical colleges are there? What trade schools are there? Why must all this talent be wasted in the urban areas? Why can there not be technical colleges and trade schools in the urban areas where these people live where they can be educated, where they can be made useful citizens and where they can become more productive? Supposing a child of the hon. Prime Minister’s living at Nyanga or Langa, wants to become a teacher; he cannot train here. There are no facilities here for training teachers. And he cannot go to the Reserves because the Minister of Education for the Transkei, Miss Sigcan, so I am told said the other day that Africans here cannot go to the Transkei to be trained. Where must these people be trained if they want to become teachers? But even supposing there were facilities in the Reserves, why can they not be trained down here? Why must we lose the opportunity of training people and of making useful citizens of them?

Then there is the position in regard to houses. The other day we had an address by Mr. De Villiers, the president of the Institute of Administrators of non-Europeans Affairs, in which he said this—

He said that shortage of housing was disturbing inter-racial relations. He went on to say—

Nobody will deny that there is a terrific housing shortage in all the townships, especially on the Rand. Nobody will deny that there is overcrowding and that this gives rise to sociological problems—

He also disclosed that housing schemes in Johannesburg for 2 965 houses were approved during January, 1972 by the Department of Bantu Administration, but the necessary funds amounting to Rl,8 million had not been allocated by the Department of Community Development by the 13th November, which was ten months later. The money had then not been allocated. I wonder if it has been allocated yet. The Deputy Minister can tell us today, a year later, whether that money has been allocated for Johannesburg. He also pointed out that a further 1 377 houses are presently awaiting Ministerial approval. Why must the Department of Community Development be brought into this; why must they supply the money? There you have the Johannesburg Municipality; the local authorities have to submit their plans; the Department of Bantu Administration and Development has to approve of them, and, then another department has to make the money available, but they are not getting the money. Why, if the Government is not prepared to make the money available, does it not let others build houses? Why does it not adopt the United Party’s policy of allowing the Bantu to build their own houses in the townships and to own their own property and houses? They could then build their houses; it would enable them to build an attractive and comfortable house, and they would not be forced to live in a stereotype mass-produced house. They would then be given a stake in the country and, as Mr. De Villiers has pointed out, the need for discipline and order would assume a new significance. The inhabitants of Johannesburg were allowed to build their own homes in the days of the United Party Government, but that has been stopped by this Government. The criticism that the Africans have in that area were brought to light at a meeting with the urban Bantu councils and the Department. They complained about the attitude towards widows and divorcees, but especially towards widows. Why cannot the right be given to these people, who have built their own houses, some of them at great expense, to leave their house to their wife when they die? Why must they make application to the Government for permission to leave their homes to their widows. In this report Mr. De Villiers also pointed out that Johannesburg, the city itself, supplied the majority of its own labour. That applies to Cape Town and Port Elizabeth as well and, I understand, to all the other larger centres. That means that the majority of the labour force of South Africa is permanently urbanized in the townships in the White areas. I am not talking about the mines now. The mines in any event use mostly foreign labour. The majority of the labour force is permanently resident in the urban African townships. They are not temporary sojourners. The critical point in the Government’s policy is that they will not face up to the fact that these people are not temporary sojourners; they are there permanently. The Government must face up to this fact and meet the challenge.

I have mentioned that the hon. the Prime Minister said that, if he woke up and found himself Black, basically there would not be much difference. But, Sir, one of the African leaders who is favourably disposed towards this Government, Mr. Mangope, the leader of the Tswanas, said this the other day—

It is ridiculous for Government spokesmen to pretend that there is not bitterness amongst the Black people, because there is. Another leader who supported the Government’s policy was Chief Kaiser Matanzima. He was the first to accept the policy. What did he say just recently? He said—

Why does Chief Kaiser Matanzima talk like this? I know it is because the people in his area do not have work. When the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs yesterday said there was practically no unemployment in South Africa, I said it was nonsense and he said he wanted to know where I got my statistics from. I asked him a question but he did not answer it. He is not here now. Nevertheless, I want to ask him what statistics he has to prove that there is no unemployment in South Africa. How does he know what the position is with the Bantu? Not one of these hon. Ministers can tell us—not the hon. the Minister of Labour or the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development—what the position is in regard to the Bantu.

You tell us.

I shall tell you this: In the Transkei there is unemployment. One only has to read the debates in their Assembly to hear their comments and their concern about the unemployment there. You must see what I have seen in Umtata outside the labour office. The Natives are standing there in their hundreds seeking employment. You must go along, Sir, as I did just recently, to the labour office. You will find the Africans surging around you because they think you are an employer from Cape Town or Natal who has come to pick up labourers. They surge around you to try to get jobs.

You are talking rubbish.

The attitude of this Government is the philosophy of Dr. Verwoerd, namely that the Bantu must come down to the urban areas, serve the White man here, and as soon as he has served him, he must get back to his own area. He is here only as a convenience. This was reiterated by the hon. member for Mayfair two days ago when he said: “If I want Black labour, I will get my labourer; he will do his work and then he must go back.” The hon. member for Mayfair is not concerned about what happens to the labourer when he goes back, because he knows very well that, if he wants another Black labourer, he merely has to go along to the recruiting office and he can get one because they are there on tap. Why are they there on tap? They are there on tap because they are unemployed. Sir, we cannot ignore this fact; we cannot close our eyes to it.

They are not facts; they are stories.

The only defence for the Government’s policy is that, when they originally adumbrated this policy of separate development, the Reserves were going to be developed. They were going to be developed to such an extent that they were going to take care of all the Bantu. All the Bantu were going to find employment there. The Tomlinson Commission, consisting of experts chosen by Dr. Verwoerd, was then appointed. That Commission made its report in 1956, and we debated it in this House.

In 1954.

Anyhow, it was in the ’fifties. We debated that report in this House. We said that while we accepted the recommendation that the Reserves must be developed as fast as possible economically to take care of the Africans and to give them work, we were also very conscious of the comments of Mr. Bisschoff, one of the members who submitted a minority report. Dealing with separate development he said the following—

He feared that it was not going to be a success and his fears have been proved right. It is not successful; it is not working out. One of the difficulties in fairness to the Tomlinson Commission, I may say, is that their recommendations were that this development had to be carried out on a vast scale as a matter of urgency and as an act of faith, with dedication. It was not their fault that Dr. Verwoerd rejected the major portions of the report. He rejected, for instance, the recommendation that £104 million be spent in ten years, that a development corporation should be established with a capital of £25 million, and also the main recommendation that Whites be allowed to play their part in the development of the Reserves. [Interjections.] I have the recommendations here. I would like to read them to the Minister but my time is short. He rejected the idea of White participation. He did so for a simple reason. Mr. Young and Mr. Prinsloo, the two officials, changed their recommendations no doubt after a talk with Dr. Verwoerd after having accepted the general recommendation about White enterprise. Dr. Verwoerd said the following about White enterprise: “If I allow White capital and enterprise in, I will have to allow White management, and if I allow White management in, it means that White children will have to be allowed in. That will result in White schools, teachers and White churches.” A whole White community would thus be built up. That was why he was opposed to it. He did not accept the recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission, the advice of experts, with the result that the whole scheme has failed. Development is not taking place as it should. Admittedly, there is now a frantic effort: Money is being poured in; Whites are being asked to go in and to assist in the establishment of industries on an agency basis. But it is too late. The development which is taking place now cannot cater for the natural increase in the population of the Reserves. What hope does it have of catering for all the Whites who live in the urban areas? What hope has it got of catering for the Blacks in the White areas? What hope has it got of catering for the present increase? According to Mr. De Villiers’ report there is an annual increase in Johannesburg of 2 000 families. What hope is there of developing the Reserves sufficiently to accommodate these families? If you read the White Paper issued by Dr. Verwoerd, Sir, you will see that he stressed developing industries on the borders of the Reserves. That is why he rejected the recommendations of the Commission. We have the example of what is happening in Natal now with labour and can happen in Border areas. If we have to rely on industries in the border areas with our labour coming from the neighbouring Reserves, what is our position going to be when we have troubles like we have now over wages?

When this Government took over power in 1948 they claimed that they had the Cabinet of all the talents; the Minister of Transport will remember that proudly. But I ask him to look around and say what he thinks of the Cabinet now.

*The best jokes at the expense of this Cabinet are told by Nationalists. It is not only the people outside who are telling jokes at the expense of the Nationalist Party, Cabinet, but also people within this House.

†It is a tragedy for South Africa that this Government should be in power this time of crucial difficulties. Unless there is a change of heart, a change of policy, on the part of this Government—you cannot ask for a change of Government because they will not hold an election, but they can change their policy and their attitude—and be more realistic, we will have more difficulties. The hon. the Minister of Transport is more realistic than other Ministers and I appeal to him to try to use his influence to get a realistic attitude towards the Bantu, especially towards those living in the urban areas, especially in regard to their labour.

Mr. Speaker, I think even the hon. member who have just resumed his seat will not expect me to comment on what he has said. When all is said and done I think that all of us who are today sitting in this House, listening to and also taking part in the debates, realize and also expect that this debate we are now conducting will be a debate on the federation plan, the policy of the United Party. There have already been so many opportunities in the past, and during this sitting and in the future, I take it, there will also be opportunities to speak about that. I do not think we shall ever stop speaking about such matters in this House. There will be many opportunities, and I think the Opposition will also concede that if we are conducting this debate we must now speak about their policy. Because when he made his speech the hon. the Leader of Opposition himself took the initiative in coming to light with a plan about which there were a great many expectations, outside, in their ranks and in ours as well, because we should very much like to know what that policy is. Therefore we have now come to this debate to argue with the Opposition about that.

I do not want to light with hon. members now—they need not be aggressive about that—but I just want to say that the United Party—and they have every right to do this—held a congress last year about their policy. I should now like to take it that the United Party congress also gave its members the necessary confidence to go ahead with what they considered there. Why would it be otherwise? Or else the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would not have come here with this policy. Sir, I hope the hon. member for Durban Point, who is now walking out, comes back. I thank the hon. member for displaying the courtesy of returning. The hon. member came back to the matter, and I am glad he has done so, because I have here before me the names of the hon. members opposite who worked on this draft plan. I shall read the names as listed here. Hon. members will know who they are. I have here the names of Mr. Mike Mitchell, Mr. Jack de Villiers—I do not know him; other hon. members know him—Mr. Bill Horak, secretary of the party …

Jack de Villiers is our leader in the Provincial Council in the Cape.

He is then a very important person, Sir. He is leader of the party here in the Cape. Then there are also the names of Mr. Vause Raw, Mr. Etienne Malan, Dr. Gideon Jacobs, Mr. Eric de Villers, and the big boss of all the United Party members in the Transvaal, Mr. Harry Schwarz. One would have expected these hon. members to get up one after the other to take part in the debate. When the hon. member for Transkei stood up, I wondered why he immediately tried to smother the affair. If it were so important, one would have expected one of these hon. members to stand up. But before I take my argument further, may I ask the Leader of the Opposition something? If he does not want to answer, the answer will have to come from one of the other said hon. members. Before this plan was brought into the open, were there consultations with the leaders of the various homelands, since they are also included in this? Have they any idea as to whether the homelands would fall in with this plan? [Interjections.] I do not want to fight now; I just want to extend my argument. For the sake of my argument I am asking hon. members this question in all reasonableness. If they tell me they did not do so, I shall be satisfied that they did not. Apparently the latter is indeed the case. I therefore take it they did not hold consultations.

Whom do you want to involve? We consult whom we want to.

Mr. Speaker, this plan is an offer, from a leader of a party in South Africa, to almost 16 million people whose futures are at stake. One therefore makes the people an offer about that future so that one can be reasonably sure they will agree with one. If not, one does not make it. My question is a reasonable one. I am asking whether that party, and the gentlemen involved held consultations with the leaders of the various homelands so that they could have an idea about whether there was agreement on that. That is all I am asking, but they do not reply.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he …

Oh no, do take a seat. I am not interested in counter-questions now. For the sake of my argument I want to set forth one very important and simple matter. I think all of us are interested in that. It is surely not unreasonable to ask a person whether he has also spoken to the people about an aspect of the future. That is what I want to know from you.

Why do you want to involve us in this?

You could have involved the Governments.

We did hold consultations.

Oh, you did hold consultations. But why, then, were we arguing about that? The hon. member said they held consultations and they are quite satisfied. But now I want to go further. I want to tell those hon. members that a very important question now comes to the fore. Before I come to that I first want to touch on something else. Supposing the Leader of the Opposition and his Party were to come into power tomorrow.

Never!

No, but let us accept that for the sake of my argument. If the United Party were to come into power tomorrow, the party would be compelled, owing to the plan with which it has come to the fore, to begin immediate negotiations with the various homelands to make this big offer to them. What is really happening here is that an offer about a second Republic of South Africa is being made. The first Republic of South Africa is the one we now have. I do not reproach hon. members for having been against the establishment of a Republic. They later cooperated very well, but I am now saying that hon. members opposite want to liquidate the first Republic of South Africa. In place of that first Republic of South Africa they want to bring about a fundamental change; they want to bring in a new Republic, a second Republic, i.e. the federal Republic, the mixed-up Republic, the Republic that will be integrated in the political and every other sphere.

But then it is mixed-up now.

You would have to make an offer in connection with this second Republic of South Africa. When that offer is made there is an initial question that will be put to those hon. members. Any people considering its future asks that initial and completely fundamental question about itself. This must be seen against the background of the fact that the homelands are already on their way, that they already have a future, can determine their own future, that it has already been laid down that they will have full say as far as that future is concerned, that they will walk the road to the very end and that they will have the highest degree of development and will not be held back. In other words, they already have in their hands the prospect of having full identity, development and full control over their future. With a view to the fact that they already have this, there is one important question that comes to the fore. If hon. members were to make their offer to the homelands now, the following question would be put to them: Since you are now inviting us into partnership in the second Republic of South Africa, will we occupy in that second Republic of South Africa a lesser position than we would have occupied if we had continued on our own? In other words, they will want to know from you whether, in that partnership, they will also be able to travel the road to its end as they would be able to do if they continued to full independence as put to them today. In other words, the question that is going to be asked is whether the opportunities that will be offered, in this second Republic of South Africa, to the homelands and all the non-White peoples, will be equivalent opportunities or not. There are a few possibilities.

What about the Coloureds?

The first possibility is that the answer will be “No”. If the answer is “No”, then I put it to the House and to the Opposition that this is, in the first place, unreasonable. One does not ask a person to relinquish what is his own and to come in with one if one is going to give him less. That is unreasonable and unjust. I think everyone in this House will agree that that would be a very foolish homeland leadership; because if the answer is “No”, who will relinquish what he already has in his homeland and accept the uncertainty you are offering him here? I say that the possibility exists that the answer could be “No”. The possibility also exists that the answer could be “Yes”, and if the answer is “Yes”, it would be of particular interest to the White man in this country, because then the composition of this federal parliament, which hon. members opposite were running away from so fast a moment ago, is immediately at issue. But, Sir, there is also another answer. Let us suppose the hon. the Leader of the Opposition replies, when this question is put to him, that he does not know, and that is probably the answer the Parliament will get. If he says he does not know, such an important matter being at issue, hon. members on that side need not do any more talking. But, Sir, there is also another possibility, and that is that the Leader of the Opposition will reply that he does not know now, but that he will throw it into the White man’s lap to decide finally about that in future. If that were to happen in connection with so important a matter as the future of a people, you can understand what chances there are for hon. members opposite to succeed in getting these homelands to go with them into this new republic they want to create. But, Sir, what is very, very important to us, as White people, is to know that there will be honesty and reasonableness in this big offer, because you must remember that it is an offer, and this offer can be either honest and reasonable or it can be dishonest and unreasonable. If the answer is to be honest and reasonable, then we want to know today what that honest and reasonable answer is to the question my colleague asked a moment ago and I am also asking now. I now want to put this question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, because White South Africa will be interested in the answer to this question: If you incorporate the home lands, and all the other groups, in the new republic, as you want to do, are you going to give them a share equal to what they themselves will have in the homelands, as is being envisaged for them? It is of fundamental importance for us to know this. I ask the Leader of the Opposition: Is the offer going to be for equal shares or not?

You will not get a reply to that.

Sir, I think, and I think that everyone sitting in this House will agree with me, that to refuse to reply to so important a question is actually an offence in South Africa. How dare one speak of a change of the Republic of South Africa and the future of 16 million people if one refuses to reply to the first, most important and most fundamental question in this connection, i.e. whether those people will have, in one’s partnership, rights equal to the rights they would have if they travelled their own road? All I want to know is this. I am asking this of any member opposite. Will it be equal status in future development or will it be inferior status? We are interested, Sir, but you must remember that you are the people who continually reproach South Africa and the Government with the fact that we do not give the non-Whites in this country a good opportunity in life, and that the outside world looks at what we are doing. For the sake of those friends of yours in the outside world I am asking you now, because they will also want to know. Sir, is there anyone who wants to reply to this? The hon. member, who should have the answer, sits and yawns.

You will get the answer.

Sir, I put it to you now that in connection with the most fundamental question involved, i.e. whether there will be equal future development in this new partnership they are offering, they are refusing to tell the Parliament of South Africa what their plan is as far as the Republic is concerned.

You will have to ask them in private.

So we could go on, but I now come to the second point. I you now do not want to reply to this fundamental matter, I want to say this. You extend an invitation to from a partnership between the White Parliament and between the four provinces, or actually you put it like this, saying there are four different provinces, as Minister Botha also explained it, plus the two provinces for Coloureds, plus the one for the Indians, plus the eight you mention, and that makes 15, and 15 times 3 is 45, hence you arrive at the 120. You were challenged to comment by my colleague, and you did not want to answer him, but I now put it to you that if you want to see bitterness in this country, you must here disparage the Black man’s share with things like 5% and 10%.

There is already bitterness.

I want to tell you that there are two dangers involved in the whole matter. The first danger is that immediately after you begin the argument a second question will be put to you, i.e.: But what standard do you evaluate the 16 million non-Whites in this country? What are they worth to the South African economy? That is the first dispute you are going to have the morning you begin talking. Sir, can you imagine that for years there has been agitation in this Parliament, with them and us and the whole world being told that South Africa does not give them their share but that they will give it if they come into power, and then there is talk like that from the hon. member for Durban North who at one stage valued it at 5%, and the hon. member for Von Brandis who valued it at something like 20% to begin with—5%, 10%, 20% to 30%. Can you imagine that five times more people than the Whites of South Africa would be willing to have themselves valued, their contribution to the economy of South Africa valued, at anything less than half? [Interjections.] I am not trying to belittle anyone; I just want you to follow my argument, and I challenge you to answer it. I put it to you and say that the first dispute you are going to have in South Africa is the big dispute in which the Black man will accuse the White man of coming along with a dodge to trick him out of a position in this country, in order to obtain control, with the formula of “checks and balances” of the hon. member for Yeoville. I want to elaborate. I want to say that you will not obtain a formula if you speak in terms of such a vague concept. For us it is not vague because we determined it. For other people who do not understand it, it is indeed vague if you are speaking in terms of gross national product. Imagine telling nine million people, who work in this country, labour actively and are integrated at every point in this country’s economy, that they are worth 5 and 6% to the total economy of South Africa. You are insulting them, Sir.

But there is a second point. I want to tell you, Sir, you are doing a very dangerous thing, something that has never before happened in South African politics, and it is a dangerous angle you are introducing. Sir, you are now giving labour demands a political angle, because a person is now not only going to agitate in South Africa to make a living from the income he earns, but you are now giving him the opportunity to obtain thereby political power as well. Because if you set it at 5%, you will receive a demand throughout South Africa that it should become 10%, because then you get an additional 5% political power. In other words, what the hon. members are doing in South Africa is to drag in a fatally dangerous element into politics, and if they were to do this and make a wrong move, it would be a reproach not against the United Party and the Government of the day but against the White man in South Africa. That is why hon. members can understand why those of us sitting here today are interested to know what the answer is going to be. I put it to the hon. the Leader—he need not answer now; he can do so in the course of his reply, he can do so on a later occasion, but in the interests of South Africa he ought to answer, because otherwise he cannot continue with his plan.

The Sunday Times will answer it for him.

I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Will this valuation be in the order of a figure more or less equal to what can be determined by economists at present? I do not know what the figure is. It is a very difficult figure, and I do not want to venture an opinion. If, however, the hon. the Leader says he is prepared to accept it, he must accept the result that emerges.

Apart from that, there is another very important matter. There is also a third one which is fundamental, and which is as important in this whole question. I now want to quote something, and hon. members opposite can tell me that what I want to quote is not in their report and that I should read their report. I want to quote here from a newspaper, and they may now tell me the newspaper is wrong. Do you know what the newspaper states? I want to quote from a report in The Sunday Tribune of 27th August, 1972. I do not now want another explanation of how the whole lot fits together. I think we all know that. But here quite a number of functions are mentioned which the various parliaments, the legislative assemblies, will fulfil. It goes further, and there is mention of the “federal assembly”. If I understand dictionaries, I gather that the word “assembly” has a certain connotation in the Western world. If I understand the word “federal” or the word “federation”, I do think they relate to a concept that is understood in the Western world, and if the same meaning is not attached in this connection we are being misled by the hon. members on the other side. We can therefore not argue now about what “assembly” and “federation” mean. What is important, is the following. Listen to this now—

We come next to “Mines”, a not unimportant one; this comprises the whole mining industry in South Africa. It then goes further and states “Educational Co-ordination”. Very well, this is “co-ordination”—the word qualifies it. Mention is also made here of “Man-power Planning, Water Resources”—I do not know why they prefer my department—but leave it at that. [Laughter.] In addition there are “National Roads, Pollution”, and then there is another important one. I have a reason for mentioning this. It is an important one called “Economic Affairs”. This “federal assembly” cannot be so unimportant a matter if one hands over to it a country’s whole economic life and all aspects of its labour and health. There is consequently very little left, in actual fact—there is still only Police and Defence and a few such things. My hon. colleague there, the Minister of Defence, is out of it; I am in it. The fact is, however, that under United Party rule such things as Defence, Justice and Foreign Affairs will also be added. There must not be any attempt now to belittle this allocation of portfolios or interests, as described in the newspaper. If the newspapers are wrong, why do the hon. members on the other side not say they are wrong, and why do they not say what they want to do. But we are very suspicious; we believe the newspapers were right. We believe the United Party is now running away because it is now getting a fright as far as that is concerned, and is afraid I shall quote this here in the House of Assembly so that every member sitting here can know that this was recorded in the newspaper and that it has very serious implications.

Here is something else as well. We all remember that when this story began, there was talk of the “phasing out”.

Yes.

Everyone spoke of “phasing out”. I do not have everything here now. Perhaps it is my mistake because I do not cut out everything, but I shall look for the quotations. I remember that I read it in the case of one important leader after another. I believe that the big boss of all the United Party members in the Transvaal, Mr. Harry Schwarz, also expressed himself on that matter. Many of them also expressed themselves in that connection. They had a great deal to say about the “phasing out” part, but I now gain the impression that the hon. members want to run away from the story of “phasing out”. Let us now take it that up to this morning they knew nothing about that, that they had heard nothing of all these things, and that what they are now saying is correct. Hon. members must please give me the answer, in this important Parliament of ours, to the question I asked them, and that is what they will answer if they get a question about the development of the non-White peoples in this country and about whether there will be equal development in future. Let us take it that the answer to the question of a moment ago will be “Yes”. My question now is how the hon. members are going to escape from that if their answer is going to be “Yes”. If the answer is going to be “No”, the hon. members can simply call a halt today, because then they are being unreasonable and dishonest. There is only one answer that can be right, and that is “Yes”. If the answer is “Yes”, what do the hon. members then want to do with this Parliament?

But you have been told.

Wait now. This Parliament cannot simply hang in the air, because do the hon. members know what they are doing if they are going to keep the Parliament in that state, as they tried to imply this afternoon? Then the hon. members are surely, in a blatant manner, keeping them under their thumb. Surely that is supremacy (“baasskap”).

That is what you have now.

If my argument was correct at the outset—I tell hon. members again that they do not have a choice—the hon. members will only be able to give one answer, if that question is put to them, and if they want to save the White man and themselves, and the answer is “Yes”. Once the hon. members have said “Yes”, they must think of what is going to become of this Parliament.

A museum.

Once you have said “Yes” it means that the days of this Parliament, as it stands today, are numbered, in spite of the assurances and the words the hon. the Leader of the Opposition used. If its days are not numbered, what hon. members want to do amounts to nothing more than using it for the oppression of the Black man. What the hon. members will then have done with the Black man is to have enticed him in, to have brought him into a federation and offered him a partnership. His citizenship is at stake, his future is at stake, his millions are at stake, his human dignity is at stake and everything is at stake. If the hon. members are now going to oppress the Black man and not give him what we want to give him—and that is an individual area, however simple that may be, even if there are difficulties, even though it costs a lot and takes a lot of time—then hon. members are refusing all the things of importance for a people’s life. Then, I am telling hon. members, they will have trouble. If the Black peoples should find out, at that stage in time, that they were tricked in this way, hon. members have done nothing more than to invite people into a partnership and to make them an offer, turning around, however, after the time and closing the door behind them when they cannot jump back any longer. Then you are tricking them. On that day the bitterness in this country will begin. On that day there will no longer be a peaceful road ahead. Then those hon. members have started off on a course of eternal conflict between Whites and Blacks in this country. With reference to the few points I have mentioned here, and the few questions I have asked, I say that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must reply. The hon. the Leader must remember that we have a 1975 election. Everyone of us sitting here has a constituency. There are ten thousand people in my constituency who want to know the answers. I want to go and tell every one of them what your answers are. What the hon. members have done here is this: They have made an offer, on behalf of us all, about the future of the Republic of South Africa, because they want to topple the first one. I am now telling the hon. members that they cannot escape an answer. The hon. members will have to give it. I want to go further and say that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition already has another committee going in the background to work out a new plan. I say this because this one is dead for many reasons, inter alia, because it holds immediate death for the White man in the future.

Mr. Speaker, in these times which have been marked by these very serious troubles in Durban I sincerely hope …

Tell us about your policy.

… members will appreciate the seriousness of the situation sufficiently to give a correct account of their opponents’ policies, to state the facts correctly and then to make any comment upon them that is appropriate. In this debate today we have had from the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and now from the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, statements concerning our policy which just do not accord with the facts.

Give us the facts then.

In many cases they have been dealing with it on the basis of a report which was subsequently discussed after which our policy decisions were taken. Consequently, an entirely false situation is placed before this House. I can quite understand why the hon. members opposite are so interested in this policy because it is, of course, going to be the policy of this country in the future. I can also quite understand why they should be so interested to discuss this policy because there have been so many convincing facts showing the complete breakdown of their own policies since last we were assembled together, that rather than deal with the complete collapse and rejection by countless new people of their policy, they prefer to attempt to pick holes in our policy upon a basis not of fact, but of their desire, of their hopes, that it is in a certain form because they believe that it may then be more vulnerable before the eyes of the electorate.

I would like to deal immediately with the challenge which the hon. the Minister made to everybody on this side of the House. I hope he will correct me if I have his facts wrong, but I understood him to ask us to say whether, under our policy, the development to come would be “gelykwaardige status met die Nasionale Party-beleid”.

No, the offer and the participation in the development.

Right, the hon. the Minister says: “The offer and the participation in the development”. He asks whether ours will be of equal worthiness and quality with theirs. It is not necessary for me to give an ex parte statement on the matter. I can call as witness a completely impartial observer, I can call as witness one who has examined the Nationalist Party policy and who has rejected it completely, out of hand, and who does not wish to go the road of the Nationalist Party, but rather on the federal road. I want to cite Chief Buthelezi first of all. He has examined the policy of the Nationalist Party and he considers that the status, which is offered by this policy, is entirely unacceptable and he looks in the direction of a federal arrangement to give him the status, ahead, which he regards as worthy. [Interjections.] If the hon. the Minister is not satisfied with that answer, I can add to it the attitude of Chief Matanzima, who at one time played along with the Nationalist Party to get what he could out of their policy. Now, of course, he is telling them that it is a fraud. Sir, he has provided the answer, and it is not necessary for this side of the House to attempt to speak ex parte on the matter as it can cite how the very people themselves regard this offer of the Government and the alternative. I said that the Government’s policy was in ruins. It obviously is, but even in the interval, since we last came together, there have been further obvious signs of ruins and rejection. And I want to refer very briefly to these before we get back to where this debate should be, namely, dealing with the important events in Durban and the light they throw on the two directions, that of the Government Party and that of ourselves. Not only has there been the rejection during the recess by Chief Buthelezi and Chief Matanzima, but … Mr. Speaker, the lights have gone out … [Interjections.]

Order! I can recognize the voices of all hon. members and if they do not want to heed what I say, I shall be compelled to send them out.

Business suspended at 4.22 p.m. and resumed at 5.50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, when the lights went out I was attacking the policy of the Government and was dealing with the failure of this policy. One hour later these lights have still not come on. There is no need to hit a man when he is down—and it is not my habit to do so—and accordingly I move—

Agreed to.