Hon. members would like to know what the programme is for next week. All the Bills appearing on the Order Paper, except No. 3, will be dealt with in the order in which they have been published here. No. 3 will be moved down to be dealt with after No. 13 had been disposed of.

† Then, Mr. Speaker, hon. members would like to know what the dates of the different Budgets, the different financial measures, will be. The Part Appropriation Bill will be introduced on 19th February, and the debate will start on 21st February. The Additional Estimates will be introduced on 26th February, and the debate will start on 28th February. The Railway Budget will be introduced on 7th March, and the debate will start on 12th March, The Post Office Budget will be introduced on 20th March, and the debate will be on 21st March. The Main Budget will be introduced on 28th March, and the debate will start on 2nd April.

The parliamentary recess will be as follows: Parliament will adjourn on the afternoon of Friday, 13th April, and it will resume on 24th April. Parliament will not sit on 31st May and on 1st June.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

I think we can say this afternoon that the hour of decision and the hour of truth have arrived for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. When the House adjourned last night, he was involved in an altercation with me. Today. I want to proceed from there. First, however, I just want to refer to the accusation the hon. the Minister of Mines made against the Opposition, viz. that they were not telling the whole truth, or, alternatively, that they insinuated that a certain newspaper was violating the truth. Sir, I have before me the cutting from Die Vaderland of 3rd October, 1972, in which a photostat copy of clause 16 of this highly confidential document appears.

Altogether false.

This article deals with the White parliament. This is a matter which is of very great importance for the whole of South Africa, viz. what the United Party are going to do, according to their new policy, with this White parliament. Now I have this photostat copy and underneath it is stated that it is a photostat copy “of an amendment”, and the amendment reads as follows.

We have heard all that.

The second sentence was deleted and the following words were added at the end of the third sentence—

*In the second place, the United Party had a candidate in Klip River, Mr. Uys, and this gentleman said the following in a speech there. Now remember, Sir, he was the candidate of that party. These were his words (translation)—

While this United Party congress was in progress in Johannesburg, the political correspondents of all the English language newspapers were present there. I wish to quote three instances where these three political correspondents state that they had insight in “a most confidential document”. I presume that this is the document which was distributed among the members of the Opposition caucus in connection with this new federal policy of theirs. They say—

These three men are three different political writers who I do not believe first held a caucus with one another about what each of them was going to write in his particular newspaper. Last night I mentioned The Cape Times. I wish to repeat that the sentences I quoted from the article were between inverted commas; in other words, the public outside accept it as a quotation, a verbatim quotation from this document. I wish to repeat what Mr. John Scott wrote in The Cape Times. I wish to repeat that if the hon. Leader denies it, he must tell us this afternoon whether this White Parliament will remain as a sovereign body in South Africa and whether the federal parliament will eventually have the full power in this country. Because The Cape Times—I say again that it stands between inverted commas—wrote—

The Argus, which is regarded throughout South Africa as a newspaper which tries quite genuinely to tell the truth, states—

It states that it read the following in this document—

Could one wish for a clearer statement? I am also going to quote the following. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition should listen now. He passes very lightly over these things, but South Africa wants the truth from him this afternoon. A man by the name of Stanley Uys wrote in The Sunday Times. He has quite often been the mentor of the United Party. Stanley Uys said the following, and he also had “insight” in the “confidential document”—

He goes on to say that these community councils can then discuss matters with the federal parliament. He calls the latter an “umbrella parliament”. He does not say in this report the community councils can discuss matters with parliament as it is sitting here this afternoon, but they can come to the “umbrella parliament”, which will be the “federal assembly”. He also says—

And then follow these important words—

Could one wish for a clearer statement? I now wish to say again to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he must stop being vague and that he must stop his double-talk; as a matter of fact, his new leader in the Transvaal has stated that his first job will be to put a stop to the double-talk of the United Party. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must stop his double-talk and stop being vague. He must tell us here this afternoon whether these quotations I have quoted are false …

Yes.

Are The Argus, the Sunday Times and The Cape Times lying, and Die Vaderland, from which I have a photostat copy here?

Of course.

Let him tell us this afternoon where this came from. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader must keep quiet now; he will have an opportunity to speak in a moment.

Which leader?

The Leader of the Opposition. The United Party says … [Interjections.] The hon. members had their turn. I mentioned the name of Mr. Harry Schwarz yesterday. Mr. Harry Schwarz, while here in the Cape, talked about “shared powers”. How can one share power when the Leader of the Opposition states that the White Parliament will remain sovereign and supreme in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.]

Where is Japie?

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I glad to see that my hon. friends are so anxious to hear what I want to say. I hope I shall not disappoint them. [Interjection..]

Order!

Before everything else I find it my duty as a member of this House, for which we all have the greatest respect, to bring a perturbing statement to the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister, a statement which was almost incredibly hurtful, and I ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he would please repudiate this statement at the earliest opportunity. It was made by an hon. member of this House, the hon. member for Odendaalsrus only yesterday. He has been so good as to confirm to me personally that this is the correct version of his speech that I am now going to give. He said:

Then the following phrase followed:

We could hardly believe our ears when we heard that and we did our best to establish it, as I did in this case, and the hon. member has now confirmed that the spelling in this copy of his Hansard is the correct one. He asked whether this is the “Jew-knighted” party. [Interjections.] I am shocked at the laughter that has come from certain sections, but I am sure that it does not represent the opinion of sensible people on that side of the House. I trust that we shall have a reply from the hon. the Prime Minister. As far as I am concerned, it is a deplorable and utterly reprehensible statement, in the worst of taste, by a caucus member of his own party and I await a reply from the hon. the Prime Minister.

Before attempting to satisfy the insatiable and flattering curiosity of the Government benches about our federal policy, I hope I shall be permitted to comment on a few of the other minor issues raised by members on the other side.

*I was particularly surprised at the way in which the hon. members tried to extol the poor election results in the six by-elections as great victories. In the first place Caledon was extolled as a tremendous victory, although there was an increase in the total number of votes for the United Party. Allow me to prove whether their expectations were in fact realized. After the votes in Caledon had been cast, and after the polls had closed, Die Transvaler came along with the following report the next day. So this report appeared before the result was announced. In it Die Transvaler said (translation)—

What a wonderful victory, was it not, as predicted by your own newspapers. Afterwards, however, an excuse had to be found for Caledon. I think one of the most amusing excuses was supplied by one of their chief political columnists, that highly esteemed journalist, Mr. Schalk Pienaar. His words were quite straightforward—this is now in regard to Caledon (translation)—

We find exactly the same in regard to Vereeniging. There the picture is just as amusing. There their results fell just as far short of their expectations. Their great computer king, Mr. Laurie, had worked out a majority of more than 3 200 for them; then came the setback, which was in fact admitted as such by the hon. the Minister of the Interior. Then he had to find an excuse. He found this feeble excuse (translation)—

So I should like to give my hon. friends opposite this friendly advice: please do not insult your own people like this by saying that they lied in Caledon and that in Vereeniging they were afraid of water.

†Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. members are waiting with keen anticipation to hear more about the federal plan of the United Party. I trust I shall be able to satisfy part of their curiosity. I spoke of the flattering and the insatiable curiosity on the part of the Government: “flattering” because they are obviously taking our policy very seriously and they realize that it is not only the policy of an opposition, but the policy of the alternative government and, in all probability, the next Government of South Africa.

I also mentioned their curiosity as being insatiable. I have rarely seen such abysmal ignorance on the part of hon. members on that side, such downright obfuscation in their lackey press and such hilarious contradictions between members of the Cabinet themselves on our policy. There is a split right down the Cabinet on the United Party’s policy. The hon. the Minister of Information said it is a policy “van baasskap”. “Julie dwing net baasskap af”. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development thinks it a liberal, final threat which spells the end of White civilization in South Africa, while the poor, confused hon. Minister of Sport and Recreation is sometimes on the one side and sometimes on the other. There is utter confusion, Sir. It shows the strength of this policy of ours. Such childlike, simian confusion probably deserves more pity than censure, but I shall leave those pitiful critics to one side and I shall come to the more intelligent members on that side.

Where are they?

Oh yes, there are some; I shall come particularly to those people who want to know more about our policy and see whether I can give them openly, across the floor of the House, some of the information they seek.

First of all, let us be clear about a few things: The basis of this policy of ours is a threefold one. Firstly, it is to create a framework within which a federal policy can develop for South Africa; secondly, it is to ensure that there is consultation and co-operation at all levels in this country and, indeed, to act in the spirit of the old Testament prophet who said to his people “come and let us reason together”. The third point of our belief, our policy, is the maximum devolution of powers consistent with good government. These basic principles of policy have not changed over the years. I had the honour of being the secretary of the commission which drew up that so-called Strauss policy of the United Party. I also had the honour of being a member of the commission which drew up this policy which is being discussed today. I can vouch for it that the basic principles have not changed. The principles have not changed, but naturally, as happens in every party, the machinery for implementing it has changed. In that respect there have been several changes, some of which hon. members on the other side might regard as significant.

Like a Model I Ford with an eight cylinder engine.

The only official statement which has been publicized in regard to this policy, was issued by my hon. leader on the 20th September, last year, after a meeting of the central head committee. In it he stressed the six cardinal points. The first was that Parliament should remain sovereign and be the regulator of this amended system. No key powers would be transferred without a new mandate or a referendum. The second salient point was that each community, or racial, or national, if hon. members prefer that word, group will have its own community Government known as a legislative assembly. Thirdly, these legislative assemblies should obtain the maximum powers commensurate with good government. These powers are those of the present provincial councils, plus some powers, important powers, in regard to matters such as social welfare, higher education, pensions, and so forth. It will be increased powers in regard to matters such as these, but in every case only those that affect that one particular group. The fourth and fifth point is that there will be a new body, a federal assembly to be constituted by three representatives of each community’s legislative assembly elected by its own people, plus another 120 on the basis of the contribution made by each federal unit to the country in general. I will expand on these Words later. Sixthly there will be joint standing committees of Parliament and the individual legislative assemblies which will have important powers of investigation and consultation.

After that Press statement which my hon. leader issued, a certain enterprising journalist obtained a copy of the report, which had not yet been completed, of the committee appointed by my leader to go into this policy. By means which I as a politician deplore, but as a journalist can understand and sympathize with, he obtained this copy. It went to the Press and was taken up by the Nationalist papers, and so on. The hon. member read from one of those copies which were afterwards, once the matter had become public property, distributed. But let me assure the hon. member now, and I will assure him later again, those words about the “phasing” out of Parliament does not appear in any official copy of that policy. We are not responsible for words which may have been written in by a journalist or other persons who got hold of this particular copy. We do not know what these copies were, as no official copy was originally handed out to anybody. [Interjections.] Let me assure hon. members that we are not trying to run away …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, my time is limited; I am not prepared to answer questions now. We did not give any copy with the phrase about “phasing out” to the Press. Let hon. members on the other side rest assured, we are not trying to run away from the official version. They can also rest assured that although the report of the Constitutional committee is not final, it represents presents 90% to 95%, and possibly, who knows, even 100% of what will finally be decided.

Now, Sir, I think the time has now come to elaborate more on this policy and to go into the questions which have been asked across the floor of the House. I shall try to reply to them as faithfully and as clearly as possible.

*The first question is: Where is sovereignty going to be resided in our system? [Interjections.]

Order! I want to appeal to hon. members to assist in the maintenance of order. And the hon. member for Umlazi must contain himself; the volume of his voice virtually equals that of all other hon. members put together!

Sir, may I ask the hon. member a question?

I am very sorry, but the time is too short. You want replies to your questions—let me give them now. [Interjections.]

† I am replying to your questions—why do you not listen? The answer to this question is: Sovereignty will reside in this Parliament where we are sitting today.

[Inaudible.]

Order! Did the hon. Whip hear me ask hon. members to assist in the maintenance of order? If he is not close enough to me I shall ask him to come and stand next to me.

It is not our policy, and it never was, that this Parliament should be phased out. I wish to emphasize that. Our Parliament is sovereign. It can decide to commit suicide, but it is not the United Party’s policy that Parliament should commit suicide.

The next question is: Will this sovereign Parliament be able to veto what the other bodies are doing? The reply is that we have in this country of ours already a well developed set of laws on the conflict of legislation between different powers which can introduce legislative measures, such as the provincial councils, the municipalities, the Central Government, and also bodies such as the Transkeian Legislative Assembly. It will be quite within the power of this Government of the United Party to formulate those principles so that the sovereignty will remain solely with the Central Government and so that there will be a right of veto over any measure inconsistent with the Central Parliament’s views which may be passed by the federal assembly. At the same time we realize that just as a law of this Parliament is superior to a law or ordinance of a province, so a law of this Parliament will be superior to an ordinance or a law of any of these legislative assemblies. But, Sir, obviously no sensible government will interfere lightly with provincial powers or with the powers of such a legislative assembly. It would be foolish. It might be disastrous, and we shall not lightly do so. Indeed, we hope to have some sort of constitutional safeguard inserted to guard those powers of legislative assemblies. Let me assure hon. members on the other side that it will not be a High Court of Parliament.

The third question was: Will there be non-White representatives in this present Parliament of ours? My answer is: Have hon. members not read the policy? I am posing this question because it was raised by a person whom I regard as probably the most obnoxiously one-sided journalist in South Africa, the political editor of Die Vaderland. He actually worked out that this Parliament will be effectively controlled by Coloureds. This is an untruth bordering on imbecility. If that political correspondent were to repeat it after this, he would be deliberately lying.

*Our policy has precisely been that there would be a change in the machinery in this respect that non-Whites would not have representation here any more, but would in fact be represented in that federal assembly of ours. Let me state it clearly now: The Parliament in which we are here will remain White. It is as simple as that.

† The next question which was asked is: Why have we changed our policy? I have replied to that in part, saying that the basic policy has remained unchanged, but on occasion the machinery has certainly been changed, as is necessary with any sensible government and any sensible opposition. The basic policies remain unchanged. Why, however, were these changes in the machinery made? Firstly, we decided that consultation between the groups would be better served by having a separate body, such as this federal assembly, and that it would be better than having such consultation take place across the floor of the House. Secondly, we did feel that there was some merit—we are not saying supreme merit—but quite a great deal of merit in the fact that non-Whites should be represented by their own people. Our policy, as you remember, was that the Bantu should be represented by Whites in this Parliament, and there was some merit in the opposing arguments.

A minor point arose, of course, Sir. This did not really influence us, but we did discuss it. That was the racialist prejudices of “verkramptheid” from that side of the House when it comes to any possibility of a White and a non-White sitting on the benches of this Parliament. I think the name Frik le Roux will not be well known to many of us here. I shall take members out of their suspense and tell them that Mr. Frik le Roux is an hon. member of this House. He is the member for Hercules. I have here an article on what he said on a matter such as this, about Whites and non-Whites coming together in a church, his own church. He is reported as follows—

[Interjections.] Even Die Vaderland had to cry out “Nee, Frik, L.V., nie so nie!” You can imagine the terrible problems which apartheid and their narrow-mindedness would have created in this respect, but we believe we could have overcome it.

The fifth question which has been asked refers to the legislative assemblies that we intend introducing. Now we must remember, Sir, that establishing these will be the first task of the new United Party Government. If you read our policy you can see that you cannot establish the federal assembly in vacuo; you first have to establish those bodies at the lower level, and then from them, by proportional representation, members are elected to the federal assembly. We have been asked how many legislative assemblies there will be; we stated clearly that there would be four White legislative assemblies, one, probably two, for the Coloureds, and one for the Indians. We added that there would be approximately—and I underline the word “approximately”—eight legislative assemblies for the Bantu, which will include legislative assemblies for viable homelands, and will include one or two—maybe three, but not more—legislative assemblies for those Bantu living outside the homelands.

The hon. the Prime Minister and thinking members on that side of the House might ask: Why do we not state precisely that there will be eight legislative assemblies? Firstly, Sir, we believe that not all eight of the present homelands created by this Government are viable. There are one or two of them which can never become independent states, let alone self-governing territories. Secondly—and this is important—when we come into power this present Government may have destroyed so much of the South Africa we know, that it will be impossible to have eight of these units. One or two or three or more homeland governments might already be in orbit as independent satellites of Black power, or of leftist socialist independent states. Indeed, Sir, if the hon. the Prime Minister can tell me how many states will be completely independent by 1975, I shall be able to tell him how many of these units there could be. Furthermore, there are inevitable demographic changes which occur all the time in South Africa, and these will be an important factor that we will have to take into consideration.

The next question asked was this: Was there consultation with the non-Whites? As a member of that committee I can say that there were definitely individual conversations by members of that committee in all parts of the country, and at the same time that we found them most valuable in giving us their views on our proposals. Sir, I am asked why I do not mention their names. Firstly because we do not have permission to mention their names; secondly, because it might embarrass these prominent non-Whites in their relations with the Government; thirdly, it might very much embarrass the Government to know how many of their friends are prepared to talk to the United Party.

The next question was: What will the powers of the federal assembly be? It is a fair question. The answer to that is that this Sovereign Parliament will decide what powers it will retain. The legislative assemblies will decide what powers they will have, after consultation, and then the remaining powers, those which overlap and which are the concern of all the groups, will be considered as powers for this federal assembly, provided that this sovereign Parliament agrees. Let us make it quite clear that it will be a federal assembly; it will not be a federal parliament. There can only be one Parliament in this sovereign State of South Africa that we envisage, and I can well foresee that initially the major task of the federal assembly will be consultative—there is not the slightest doubt about that—or that only Parliament will be able to devolve powers upon this federal assembly. Let us also make it quite clear that no powers which affect the keys to the safety of the State will be transferred to any other body without a mandate such as a referendum from the White electorate.

Will this federal parliament have legislative powers?

Yes, in the way that anybody has legislative powers; if they are conferred upon it by this central Parliament, it will have them. The Provincial Councils have them and the Transkei has them; even the municipalities have legislative powers through their regulations.

† Let me give an example. Take the question of water affairs. It would be wrong to transfer all the work of the department and the control over water affairs to this one federal assembly but, Sir, you can divide some powers. There are rivers which form the borders between different areas and which can be dealt with by a federal assembly. There are the catchment areas which might fall in a non-White area, or part of a catchment area might fall in a White area and part in a Bantu area. Obviously in that case you have a situation where you can have consultation and action at the level of the federal assembly. But this does not mean that under any circumstances the federal assembly will be able to control irrigation works in the White areas. That will remain under this Parliament, although not under this Minister.

The next question was this: On which basis will the 120 additional members to the federal assembly be elected? It will be on the basis of the contribution of each federal unit to the country generally and to the well-being of the State. A fair question is how will this be determined? Sir, it is a difficult question but it is a fair question, too, and I can assure the hon. the Prime Minister that one of the important factors will naturally be the economic contribution of each unit. But it will not be so easy to establish what it is. I doubt whether his Department of Statistics can establish it at this present moment. We have had capable people who assisted our constitutional committee trying to determine this.

The hon. member for Hillbrow?

We have capable people in this House, but we also have capable people and institutions outside Parliament assisting us. You have to consider the gross national product, and the contribution of each section to the net domestic product; you can consider income; you can consider income tax; you can consider direct tax and you can consider indirect taxes. It must be clear that we cannot give a definite percentage or a definite number at this stage, but I can say that the figure given by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is completely exaggerated and haywire. We reject his figure; we will not accept it.

Give us the right one.

There are these figures to the Minister but they have not been accepted.

Would he and the Department of Statistics give me the figures? I have a Question on the Order Papers. We also have our own bodies which have investigated existing statistics. Sir, we have already done a great deal of work in this respect and will continue to do so. But hon. members can rest assured that in the Federal Assembly and amongst the 120 the Whites will be in a substantial majority.

The last question which has been asked is whether the independent Bantustans will not be happier and better off when they are independent than when they are under a legislative assembly.

*The hon. the Minister of Water Affairs asked whether they will be equal. Mr. Speaker, they will naturally be better off under our policy. They will have access to all the markets of the Republic. They will have access to the prosperity of the Republic, to the labour market, and they will also have access to the benefits of our economy. They will have access to the protection afforded by our Defence Force in South Africa. We in the United Party are seeking balance in these things. Sir, it will be more than equal treatment for them in their areas and it will be more than equal treatment for the White in his areas. The great thing about statesmanship is to obtain a balance in this regard. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, when one considers any country, and therefore South Africa as well, one could compile a whole list of matters which are important to that country and its people, matters which might very often be decisive for their future, and which could in any case determine the way in which they are able to live together in that country; and when one compiles such a list it goes without saying that the Government of the day should accept in many respects full and in other respects partial responsibility for such matters. But in respect of many matters which one could include in such a list the individual has to bear his responsibility as well, and it should, if need be, also be possible to hold him responsible in this regard. In this respect, for example, one could think of the protection of life and property. One could give high priority to the moral standards and the moral conditions prevailing in the country. One would necessarily think of the standard of living and, because everybody is affected by it, of the cost of living in that country as well. One would find in that list the question of tranquillity, peace and order, and there are two other matters one would most certainly find in that list. The first—and this applies especially to a country such as South Africa—are the interrelations, not only among individuals but also among population groups. One would also find in that list South Africa’s relations with the outside world in all their facets; and last but not least, and this is in its nature of vital importance to South Africa, one would find in that list the political representation of the various population groups. For the reply which South Africa’s people, and especially South Africa’s people as organized in the various political parties, give in regard to this last matter, viz. political representation, will be decisive for the future of all South Africa’s people. There is no doubt whatsoever about that. I think it is common cause among us all here that, as far as natural conditions are concerned, things may be going badly for one for the present, but later on, when the rains have fallen, one can make good that damage again. One could have economic recessions in one’s country as a result of any circumstances whatever—we have had these over the years—but one could recover and even expect to have a flourishing economy afterwards, and we have in fact experienced this in South Africa. But when one makes the wrong choice in respect of political representation and when one irretrievably bungles relations among individuals, among peoples one is not only unable to escape the consequences of such action, but I doubt very much whether one will ever be able to recover from it.

Some of these matters which have been mentioned were at issue in this debate—I do not take this amiss of my hon. friend. Heavy emphasis was placed on economic matters, but we shall have more than ample opportunity to thrash out those matters in full in the Budget debate. But one specific reproach was levelled at us by the Opposition. This was done in particular by a person from whom I did not expect it, the hon. member for Yeoville, an hon. member whom I personally hold in very high esteem, and the hon. member is aware of this. I do not think the hon. member was being fair to South Africa—I do not think the hon. member was serving South Africa’s best interests in regard to the outside world, which is only too ready to seize any stick with which to beat us—by describing the steps which the Government had to take in regard to devaluation as “an act of insolvency”. I do not think my fatherland and the hon. member’s fatherland is in any way insolvent.

It is the Government, not the country.

No, it must inevitably reflect on the country as well. I would be pleased if my hon. friend would, by way of agreement, concur with me in this, that we say to the outside world that basically South Africa is as economically sound as one may expect any country to be, that we say to the outside world jointly, he and I, that the investments they make here are not only economically safe but are in no way risky in respect of any other danger which might threaten South Africa or which could ever arise.

That is not altogether relevant to the point you raised.

I want the hon. member to agree with me that we say this.

I agree.

I am grateful that he agrees with me; later on in my speech we are going to agree on many other matters as well. I do not mean this in a cattish way; I mean it quite seriously. This is purely for the purposes of the argument, for it now forms part of the record, and if I say nothing about it the general public will think that what my hon. friend said is correct. Let us now, for the sake of the record, see what the reaction in the country was when South Africa took this step. For that reaction I am not even going to the friends of the Government; I am going to the strongest opponents of the Government to find out what their reaction was in that regard. I read, for example, the following in the Pretoria News of Wednesday, 25th October, 1972—

In other words, it is only my hon. friend who attacked it. I do not even know whether he accepts responsibility for that; as a matter of fact, I think he is too clever to do that. In any case, some of those sitting on that side of the House and who go under the general designation of “experts”—Langenhoven had something to say about that—were of this opinion. We come now to The Star of Wednesday, 20th October, 1972. The Star considered this to be so important that it published it on page one. I quote—

On page three they continued as follows—

It has lost ground again; it has gone down again.

Next they quoted a number of leading businessmen who all welcomed it. Then my learned friend the Leader of the Opposition came along and made this stereotyped comment: “Too little, too Late.”

Quite right.

He was the only one who had that comment to make.

He says it of everything.

Yes. I know this is the stereotyped thing.

Sometimes he says other things as well!

The other things are even worse. In any case, one therefore cannot level that reproach at the Government.

I mentioned here that relations are most important. Now it is true that the matter of foreign relations was not raised in this debate, except for a passing reference made by my hon. friend. I want to state here for the purposes of the record that in respect of the two pressing problems, namely the question of South-West Africa and the closing of the border between Rhodesia and Zambia, the Government has through its actions served the highest interests of South Africa to the best of its ability. I do not think there can be any doubt that the Government not only disposed of these matters with the greatest circumspection, but also in the best interests of South Africa and with the necessary firmness.

Our standpoint on the South-West Africa problem is very clear. It is that we honestly wish to see a solution to this problem if it is possible and that we on our part, just as my predecessors did in the past, will do everything to reach a settlement in this regard. We have consistently been willing to negotiate on this matter. In the negotiations with the Secretary-General of the U.N. and subsequently with his personal representative, Dr. Escher, it became very apparent that the Government was prepared to seek a solution to this matter. But willingness was not all that was apparent from this. It was also apparent from this that, as far as the representative of the Secretary-General was concerned, there was an acceptable framework within which that solution could be sought and found. As far as I am concerned, I am at all times prepared to seek a solution to this problem within that agreed and acceptable framework. Provisional arrangements had already been made with a view to a further exchange of ideas in this regard, but unfortunately as a result of events over which South Africa had no control, those further negotiations have not yet materialized.

As far as the question of the closing of the border is concerned, we have taken cognisance of the re-opening of the borders by the Rhodesian Government. The country and hon. members have also taken cognizance of my statement in that regard and of the principles in terms of which South Africa acts in these and related matters. I just want to make this very clear here because insinuations have been made in this regard by certain maligners. Relations between the Rhodesian Government and the South African Government have in no way been strained. In fact, I can imagine no situation in which they can become strained. There will be times when we will not see eye to eye on a matter, and there have probably been times when we did not see eye to eye on a matter. However, that does not detract from the fact that, just as with other neighbouring states, there is the most cordial co-operation and good understanding between South African and Rhodesia, and I foresee that this will continue to be the case. In spite of what is being said, I also expect that as a result of the opening of the borders the position there will soon become as normal as it can be under the circumstances. Hon. members are themselves aware of the circumstances prevailing there.

While I am dealing with the question of relations, I can say to hon. members and to the country with a clear conscience that our relations with those countries with which we have diplomatic ties are as good as one may expect, that we have no troublesome problem and that there are most certainly no matters over which we are at loggerheads with anyone. In other words, these are as normal as they could possibly be. I want to say that it takes some doing in this world of tensions in which we are living today to be able to say that one’s relations with countries of all kinds are as normal as possible. I attribute this to the fact that South Africa has always been consistent in the two standpoints it adopts, namely that it does not interfere in the domestic affairs of other countries, and, secondly, that it does not answer boycott with boycott. The step which was taken in Sweden a day or two ago amply demonstrates once again that the policy the Government has followed in this connection is the correct one.

Since a great deal of attention was given to this matter in this debate, at times a little over-exaggerated, at times with the object of making political capital out of it—I cannot take this amiss of hon. members; I would perhaps have made more political capital out of it if I had been sitting on the opposite side—I am grateful that the situation in Durban is calming down and that according to all reports, too, the situation there is returning to normal. I want to say at once that the events there contain a lesson for us all. They contain a lesson for hon. members on the opposite side; they also contain a lesson for me and this side of the House. They contain a lesson for the Wage Board, a lesson for the workers and a lesson for the employers. We would be foolish if we did not all benefit from the lessons to be learned from that situation. It is most certainly my intention, as far as my responsibility extends, to benefit from them. But having now said this, I think I can go further and say that in the past there have unfortunately been too many employers who saw only the mote in the Government’s eye and failed completely to see the beam in their own. Now I am looking past all party affiliations and past all employers, and experience tells me this, that employers, whoever they may be, should not only see in their workers a unit producing for them so many hours of service a day; they should also see them as human beings with souls. In this connection I am levelling no reproach whatsoever, for it is one of the lessons which have emerged from this incident as a whole. When I think of major organizations, I think of this new development in accordance with which major organizations appoint liaison officers to handle their relations with the general public. What we need in these industries is P.R.O.s to handle internal matters, among the employees themselves, to observe the climate, to keep their fingers on the pulse, and above all to let the worker feel that the owner believes and thinks that he is a human being with certain needs and feelings. I am merely saying this in general, Sir; it can do no harm if we take this to heart.

Where I do in fact want to cross swords with the Opposition, is when they level the reproach at us that we are not doing enough in respect of the education of these people, of the Black people in South Africa. There was a time when those hon. members were in power and when the State did not even accept responsibility for the education of these people. The State shifted its total responsibility from its own shoulders by giving subsidies to churches and saying to them: “Now you carry on with the education of those people.” It was only the other day that this was still the case. Changes have been introduced since the State accepted responsibility. The figures are there, they speak for themselves, and it is for every person to take cognizance of them.

But, Sir, there are relations of another kind to which I want to refer. I offer no excuse for doing so again today. These are firstly the relations between Afrikaans and English-speaking people. In this regard I want to refer to the hon. member for Orange Grove. I was in the House. I did not hear the hon. member for Odendaalsrus say what the hon. member said he had said. I think the hon. member is being unnecessarily cautious in that regard. I do not think the hon. members for Rosettenville and Houghton took any exception; they made no complaint to me in this regard. I do not think there was any intention on the part of the hon. member to insult people. If he did have this intention … [Interjections.] Hon. members need not kick up such a fuss now. This is the House of Assembly. This is not that other place where Dormehl spoke to Harry Schwarz! If it is the intention of any member, whether it is the member for Odendaalsrus or any other member for that matter, to hurt other people on account of their race or origins, then I condemn it out of hand. It is not necessary at all. Why is the hon. member for Orange Grove doing this in the manner in which he did it? To distract attention from the Dormehl affair? I think the hon. member should rather examine his own conscience in this regard, and I shall listen with close attention to what decision is taken on this matter by the Transvaal United Party.

Sir, there is not a single member on the opposite side of the House who is able to fling at me any reproach whatsoever in this connection. We must watch the relations between Afrikaans and English-speaking sections closely.

Hear, hear!

I am pleased my hon. friend from Durban Point says “hear, hear”, for insults to and disrespect for any person’s language, moral values, customs and cultural history are the kind of things which impair sound relations in South Africa. I am pleased the hon. member for Durban Point agrees with me in the House. In this regard I want to express my thanks to the United Party of the Cape for taking the decision that their candidates should be bilingual.

When are you going to take that decision?

Sir, that has been the standpoint of the National Party all along. [Interjections.] I want to say this to you here and now and make it very clear: I shall not put up with any member of the House of Assembly or Senator or member of the Provincial Council who cannot attend to his voters in Afrikaans or English if they speak Afrikaans or English to him. I want to make this quite clear. And if I can say this, then I want to know why the Leader of the Opposition cannot do so as well.

He can.

I should like to know from the Leader of the Opposition whether he agrees with me in this regard.

When was such a resolution adopted at your congress?

Sir, I am saying this now and it is stated in our constitution …

Where?

I am telling you this now, and if you did not know it before, then I am telling you now on this Friday that this is my standpoint. I am asking you this Friday whether it is your standpoint as well.

Was Odell not a candidate of yours?

Sir, Odell was a candidate of the United Party and he was a candidate of the National Party, and I personally spoke Afrikaans to him, as I did to Mr. Lewis as well. But, Sir, forget what happened in the past. Let us accept this argument for the moment; then I ask the hon. member for Yeoville: If I say now “this is, on this day, the standpoint of the National Party”, then I want to know from him what his standpoint is.

Sir, I maintain that it was a commendable decision which the United Party of the Cape took. Reference was made to that decision in a leading article by the editor of The Daily News of Natal—on Wednesday, 18th October. He wrote—

† Mr. Speaker, I take the greatest exception to these words, not only on behalf of myself but also on behalf of the Afrikaans-speaking people in the United Party. They were not bleating; why use this word? They were not bleating for their rights. Why this derogatory word because they took this decision in Port Elizabeth? It is this sort of language which keeps people apart.

*If an Afrikaans-speaking person in the United Party insists on his rights, I find it reprehensible that it is said that he is bleating for his rights. Such contempt I reject with contempt, and I hope hon. members opposite, including the hon. member for Durban Point, do so as well.

Just as I also condemn forcing the one language upon the other.

Forcing?

We can argue that matter. I do not know what the hon. member is referring to, but while the hon. member is for the moment in complete agreement with me now across the floor of the House, I also read the following in The Daily News of 20th October—

What was the result of that, Sir? This exalted principle which was adopted by the Cape United Party, this principle to which the hon. member for Durban Point is now paying lip service, gave rise to a row in the United Party in Natal; it gave rise to the hon. member for Port Natal saying that he would resign if it were adopted. And what did the hon. members, including the hon. member for Durban Point, do? He placed this principle on one side of the scale and he placed the hon. member for Port Natal on the other side, and the hon. member for Port Natal tipped the scale; the principle was thrown overboard. The hon. member for Durban Point and those of his persuasion set greater store by the hon. member for Port Natal than the principle which was at stake.

I issued a statement.

I do not care what statement the hon. member issued. What I do know is that this motion had to be withdrawn because, in the year 1972, a furore arose over a principle which every good South African accepts with an easy conscience.

That is untrue; I tell you it is untrue.

Why did you adopt it then?

It was a closed meeting.

In other words, Sir, does the hon. member now wish to say that this report in The Daily News was untrue?

The reporter was not present there; he knew nothing of what had happened there.

I do not want to know whether the reporter was present there or not. I am asking whether this report is true or untrue?

It is untrue.

Did the hon. member do anything about the report? Since it is such a gross untruth which can do so much damage, what did he do in that regard?

Nothing.

But let us continue, Sir. It is not only the relations between Afrikaans and English speaking people which are at stake; relations between Whites and non-Whites are in future going to become more and more important. When I say this, Sir, then I am looking past all party affiliations. It makes no difference what a person’s political convictions are; it makes no difference to what political party he belongs or gives his support; I want to avail myself of this platform in this Parliament to make an appeal to all our people, White as well as non-White, to members of the public as well as to officials: Each one of us should impress it upon ourselves that courtesy costs nothing, that, on the contrary, courtesy breeds courtesy. Sir, whether it is I in my capacity or any other person in his capacity who comes into contact with a non-White, or a non-White who comes into contact with me, race relations will in future be determined by the way in which we serve and address one another. We may differ, but our service, our mode of address, should not be such that it hurts and wounds.

What about Afrikaner hatred?

I am now discussing a matter on a high plane, without levelling any reproaches at hon. members on the opposite side, and all I expect from them is that they manifest the necessary earnestness in regard to this matter. I want to make it very clear that discourtesy has nothing to do with political views, with apartheid or federation or separate development, or whatever other policies there may be. It has nothing whatsoever to do with those things; it is a question of elementary decency. And if there is one appeal I want to make this afternoon, then it is that all of us should at all times take this into consideration in our actions. Sir, in many respects one’s character is not only determined by the way in which one addresses or treats one’s superiors; one’s character is at all times determined by the way in which one addresses and treats one’s inferiors. That is of vital significance. I would be very grateful if everyone, whatever his capacity, would take this into consideration at all times.

Next I come to political representation, and with that to the motion of no confidence which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has moved in me and in the Government. In other words, the Leader of the Opposition has now put the persons of my colleagues and myself at stake, that we are not competent to govern this country. That presupposes, of course, that the hon. the Leader is of the opinion that he and his colleagues on the opposite side are competent to do so.

We would not be weaker.

Sir, I find the reaction of the opposite side significant. One now proceeds on the assumption that he thinks that he and his colleagues will do this. Since we are being personal now, I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whom, apart from the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for South Coast, he can trust to stand by him through thick and thin on that side.

That is not your problem.

We shall come to that. Sir, we came here last year and I have never, in my entire parliamentary career of 20 years, seen an Opposition come to this Parliament more confidently than they did last year. Not only did they come as the alternative government; my friends came as people who wanted to take over and were on the point of taking over. Visions were seen on that side. I could see this so clearly when my hon. friend the Minister of Finance introduced the Budget and the hon. member for Parktown looked at him as if saying to himself: “It is quite all right; say what you like now, but next year I will be sitting there.” I could read it on his face. This was the attitude which prevailed among hon. members on the opposite side, and I have never before now seen the hon. members as abject as they are this year. This is the time in which and the circumstances under which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has placed the Government and its staff at stake by way of a motion of no confidence. But let us consider what gave rise to the circumstances as they have now developed.

We know there was a by-election or two last year. I do not want to grieve the hon. members unnecessarily by reminding them of that. One does not cause pain unnecessarily. There is a spirit of goodwill abroad all over the world. Why then should I, too, not also display goodwill to my friends opposite now? We had hardly adjourned when—and I want to take exception to this—the Sunday Times came along and berated hon. members on the opposite side with such defamatory statements as a political party has never before been berated with in this country. We, as Parliamentarians, had to experience this spectacle of the most defamatory things being said against some of our number, for we are all Parliamentarians. But, what is more, and what hurt me so deeply, as one politician to another, the Sunday Times railed at hon. members, railed at them as adults, and why? Because it had in the past urged them, had as it were beseeched and asked them to change their policy, and they had refused to do so, and then it dug its heels in. I noted that some of them took this so much to heart that they wanted to institute libel suits. I do not know what progress they have made in this connection. It was a truly unpalatable episode in our politics. We then went further. You recall that time when my hon. friends had their tails up. They then published a shadow cabinet, a shadow cabinet complete with photographs in the Sunday Times. They were fine photographs. Now I am thinking of that portrait gallery. Where is the insert going to be placed for the Transvaal leader? But fortunately it is not my problem to concern myself about that. The hon. members even drew up a list, in sequence, of the seats they were going to capture from us. Do you recall that when the result at Oudtshoorn was made known they said: “It is not all that bad for, if I remember correctly, it is only 147th on the list.” But high priority was given on that list to Caledon, high priority was given there to Johannesburg West, to Klip River, and to Vereeniging. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition rises here and moves a motion of no confidence in this Government, after this Government has given an opposition the fairest chance any government has ever given an opposition by causing vacancies in so many constituencies.

Was that the motive?

But we know what was said there. I read in one of the newspapers that in respect of Klip River my hon. friend the member for Durban Point ran out saying: “We have it!”

We very nearly got it.

Now, how did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition brush this aside? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition brushed it aside by referring to the “five carefully selected seats” which I had given him to contest. What other seats does he still want? The argument used by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition against us on this side of the House was that we were good for nothing, that this was the worst Government South Africa had ever had.

Hear, Hear!

We are in fact good for nothing!

That is correct.

In that case, what good is an opposition that cannot lift such a poor Government from those seats? Surely that is the most damning judgment one can pass on oneself. Do hon. members know what I do when I lose against someone in a game of golf? I do not say that he is a poor player; I say to him, “My goodness, you are the best player I have ever played against! ” That is what I say to him. Instead of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition saying here: “Goodness, you are a strong Government; that is why I cannot defeat you, no matter how strong I am.” Now he comes along and says that we are good for nothing!

You are a poor Government, but have clever politicians.

They do this despite the fact—and this is typical of hon. members on the opposite side—that we have been governing South Africa for 25 years. As far as communications media are concerned, they have at least five for every one we have.

You have used every trick under the sun to keep yourselves in power.

Wait …

Give Cathy a saucer of milk!

Why did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not win in those by-elections? He did not win, not only because the people did not trust him, but also because the United Party is still a party which blows hot and cold. They did not win because there is the greatest tension and strife within the ranks of that party. I have never heard this being denied and therefore I have to accept it: We are front-benchers in this House, and yet I have to read in a newspaper that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has for a long time been conspiring against the hon. member for Yeoville.

Where did you read that?

The hon. member asks where I read that. I read it in the article I have with me here. I quote—

Where is this supposed conspiracy now? It did not concern Marais …

But the whole issue centred around their “settling” their “differences” and how to “settle” Marais Steyn, and then they did so! [Interjections.] Here they are sitting next to one another, and as long as that is the case surely it is impossible for them to come into power. Just imagine a back-bencher in a provincial council having the temerity to speak to his honoured and esteemed friend, to Mr. Douglas Mitchell, in the manner he was spoken to in Natal. Surely a party should not behave in this manner towards its people who have devoted long years of service and loyalty to it and have done such valuable work, not only for the United Party of Natal but also for Natal as a province, as Douglas Mitchell has in fact done. I can bear witness to that; one does not do a thing like that. There must be appreciation, but there is not even that speck of loyalty within that party for this kind of thing. I am going further. Not only were there the by-elections, but the United Party once again—and they are very consistent as far as this is concerned—found a new policy. If they were livestock, one would have had a prosperous farming concern; they have something every year. One would have had a prosperous farming concern if they had been livestock. So they found themselves a new policy. I think it is necessary for us to consider this policy for a while, for not only does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition reproach me with being useless and good for nothing, and that my colleagues are good for nothing, but he also says that my policy is good for nothing and that it has failed in every respect.

That is true.

Very well, then, let us see whether this is the case. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has also insulted my intelligence. He said I did not have the necessary intelligence to understand his policy. He says I do not understand it. After six by-elections the hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes to the House of Assembly, which is the highest authority in the country, with a nonsensical motion of no confidence. For an Opposition to succeed, surely it should at least say, “Look, as one party leader to another, policy against policy; here is my policy and there is yours.” But the hon. members have one, but are ashamed of it. After all, it was not illegitimate; it is legitimate. It was, it is true, conceived and born in sin, but it is nevertheless legitimate. There is no complaint against it on that score. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has accused me of not understanding it. Now let us see in whose company I am. This policy was found at the end of August. Immediately after it was made public the editor of The Star commented on it, and the Opposition has few better friends than the editor of The Star—he does not like the hon. member for Hillbrow; nor do I; we agree on that—and what does this friend of the United Party say, the friend who likes them? He says that we should accept the policy; he says we should make way and hand over these reins of government so that it may come here with its policy. We all looked forward diligently to the announcement of the policy. Friend and foe, never before had there been so welcome a baby in South Africa. What did the editor say immediately after it had been announced? Under the date August 25th he said in his article—

In other words, one can pick the baby up by its feet and look at it, or one can pick it up by its hands and look at it—it makes no difference. One could say that Mr. Jordi, the editor of The Star, was somewhat dense at that moment; it had come upon him too suddenly. Let it first sink in a little, and let us see how people understood the policy afterwards. Then the writing began … Oh, Sir, columns and columns of it. Congresses were held. There was the Cape congress among others. The Argus—I may just tell my hon. friend this—is one of his best friends. Under the date 20th October, The Argus, his best friend, wrote the following about his congress in Port Elizabeth and about the policy which was to govern the country, the policy which was to supplant my colleagues and me in this House—and by now the poor little mite was all of three months old—

Hear, hear!

Yes? I shall read on—

Now the hon. member must understand that I have only heard it in part and only once. He should not take it too much amiss of me now if I still do not understand it fully, for these people had heard it twice from the horse’s mouth, and then they still did not understand it. The report goes on to say: “In any event, it is going to take some months before the policy is finally understood within the United Party itself” … [Interjections.] It will take months, says The Argus. Then, surely, I am not in bad company when I say that I do not understand it either. It goes on: “… and only then can its members start propagating it to the unconverted. The problem then follows that the coming by-election in Caledon, to be held on 8th November, is not going to be fought on the party’s new policy; it is too early for that.” They would simply fight on the old policy. [Interjections.] One cannot blame The Argus for this, for there are precedents for it. After all, Mr. Marais Steyn was writing articles on the old policy. The Argus went on to say: “But if the United Party does not fare better than it has in Caledon in the past, the Nationalists will almost certainly claim that the new policy has made no headway amongst the voters. The Party can only hope that it will be able to get its new policy across to the voters before the next general election which the Government must call earlier than the 1975 scheduled date to prevent this happening.” The Argus thinks it is going to take them three years to understand this policy. All I can say to my hon. friend in this regard now, is that I will lay my cards on the table in respect of the next election. He can take my word for it; I am a sport. When he tells me he is ready and his people understand this thing, only then will I call an election. [Interjections.]

But now my friend can say to me: “Look, you were too ‘dense’ in August and all the time after that.” My friend can say to me: “The Argus was too ‘dense’ in August, and that is why they did not understand the policy.” But now we came here to Friday, 2nd February, 1973, the day on which the parliamentary session began. If there has ever been a clever young man who can understand things, it is this little fellow Heard, the editor of The Cape Times. I have great respect for his intelligence. I have known him for many years, since the time he was still a political correspondent; a pleasant young man. And what does he write now? In his leading article on 2nd February, the day Parliament opened, he wrote: “Meanwhile the United Party would do their own cause a favour by eliminating the ambivalence to which the interpretation of their policy is susceptible. Either it is a plan to maintain in a disguised way White supremacy indefinitely or it offers genuine political partnership with the country’s Black and Brown population, it cannot do both.” Sir, it is not I who say this. This is a newspaper which is United Party to the core. It is a newspaper which will wear its fingers to the bone for the United Party during the next election. That newspaper editor comes along and states in essence what I said yesterday to my hon. friend the member for Durban North: This is a swindle. Surely you are duping either the one or the other. Surely you are duping the Whites or you are duping the non-Whites. Surely there is no other reply to that.

How long can a political party go on like that? How long can a political party profess that it wants to serve the highest interests of South Africa? How long can a political party profess that it should be sitting in these benches while, when it comes to an elementary statement of policy, it is clear to one and all that it is perpetrating a fraud against the one or the other population group in South Africa? [Interjection.] Let us now see what the father of the policy has to say. I honestly think The Cape Times was not being fair to my friend this morning. I do not think they should have spoken to him as they did. It was a slip on his part, and I forgive him wholeheartedly for it. Sir, what does my friend say? According to The Daily News of 22nd September, my friend, as chairman of this committee, said—

The report then went on to state—

That goes without saying—

But then this part follows …

You are not allowed to read from newspapers about the debate.

My dear friend, it is from a newspaper of Friday, 22nd September, 1972. But I do not blame the hon. member at all. The report goes on—

That is what Mr. Mitchell said:

Now I ask the hon. member for Durban North: Did the hon. Leader of the Opposition approve of it, as it is stated here according to what the hon. member said to The Daily News

He will answer you.

No, but the hon. member is the spokesman. Either he said this to The Daily News or he did not. Did he or did he not?

Draw your own conclusion.

Sir, let us continue.

May I ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question? Is the question whether my hon. leader said it or whether the report is a correct reflection of what I said to The Daily News?

It is, as a matter of fact, both. Will you now reply?

My hon. leader will tell you whether he said it. But the fact that it appeared in The Daily News without my having rejected it, I accept that I said it.

You say that you did say it?

I accept that I did say that.

In other words, Sir, now we have it from the horse’s mouth that this Parliament will ultimately vanish. This is what the hon. member now admits he said:

*I shall leave the matter just there, Sir.

Now, what can one say about this policy of hon. members opposite? Merely that it is a defective, ill-considered, incomprehensible policy; it is a policy of fraud. At this moment at which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is moving the motion of no confidence in us, there is as yet no clarity in his own mind as to precisely how this thing will be—and that is the case after he has had the benefit of the committee. Listen now to how, according to his own Hansard, the hon. member referred to this policy—

Why “probably”? Has the hon. member not decided about it yet?

Did you not listen to Malan’s speech?

Malan is not the leader—surely you are the leader, to date in any case.

He stated it so clearly that even a child can understand it.

Yes, but I do not want to listen to him. I want to listen to you. I should so like the hon. the Leader to understand his own policy. You are my counterpart on the other side. But let us continue. What does the hon. member tell me? He tells me that my policy has failed completely. The hon. member goes further and say that it is lying in splinters around me. What is more, the hon. member denies that he has taken over my policy partially. For, Sir, what does the policy of the United Party consist of as it stands at the moment? It consists partly of things taken over from the policy of the National Party and partly of things taken over from the policy of the United Party.

Which you took over from us.

No, we can analyse this. I could carry on a pleasant conversation with my hon. friend on this matter. It was the policy of the National Party that this Parliament would only be the Parliament of Whites. Do hon. members recall what accusations they levelled at us when we removed the Indians? Do hon. members recall that, when we removed the Bantu, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was no longer in our party? It was for that very reason—because we made this Parliament White. Do hon. members recall the reproaches they levelled at me when I abolished the Coloured representation in this House and we made this Parliament a White one? They called for the Heavens to descend upon us, but also stirred up strife amongst the non-Whites through their actions and those of their newspapers. They made propaganda against us till the cows came home because we had dared to make this Parliament White. And after everything they said about us and after scolding us for doing it, they go along quite sociably and say now that they, too, believe in this Parliament having to be a White one. Where has one ever come across a clearer case of political plagiarism than was in fact committed by them in this regard in claiming this for themselves?

Let us deal with the Bantu. How many debates did we have in this House and how they fought with Dr. Verwoerd, Mr. De Wet Nel and later with my colleague and friend Minister M. C. Botha on the question of self-government for the homelands? In what harsh terms they damned and condemned it as the biggest blunder a government could ever make, i.e. to grant self-government to Bantu homelands! [Interjections.] No, Sir, to them self-government was pernicious. During this session we are still going to debate this a great deal. Now my hon. friend the hon. member for Durban Point says that our policy—and I listen to him …

Who had the Bunga?

We are not talking about the Bunga now. We are talking about self-government. The hon. member for Durban Point finds it quite easy to rise here and talk about their old policy of self-government. As a matter of fact, he rolled the word on his tongue as would a connoisseur of good wine savouring his drink. He tried to create the impression that he was conversant with the word “self-government” since this had ostensibly always been their policy.

Do hon. members recall how, when we came forward with the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council in 1965, hon. members opposite fought it on principle? Do hon. members recall the amendment moved by Mr. Connan and what he and other hon. members said during the discussion of that amendment which read: Today six months, to show that in principle they disapproved of our granting the Coloureds a parliament of their own? And we did grant the Coloureds that parliament of their own, and, incredible as it may seem, now they come forward here with their new policy and say that they will grant them two if need be. What does one do with such an Opposition? Now does the hon. the Leader see where he took it over from me?

He took over from me not only Coloured policy, but also Bantu policy. The hon. the Leader also reproached me in regard to the liaison machinery between the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council and this Parliament. In the course of the year I had fruitful talks with Coloured leaders. At first it was only Mr. Tom Swartz and his Executive Committee. Gradually, as time went by, we were joined by others: Mr. Brown from the other independent party, Mr. Swarts from the other independent party, Mr. Rooks from Natal, who is no stranger to hon. members opposite, as well as Mr. Swales. We had penetrating talks on Coloured affairs at a round-table conference. This was not done in the spirit of the one being subordinate to the other or afraid of the other. As man to man we discussed the problems of the Coloureds in a penetrating manner. One of the discussions we held in the course of this year as well as last year, concerned the question of liaison. I left the matter to them once again. I told them: You know that the present liaison machinery is your suggestion; you know I said in Parliament that I did not think it could last for ever; if you want to be reviewed, then the time for you to tell me so is now. They stepped aside, came back and said: We do not want any other machinery; we have considered alternatives, but this machinery is so fruitful that we should like to retain it. And it is true that it is fruitful, for it has grown. In other words, I have continuously been consulting with the Coloureds and the Bantu.

Now I should like to put a question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He may not know about this matter, and therefore I shall put my question to the hon. member for Durban North. Did he consult with the Coloured leaders in regard to the policy of the United Party?

Yes.

The hon. member says “yes”. Now I want to tell that hon. member that Mr. Curry and Mr. Leon of the Labour Party are saying, on behalf of the Labour Party, that they were not consulted. Mr. Swartz tells me that he and his party were not consulted. Mr. Brown tells me that he and his party were not consulted. Mr. Swarts tells me that he and his party were not consulted. Mr. Rooks, who is the recognized leader of the Coloureds in Natal, says he was not consulted either. Why do the hon. members not state with what Coloureds they did consult?

Did you put BOSS on to get all those denials?

They consult with the Progressive Party, and nothing happens to them. They consult with me …

We know your witch-hunts …

I reject that with contempt. I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that they did not have consultations.

Why are you so interested in their names? For what reason?

They have not had consultations because they know the Coloureds will see through this bluffing in which they are indulging at the moment. They did not have consultations because they were afraid the Coloureds would tell them this amounted to a swindle against them. They did not even consult Buthelezi, so how would they have consulted anybody else?

Now, this is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and this is the Party that tell us they have to take over here because we are a rotten, worthless lot. We are to clear out so that they may take our place. The United Party finds itself in a dilemma, and its dilemma is a much greater one than indeed it thinks it is. Its dilemma is going to be that it will have to decide, after what has happened yesterday, after what will happen in the future, whether it is moving to the left or to the right. It has already moved halfway to the left. In the Transvaal it has positively moved to the left. Sir, I am right in saying this and I am right in sounding the warning to the people, the electorate, that the Transvaal United Party has moved to the left. The reason for my saying this is the fact that they treated my hon. friend there in the way they did. For let me put it on record, Sir, that there is nobody who can ever have any doubts about the fact that Marais Steyn is a U.P. supporter through and through.

A traditional U.P. supporter.

With him it is not a question of making a compromise with any other party whatsoever; he is a person who will at all times give the United Party everything he has. There can be no doubt about that.

Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.

Sir, he is not only a U.P. supporter through and through, but let us say this to each other now: He is one of the best debaters this House has ever had. Why they asked Etienne Malan, and not Marais Steyn, to put forward their federation policy, I simply fail to understand. But honestly, jokes apart, Sir, surely we all know that if there is a person who can put a case and who has done so over the years and who did so at the most difficult place in the rural areas and where the bullets whined, then it is Marais Steyn. Sir, he is a hard worker. With all the offices he holds, he is doing the work of three to four men. Why has he been rejected in this underhand manner? Sir, he has been rejected because he is too much of a U.P. man. He has been rejected because he is not leftist and liberal, for these things he has never been, and that is why he had to be got rid of. Who can take over his job? Who can stand at the side of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as my hon. friend over there has done? But he is not good enough; he is being cast out, and he is not being cast out spontaneously. No, he is being cast out with military precision, as he has been conspired against over a period of months. Sir, if that is the position within the party, what good right does it have to say that it wants to or it can or it must or it may govern this country? No, Sir, I think the United Party should reconsider this policy of theirs. I think the United Party should take a decision for the sake of public life, for the sake of good relationships, for the sake of that thing which Harry Schwarz said, namely that it was now their policy to speak with one voice only, that they would no longer slant, and that they would no longer do all these other things; for the sake of these they should decide now, and it is a simple decision they have to take. All they have to decide is whether it is the Bantu or the Coloured people who are going to have the bad end of the stick, or whether it is the Whites who are going to have the bad end of the stick, for, in the words of the editor of The Cape Times, it cannot be both; one is going to be deceived, and, Sir, this is what I shall tell my people without any hesitation, because I see the United Party is adopting a leftist course, because I know the editors are prompting it, as they prompted it in the recess, into adopting a leftist course: “You cannot trust the United Party; they will sell you out through this federation policy of theirs.”

Mr. Speaker …

Now we will hear a statesman, not a joker.

I have listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. the Prime Minister, particularly those which have to do with the federal policy of the United Party, as announced in this House and as debated outside. I think what has been most interesting this afternoon has been to find that the hon. gentleman has relied upon generalities, upon attempts to create impressions and has attempted to be amusing about the policy, but has made no attempt whatever to examine it carefully, to evaluate it and to give a judgment on it.

And he should tell us what his policy is.

There is no question about the hon. gentleman no longer understanding it. It was quite clear from some of the questions he put in the House the other day that it has seeped through. The hon. gentleman has a pretty shrewd idea of what it is all about. What is so amusing is the sort of attack he has concluded with, that we must decide whether we are going left or right.

It is up to you.

When the policy was a few weeks old, I spoke at Queenstown and I have excerpts here from that speech. I said that of course there had been criticisms. There were criticisms, particularly from the either/or brigade, people who say your policy is either complete integration or complete separation, the people who through the years have said there are only two alternatives, complete integration or complete separation. Now, what is their policy for the Coloured people? What is their policy for the Indians? Is it complete integration or complete separation? [Interjections.] Must I believe, now that the Transvaal has a new chairman, that there is going to be a Colouredstan after all, a separate homeland for the Coloured people?

You know that is nonsense. [Interjections.]

That is excellent, Mr. Speaker—nonsense! Then it is not complete separation. [Interjections.] Now the hon. gentleman says there is no other alternative, so it must be complete integration. Is this the sort of nonsense we have to have about important decisions in the political life of this country? Time and time again I have said to these hon. gentlemen that their thinking is faulty because they are always setting themselves between two alternatives which are not exclusive. They say “either complete separation or complete integration”. They have realized through the years that there is a third course which is neither separation nor integration and they are following it themselves. They are following it themselves with the Coloureds and with the Indians and with large sections of the Bantu population. But they cannot realize that in respect of a federation, with the protections of the federal policy, you can have profitable co-operation within a federal framework in which there is neither integration nor complete separation.

*Sir, I was not surprised to hear that the hon. the Prime Minister had decided that it might be advisable to postpone the discussion of economic affairs until we got to the Budget. He admitted in this House on a previous occasion that his knowledge of the economy was rather poor.

I simply do not show it as you do.

The hon. gentleman says that he does not show it as I do, but what is happening to the country in the meantime? Are we to wait for two or three months while his economic advisers tell him what his answers are to be? In the meantime the people are suffering more and more and the cost of living is rising higher and the dangers to South Africa are growing in magnitude. No, Sir, I am not prepared to let this stand over until we come to the discussion of the Budget. I want answers from the hon. the Prime Minister today. I raised these matters in this debate because they are of vital importance to the people of South Africa. After all, what was this debate about? It flowed from a discussion of three important matters: increased terrorist activity in the north and on our borders, the rising cost of living and its effect on the population, and the labour unrest and racial friction which are one of its consequences.

And your policy.

Not only were those three important matters connected, but the statement was made that they were closely bound up with the security of our country. The support and goodwill of the entire population is absolutely essential for combating dangers. I said previously and shall say it again, because no one has contradicted me in this debate, not a single member opposite, that if one wishes to retain that goodwill, the population must feel that they are receiving fair treatment.

We have received that assurance in and out of season from them. There is not a single leader who has not given it.

The hon. gentleman says that he has received that assurance in and out of season. He probably had it from the strikers in Durban. They probably told him that they had been treated so fairly that they had to strike for higher wages. How can the hon. gentleman make a statement like that?

That has nothing to do with the matter you are dealing with now.

I go further. I said they must feel that they were enjoying rising standards of living and that there was a mutual respect for the dignity of the individual, and I say once again that not one of those statements was contradicted in the course of this debate by any of the speakers on that side of the House. I go still further. I say that the whole position with regard to fair treatment is threatened by the gap between the wages received by Whites and non-Whites in South Africa, and that that wage gap, of which they are becoming more and more aware as a result of the poverty which exists in consequence of the rising cost of living which causes their position to deteriorate continually, was one of the main causes of the strikes which recently occurred in Natal. I also said that the whole question of rising living standards was being endangered as a result of the rise in the cost of living in South Africa. I referred to the fact that the whole matter of respect for the individual and his dignity was being threatened by petty apartheid and by the policy of that Government.

What answers did we get? These matters were raised because they were regarded as urgent, not only by me, but by many people in South Africa, both within and outside the ranks of the Nationalist Party. There is deep concern. Would people have been concerned if the Government had offered a solution to the problems? What was the attitude of the Government with regard to these three urgent matters raised by me? Members opposite tried to evade them as the hon. the Prime Minister did today. Members opposite described these problems as frivolous, or as non-existent. There were even some of them who accused us of being un-South African for having raised these matters. We are faced by a crisis here in South Africa as a result of strikes and racial unrest in the country. There is no point in the hon. the Prime Minister trying to evade these matters. These things are happening.

We are solving them.

The hon. gentleman says he is solving them. His contribution in this regard, with all due respect, has been a particularly small one. What do we find? An attitude of pious indignation because anyone could have thought that a government deriving from the people might ever make a mistake. Their speakers do their best to make us believe that some Whites in South Africa are in fact enjoying a high standard of living, but not one of them has spoken of the thousands of Whites, of the wage-earners and pensioners and others who are suffering very severely today, and not one of the speakers opposite has shown that he understands that we Whites cannot feel at ease, that our present way of life cannot be maintained unless something drastic is done to improve the lot of the non-Whites. We must realize, not only that these non-Whites are underprivileged, but also that they suffer real privation and personal injustice. Nothing has come from the opposite side, nothing which gives us the slightest reason to believe that they realize this, except what was said by the hon. the Prime Minister about politeness today, and how essential it was to see each member of South Africa’s population of 23 million as a human being. Their philosophy is cut and dried; it stands for centrifugal divisions and separation, but what South Africa needs is centripetal growth and development out of our reciprocal need of one another. Now there is one undeniable fact which makes nonsense of the Government’s whole policy and all its dreams of separate national states. It is the fact that more than half of the Black people are living outside the envisaged Black states and that that percentage will shortly exceed 75%. What arguments were advanced? What answers were given? They acknowledge that an undesirable wage gap exists and they say that it is the policy of the Government to narrow it, but what are they doing? In the period during which they have been in power, that gap has steadily been growing wider. The Minister of Indian Affairs maintains that the whole problem is one of productivity. To be productive, it is necessary to be trained. What training do the Bantu in the White areas receive at present over and above that which is done in secret? To be trained, there must be the right of permanent residence, otherwise the training is not a paying proposition. But it is the policy of this Government that all workers must be migratory workers with contracts for a period of 12 months. To be productive, calls for inspiration and encouragement, but how much inspiration is there today when wages are so low? What are they doing in an attempt to inspire and educate those people? These people are not even acknowledged as employees, or even as people with a mutual interest in the undertaking. I have already stated our views on what the effect of increased wages would be as a means of encouraging the workers and as a means of encouraging the managers and directors to make better use of their labour. The hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs maintains that the standard of living of everyone in this country is rising annually, although he concedes that the rise is not very great. I wish to contend that under this Government in the past few years, that rise in the standard of living can scarcely be detected. It is not something on which to pride oneself; it is something about which one should be ashamed here in South Africa, if our natural resources and our reserves of labour are taken into account. I have repeatedly used Reserve Bank figures indicating how small the per capita improvement is in the condition of our people in comparison with other countries in the world over the 12-year period up to 1968.

You use them completely incorrectly.

The hon. gentleman has not kept pace; now we are falling further behind and now the rise is even slower than it was at that time. The hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs thinks that we still have reason for gratitude, because according to him there is no unemployment in South Africa.

Not to talk of.

Can any hon. Minister from those benches really stand up and say that there is no unemployment in South Africa? Just this afternoon a reply came from one of the Ministers from which it appears that there are 118 000 unemployed Bantu, who are registered. When the Economic Development Programme (E.D.P.) was drawn up, it was anticipated that by the year 1972, at a growth rate of 5½% per annum, 300 000 Bantu would be unemployed. We did not attain that growth rate. The growth rate was well under 5½%. It was barely 4%. Therefore the numbers of unemployed must be even greater. But these hon. gentlemen know nothing about that; they do not know what is going on in the Bantu townships in the vicinity of the big cities; they do not know what is going on near East London and in the Eastern Province; they do not know what is going on in the homelands themselves—how many unemployed people there are. The hon. gentleman must decide: Does he believe the assertion he made or does he believe the economists who helped to draw up that E.D.P.? Does he believe his own Minister who furnished the reply to that question today? As far as I am concerned, I do not have the slightest doubt in this regard. I think that those economists were correct. I think that the hon. gentleman is wrong and I think that there is not the slightest doubt that the unemployment among our Bantu population at present is widespread and growing.

Where?

Then the hon. gentleman makes much of the fact that South Africa is responsible for 20% of the production of the Continent of Africa. Is he going to deny that the Whites, who constitute 18% of our population, enjoy 75% of that national income? Is he going to deny that the non-Whites, who constitute 82% of the population, enjoy only 25% of that national income?

Why?

Because of the wage gap and because of the policy of the Nationalist Party; also as a result of the circumstances of history. I do not think it necessary to continue trying to prove that there is poverty in the country. Even those newspapers which support the Nationalist Party, admit that that poverty exists. It is that poverty which I described as the “guerrilla fighter” in South Africa; it is this “guerrilla fighter” in our midst which is to a large extent the cause of this labour unrest. I do not think that anything has been said on the side of the Government to prove that this is not the position. In making that statement, I should like to refer to the fact that, during the recent unrest, some of our members went to Natal. I am assured that in Hammarsdale today payments are still based on wage determinations arrived at in terms of the 1963-’64 findings of the Wage Board. That is almost ten years ago. When we talk of the urgent need for the Government to take steps, the hon. the Minister asks us whether we want an uncontrolled economy or one in which a free market operates effectively. He will probably be the first to concede that there is no free market for labour in South Africa. Since when has there been a free market for labour in South Africa?

It is much freer than you think.

I can tell the hon. the Minister that it is much more restricted than he seems to think. What about the restrictions imposed by the Government on the work which may be done by the non-Whites, particularly the Bantu? What about the difficulties they experience in moving from one area to another? What about the Planning Act which imposes restrictions on the number of Bantu who may be employed? Then the hon. gentleman speaks of competition on the free market in South Africa. No such thing exists, so that is one of the reasons why the Government must step in and take on itself responsibility for the situation which exists today.

Now I come to the strikes. I must honestly say that during the period of almost 25 years that I have sat in this House, I have never seen a Government as weak-kneed, as hopeless, as irresponsible as this Government in connection with this very matter. Because what are they doing? They wash their hands of it. The three Ministers concerned have not even been there. They sent officials. They did not even go to look for themselves. We did send members, because we wanted to know what was going on. All they tried to do, was to load everything on to the shoulders of individual employers. This was evident from the speeches of several Ministers, particularly the one by the hon. the Minister of Labour, that the Government wanted to place the onus of increasing wages and improving working conditions, on the shoulders of the individual employer. Is this not unfair? Is it not unrealistic? Does the hon. gentleman not realize what the position is in the business world? Members on this side were in contact with industrialists in Natal during these difficulties. Everyone agrees that something drastic must be done to improve the situation and everyone is willing to co-operate, but everyone is also agreed that individual employers cannot act alone. This must result in a fair and dutiful employer prejudicing himself, because he would not be able to compete with those who did not follow his example. For that reason I said on Monday that the Government must take the lead. After all, it is its duty to do so. It must immediately revise all wage agreements which are not realistic, and place the wages paid in terms of such agreements, on a realistic basis. Because of continuing inflation and the critical effect of devolution, we must determine a new wage basis on which we may build in the future. When that new wage has been determined, it will be necessary from time to time, in order to avoid strikes, for adjustments to be made to wages because of rises in living standards and cost of living in South Africa. But the matter is urgent. The hon. the Prime Minister does not even discuss it.

But surely you have had the answers.

There is not one hon. member on that side of the House who has given the answers. Each and every Minister on that side of the House has tried to shift the responsibility on to the shoulders of the individual industrialist in South Africa.

And of agitators.

Oh yes, and on to those of agitators. We must not forget the agitators; even Nusas is included. But as far as this matter is concerned, they fail in their duty not only to the employees, but also to the people of South Africa. I even went further and said that even other steps should be taken. There should be an acceptance of Governmental responsibility for bringing about wage increases in an orderly manner. Steps should be taken to try to link them to productivity. A continued effort must be made to narrow the tremendous wage gap between White and non-White in South Africa. The ceilings which limit the contributions to the welfare of many non-Whites must be revised. The creation on Government initiative of proper channels of communication between the Black worker and his employer, must be the responsibility of the Government. There must be a new approach to our Black workers here in South Africa. But, Sir, what do we hear from the hon. gentleman? A discussion of these matters is now to be postponed until the Budget on 28th March. What happens in the meantime? The people suffer. There is going to be more trouble, not only in Durban, but also in other parts of the country. People have been phoning me this morning to say how much trouble there is at the moment among the labour force here in Cape Town. But, Sir, the whole discussion has been postponed. The Government is going to do nothing. The whole approach is one of “the devil may care”, and they hope that everything will stay in order. The trouble is this: They have been in power for too long and no longer have the interests of the people at heart.

Now we come to the question of the cost of living and what the situation is at present as regards this matter. Last year I warned that unless the effects of devaluation were intelligently controlled and utilized, they could be disastrous to South Africa. Up to now, according to the figures furnished by the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs, there has been an improvement in our export figures and a reduction in our imports. Now I stress the word “figures”. Because the rand is worth less today, those figures do not mean the same as they meant in the past and they do not reflect the true volume to the same extent as they did previously.

But the improvement is still hundreds of millions of rand.

I accept that there is an improvement. I readily concede that. I am more than pleased that that is the position. But according to the Minister of Indian Affairs, it was the most successful devaluation the world had ever experienced. Do you know, Sir, this reminds me of the man who fooled the insurance company and said: “This is the most successful fire I have ever had on my farm.” Now, what is the truth? Was this devaluation the result of the competence or of the incompetence of the Government? Why did we have to devalue and other countries revalue? The improvement in our reserves is to a large extent due to import control which was necessary to prevent an even more serious economic disaster. Our reserves, the Minister says, are safe. But, Sir, those reserves are not safe. They will only be safe when our producers are, as a result of Government policy, geared for growth and are able to compete on the basis of merit on the foreign markets of the world, if those markets would still be accessible to us. I think it is generally recognized that it is dangerous to devalue for the sake of export. It seems to me that, if we want to accept the hon. Minister’s point of view, viz. that devaluation is a blessing, we shall in due course land where Germany landed after the First World War when a wagonload of mark notes was needed to buy a box of matches. But the Government is still depending on the outdated tactics of regulating consumers’ demand in order to be able to combat internal problems which in point of fact, have much deeper origins. They do not realize that our problem is also, to a large extent, a production problem arising from the artificial and arbitrary social order we have in South Africa. The hon. the Minister says it was a successful devaluation. What does devaluation mean to the man in the street? Let me put a straightforward question to the Prime Minister: What does this successful devaluation mean to the man in the street? His cost of living is rising; it is running riot, ever more than in the past. He is really deeply worried. His money no longer has the same buying power as before. He has no certainty that the position will not be even worse by tomorrow. The rand is once again floating with the dollar. This means that during the past few days there has been a further devaluation of 4%.

What is the position in the countries that have revalued?

In almost every case there has been an increase in the cost of living, but at the same time a much higher growth-rate than that of South Africa, and a much smaller increase in population than in South Africa, and consequently the people are in a much better position than in South Africa. But, Sir, the biggest joke of all was that the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs made the astonishing statement that at the moment the rand was stronger than ever before. Is that correct?

One of the strongest in the world.

Are you not proud of that?

If it is true, why does the rand remain linked to the dollar, and why did the Government look on when the rand was forced down with the dollar during the past few days …

To what currency would you want to link it?

… with the result that it was devalued by a further 4%. I thought the hon. gentleman had said the rand was so strong …

The strongest in the world.

… that it was the strongest currency in the world; that it had never been so strong before. But during the past year the total devaluation under the policy of this Minister has run to 20%.

That is untrue.

He says it is untrue; he will be able to prove it. At the moment the rand is worth less than ever before in its history, but the hon. the Minister tells us that the rand is stronger than ever before.

Devalue it to nothing and then it will be mighty.

Sir, I do not want to say much more about this. I have pointed out the dangers of a rising cost of living in a country such as South Africa. I have pointed out time and again how dangerous a rising cost of living is in a country such as South Africa where there is such a vast difference between the living standards of White and non-White and why it is imperative, in the interests of national security, to retain the benevolence and goodwill of the non-White population. Then the accusation was made from that side of the House that we had never produced plans for combating inflation. Mr. Speaker, I could hardly believe my ears. The accusation was that we had never submitted plans for controlling inflation to this House. The hon. the Minister of Finance will probably remember perfectly well how I, in the last no-confidence debate in this House, came forward with short-term and long-term plans for controlling inflation, especially in a situation when devaluation had taken place. I think what we have to examine today is not whether I did suggest plans, but to what extent the Government has followed those plans. Let us examine this for a moment, Sir. I said that businessmen had to be helped to produce more, and to produce it faster and more efficiently, and that with this object in mind certain steps had to be taken; credit restrictions had to be removed. To a certain extent the hon. Minister followed my advice in this regard. I suggested that company tax had to be reduced. I still have hopes for the Budget, Sir, but it is a little late. I suggested that taxation on the entrepreneurs group had to be reduced. No, Sir, I have no hope with this Minister. I suggested that our exporters had to be given even more encouragement; that high productivity had to be encouraged; that extravagant State expenditure had to be curbed and that State priorities had to be determined. Mr. Speaker, I am still waiting. In short, I insisted that we should gear our economy for growth, expansion and increased efficiency. But the industrialist who wants to expand, is still coming up against this shortage of labour and the inflexible labour pattern in South Africa, and what is the hon. the Minister doing about this? If we are to grow, the businessman must be assured that he will obtain the labour he really needs and also where and when he needs it. These were the short-term recommendations, but there were also long-term recommendations. I suggested that we had to employ our raw materials and people efficiently and effectively; that we had to create a bigger and a richer domestic market by increasing the potential of our own people; that we had to give our people more education and other training, in order that they might become more efficient and productive; that the Civil Service had to be thoroughly examined and reorganized; that our system of taxation had to be revised; and that our State expenditure had to be planned in advance as far as possible, so as to obtain certainty in this field and also with regard to relations between the State and private enterprise. Sir, I think the only thing we want to know today is what plans the hon. the Minister has to try and implement those plans here in South Africa, for it is not only essential for our standard of living to be raised, but also for the growth rate to be accelerated if our national security is to be retained.

† Now. Sir, we come to the question of non-White policy, the one thing that interested the Prime Minister, the one thing in which he gave no answers from his side, but attempted to amuse his followers by dealing with our policy. You see, Sir, we have reached the stage where we have a problem with our Coloured people here, which is far more important than the overall constitutional pattern which will be put into operation when this party gets into power. We find a fundamental division still amongst the Nationalist ranks as to what the future of the Colourel people is going to be. Are we going to stay always with a Coloured Representative Council which will never have a sovereignty of its own and Coloureds who will never have representation in this Parliament? Does the hon. the Prime Minister really think he can go on in that way?

What about the urgent problems of the urban Bantu? I have been reading more and more reports of people who have been doing studies about them. Does the hon. gentleman really think he can continue with the position as it is at the present time and that their future welfare has got to depend on the ultimate realization of the homelands policy of this Government, which is being ever further and further postponed as its impracticability and unreality become more evident every year? You know, Sir, I was in this House when the Tomlinson Report was debated nearly 19 years ago and I remember that he gave us proposed maps for the homelands. You know, Sir, two days ago there was an explanatory memorandum on the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill of 1973, which stated in clause 2 that in order to reach finality about the boundaries of the Bantu homelands, it is desirable that the envisaged boundaries be made known as soon as possible. That is 18 years after the Tomlinson Report. How many years is it after we heard their policy? It took them 20 years to reach this stage, and yet 20 weeks after the United Party’s constitutional committee gave its report, the hon. the Prime Minister wants every “t” crossed and every “i” dotted and he wants to know the most intimate details of that policy. What for, Sir? Is not the cession of South African territory by the Government in power a far more urgent and alarming matter than the proposals by an opposition to effect voluntary constitutional changes within a national territory? Is he sure that the people to whom he is offering this independence really want it? Is he not beginning to realize that large numbers, almost the majority already, want to stay connected with one integral South Africa, undivided? Is the White Parliament not still sovereign in homelands matters? Is it not slowly devolving powers on homeland legislative assemblies or parliaments, call them what you will? Is it not the policy of this Government that it is one day going to phase itself out over large portions of South Africa? That is why the hon. the Prime Minister is so anxious to tie phasing out on to my policy. [Interjections.] No, it is his policy to phase out. The whole background to this discussion has to be seen to understand the activities and the performance by the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon. The background is that we have a Government, 25 years in power, whose policy for non-White affairs is being shown daily to be more and more of a failure and is in ruins about its ears, a policy which has left endless questions unanswered; it has manifestly failed in its initial objectives. It is only three years to 1976 when, as we were told, we were going to see the flow reversed of Bantu from the homelands into the White areas of South Africa. What is happening? We were told by them that there were only two alternatives—complete separation or complete integration. Which one are they going to give us today? They failed, they failed miserably. Because they failed, they created new problems for South Africa because of their movement towards a fragmentation.

I think the question which we have to ask ourselves this afternoon is whether those steps which they have taken are irreversible or not. I believe they are not, because economic forces bringing us together are so strong, old loyalties are so strong and common interests are being appreciated more and more by the peoples of this country. I think what we have to do is to ask ourselves in what direction should we go. We in this party have always accepted certain principles. I set them out at the national congress in 1971.

Except when you change them.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister says except when I change them. You know, this is such a laughable business. He has changed his policy year after year on almost anything I can think of. When I first came to this House, the first idea was that Coloureds should have representation on a separate roll, but by second-class Members of Parliament. Then they would have representation on a separate roll but by full-fledged Members of Parliament. The next thing we heard was, “hulle is ’n onding in die Parlement; hulle moet hier verwyder word”. When I first came to Parliament I remember accusing the late Dr. Verwoerd of having made a speech to the Native Representative Council in which he promised the Bantu in their areas what the Whites wanted in theirs, including independence. I was told that that was not Nationalist Party policy; that was absolute heresy.

Yes, Mr. Strijdom.

Mr. Strijdom denied it absolutely. Mr. Schoeman denied it absolutely.

He still denies it.

What happened? We had not been here a few years when that very same Minister got up as Prime Minister of South Africa and said that it was his policy that there should be independence. Do not let the Prime Minister criticize anybody for changing policy. I want to tell him that the principles which we follow have been maintained throughout. What we have decided to change is the machinery, the method of achieving those principles. I want to tell the hon. gentleman something. Our dissatisfaction with the machinery was something which appeared at our head committee meeting before the national congress in 1971. It was that head committee that asked me to appoint a constitutional committee. It was as a result of their request in November, 1971, that that committee was appointed. They started their work almost at once, a long, long time before Brakpan, a long, long time before Oudtshoorn and a long, long time before the hon. the Prime Minister knew that it was doing any work at all.

You know, I think that baby of yours was delivered of an ostrich egg.

He wants to make another joke quickly.

I do not mind the hon. gentleman having his jokes. I know what difficulty he has thinking clearly unless he can tell jokes. Let us get a little further on with this matter. This committee was appointed and it submitted an interim report in August, last year, which was discussed by the head committee, first in August and later in September. I want to say something about that interim report. I think it was a very fine piece of work indeed.

Hear, hear!

I think it is one of the finest documents on race relations that we have had prepared here in South Africa, but it is not party policy. All that is policy is what is accepted by the head committee and by our congresses. What was accepted by our head committee and by our congresses? It was what has been explained in this House and what has been set out in successive statements to the Press. However, we keep getting the suggestion that amendments were made to the report and that there are photostatic copies of the kind referred to by the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that I have never seen a document drafted in those terms and I know of no member of the constitutional committee who has ever seen a document with that amendment typed in in that way.

In other words, you say that that photostatic copy is an absolute fake?

I do not know where they got it, I have never seen the original in my life and I do not believe that any member of the committee has seen the original. I will tell the hon. Minister something very interesting. When considering the report, it was decided to amend that clause, but do hon. members know why? Because it was self-evident that Parliament had the right of veto if it was the sovereign body which it was. So we scratched that out and left it. Oddly enough, I still have my original copy that I worked from and that sentence is scratched out. There was no addition of any kind or any amendment of the sort suggested here. Let me tell hon. gentlemen that those are the facts, but I do not think they matter the least bit.

Facts do not interest this crowd.

What matters is what did the head committee accept, and the head committee never saw this nonsense. They did not know it existed. It has never been a part of party policy, it is not a part of party policy and let us have an end of it once and for all. Let us no longer have this type of politics in which we try to see the policy of the other side misrepresented.

Mr. Speaker, for the sake of clarity, because that was a photostatic copy made of that report …

Order!

The hon. member says “for the sake of clarity”, but let me tell him that I have never seen the document of which that is a photostatic copy and no member of my committee has seen the document of which that is a photostatic copy.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a question? The question I want to ask is whether this is the same report as the one the hon. member for Orange Grove was referring to in his speech this afternoon.

It is exactly the same report, and he knows just as little about it as I do. [Interjections.] This report in my hand is the report that I am referring to. This is the report that he knows just as little about as I do.

Whose handwriting is on it? [Interjections.]

What handwriting? It is typed. [Interjections.]

That is what so upsets me about this gentleman. He talks about an amendment that is in somebody’s handwriting. I was very keen to see it. I thought perhaps I would recognize the handwriting.

*After all, in that case I shall know where the thing comes from. Here is a copy, but it is typewritten; no one’s handwriting is on it, but the hon. gentleman says that it is photostatic. How can it be a photostatic copy of somebody’s handwriting when actually it is typewritten?

The newspaper says that it is a photostatic copy.

You said so.

Then the newspaper lies.

† Mr. Speaker, we have this point cleared up. All that is policy is what was accepted by the head committee of the party and our congresses, nothing else. What is policy is set out in the statements which I issued, setting out the recommendations which we accepted and what the party’s policy is. If he wants to know what the thinking was behind that report, I think that we should get that on the record as well. I think the thinking was simply that we recognized certain facts in South Africa. We recognized that we were a multi-racial, multi-national or what-have-you country, a plural society with different groups in it. Whether we like it or not, we are lumped together in this country and we have a common destiny. The problem is whether we proceed towards that common destiny in peace and harmony or whether we are going to explode into a disastrous conflict because we cannot learn to work together with each other and cannot learn to have inter-racial co-operation. I think that the simple question we had to ask ourselves was: How do you get inter-racial co-operation? Are you going to get it the way this Government thinks it is going to get it, by trying to create independent countries which may completely dissociate themselves from South Africa? Are you going to get it by giving Coloureds and Indians representative councils but no representation in a central Parliament? Or must one seek some other course? We felt that in view of the changes that have come about in South Africa, the changes in our population pattern that resulted from Government policy to date, what we should do is take two steps: First of all, we should eliminate to the maximum extent domination by one race group over another in respect of its own, most intimate affairs. This means giving maximum powers of self-government to each group. The second is that, by interracial consultation and a sharing of responsibility, we should seek to manage together those things which cannot be divided and are of common interest. If one accepts those two principles—and I do not see how anyone can deny them—then one must set up a constitutional structure within which those two principles can be realized. The setting of that constitutional structure within which those principles can be realized, is the policy of this party. It is our policy to set up that structure. What is the shape of the constitutional structure we propose? It has often been explained in this House. Hon. members have seen the statements in the Press. I think it is sufficient just to say that that structure will consist of three elements. It will consist of Parliament as it exists now, as the regulator, as the body with the power to devolve or delegate powers, a Parliament which will remain the sovereign body in the constitution …

Without any non-White representation?

Yes, without any non-White representation. Secondly, there will be very important federal units, the legislative assembly for each federal unit, upon which will be devolved the maximum powers of self-government consistent with good government in the country. The third element is the federal assembly, a body for inter-group consultation and the sharing of responsibilities. I think quite honestly that it is idle and profitless to speculate at this stage exactly how many legislative assemblies there will be or even exactly what their powers will be, because we all know this must be a matter for consultation and negotiation.

As you are doing with the Black states now.

We know this is the position at the present time with this very Government. They cannot tell me what powers each Black state is going to have in five, seven or nine years’ time. They know very well they have to consult and they have to examine the situation, having regard to the stage reached by each one of those states. We know that some of the areas this Government is trying to set aside for individual groups, are never going to be economically viable. We know that they will have to be changed or they are going to have to be grouped with other people, as they are threatening to do elsewhere. Therefore this is a basis for negotiation and consultation between the bodies concerned. I think it is equally idle and profitless to try to decide now exactly what powers are going to be transferred from the White Parliament to the federal assembly. As I have said, the White Parliament is sovereign, and no one can bind future Parliaments. But quite obviously—and I want hon. members opposite to listen very carefully—it would be folly to contemplate the over-hasty transfer of power. Equally obviously it would be the height of cynicism to contemplate no meaningful transfer of powers at any time. These are things we have to entrust to future generations or to the future and to future Parliaments. Only time and the development of the country is going to show how fast or how slowly the future Parliaments will operate within this constitutional framework. The overriding fact is that it should be possible to operate peacefully within this framework, on an evolutionary basis under the guidance of civilized Parliament and within that constitutional structure. If you cannot do that, there is no alternative to conflict and disaster in South Africa. Now what has been the criticisms of this policy. There have been very few really very intelligent criticisms. The more the pundits have studied it, the more they thought about it, the more strongly have they tended to support it. People who started by criticizing it are now on our side. The hon. the Prime Minister smiles, but he will be very surprised some day. Some of them openly say that they support that policy at the present time. I am not surprised, because what are those criticisms to date? Most criticism has been levelled at this federal assembly. The suggestion has been that either you are going to give it no powers at all in which case it is White “baasskap” for all time, or you are going to give it meaningful powers, in which case it will take over and you will have Black “baasskap”. It is the “either or” brigade again. They see only two alternatives. They cannot realize that there is a third alternative, namely meaningful, intelligent co-operation within the frameword of a federal constitution. All parties agree at the present time that consultation is vital. The problem is what is the vehicle for consultation. It is very interesting to see the sort of development that is taking place in South Africa. Our Prime Minister was talking not so long ago of an understanding with Dr. Waldheim’s representative on the necessity for a multi-racial advisory federal council for South-West Africa. That is a first step.

A glimmer of light!

It is a glimmer of light. The hon. gentleman is beginning to realize that he has to work with those people and that he cannot keep them at arm’s length. He has to sit around the table with them. In time they are going to find that they have common interests. In time they are going to say to him “Let us take common decisions on these interests and let us reach a position where we can make those decisions binding upon us all”. That is what they are going to say to him before long. You have Advocate D. P. de Villiers pleading for an advisory council of all races in South Africa. Another glimmer of light; a move in the right direction! But one of the most interesting was, just after this policy was published, what I saw under the name of a columnist in the Nationalist newspaper Rapport. He said:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister missed the opportunity. He hides behind the thinking of his predecessors. I am at a loss to understand much of the criticism. What powers go to the federal assembly depend upon this Parliament, and will be the result of consultation and negotiation between this Parliament and the various legislative assemblies. Through their liaison committees, their standing and consultative committees, they will discuss these matters. They will exist first; they will decide what matters should be of common interest to be discussed by the federal assembly. That federal assembly will be able to advise Parliament and bring it into touch with the realities of the situation, and not leave us to rely on a Prime Minister or a Minister talking to somebody. There will be people in that federal assembly who sit round a table, Black, White and Brown, and they will discuss matters of common interest to them in South Africa. What powers will be given them, depend on the confidence which this Parliament and the legislative assemblies get in their competence and ability to work together during the passage of years. [Interjections.]

Order!

I am not surprised, Sir, that they do not want to listen. They do not want to know what this policy is. It will prevent them from going on to platforms and making the misrepresentations they have been making now for months. They now find that they cannot go on telling the stories they used to tell in the past. Now they are going to be tied down to the facts of the situation and that is what they do not like.

I want to tell you, Sir, that they have to realize that Government is a living organism. Government has to adapt from time to time. Government requires open-ended thinking, or it becomes sterile and ceases to be of any use whatsoever.

Now, Sir, what are the differences between the Government and ourselves in respect of this policy? I think there are seven very important differences. The first is perhaps the most important of them all, namely that our policy is tailored to the facts as they are, namely that this is a multi-racial country in which all races have a common destiny; whereas Nationalist policy sees us already as a country of different nations with different destinies, designed to be fragmented in the interests of retaining White baasskap in a limited area where the Whites will always be outnumbered by the non-Whites. It was most significant yesterday to hear the hon. the Prime Minister questioning the hon. member for Durban North; because he made an admission that is one of the most important and fateful that has ever been made by a Prime Minister from those benches in South Africa. I wonder if the hon. gentleman realized what he was saying. He was asked what the position would be if a Bantu area would not accept independence, neither at all nor on the terms offered. He said: “Well, then the position will remain as it is.” It will always remain as it is. [Interjections.] That is right; I am not misquoting the hon. gentleman. Is it humanly possible, Sir, that a Prime Minister of South Africa believes, if one of these Bantustans says, “We do not want independence, not on your terms; we would prefer to remain part of South Africa, but we want our share of the cake,” that the position is going to remain as it is? You see, Sir, what he is saying?

Permanent “baas-skap”.

What is the future for these people and for South Africa, Sir? What has happened about this talk of self-determination? What has happened to “hierdie mooi, vrome praatjies van self-beskikking”? Self-determination? That is “boere-verneukery” if ever there was, because what is it, Sir? The hon. the Prime Minister says: “You will take independence on my terms, otherwise it is eternal baasskap; you stay where you are here in South Africa.” Does he think that with the demands for labour as they are growing and with the economic integration of South Africa he is ever going to get away with that? You see, Sir, it is typical of his thinking, because this is his attitude towards the Coloured people; this is his attitude towards the Indians. Now where is the moral basis for his policy? There is no moral basis left. If there was ever a policy that is going to lead to confrontation and disaster for South Africa then it is the answer which the hon. the Prime Minister gave to the question from the hon. member for Durban North. That, Sir, is the recipe for revolution in South Africa. Sir, the hon. gentleman can smile. Events have an unhappy knack of catching up with people who talk that way. Let me warn this hon. gentleman that the fundamental difference is that our policy is tailored to the facts; his policy is tailored to a mythical situation which does not exist. We find another difference, Sir. Our policy envisages a federal constitutional arrangement in which there will be the minimum interference by any one group or groups in the affairs of any other, and a sharing of responsibility in matters of common interest to all the groups. But, Sir, what is the policy of the Nationalist Party? It abdicates both leadership and responsibility in matters of common interest to all groups, in favour of mythical, independent Bantustans, and it retains absolute and centralized control in even the most intimate affairs of all the groups in the remainder of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, there is a third difference. Our policy aims to bring government and the powers of self-administration closer to the people by decentralizing to the maximum extent and leaving the greatest area of local choice and option in respect of matters of personal liberty as is consistent with good government. The Nationalist policy favours more and more centralization in Pretoria and is based on an authoritarian philosophy which sees the individual as existing for the State and not the State as existing to serve the individual. We, Sir, are prepared to share our civilization without sacrificing it. They are prepared to sacrifice civilization over large parts of South Africa, which they are going to hand over to Bantustans, without sharing it in the rest of South Africa.

But you will never give the non-Whites representation in the supreme Parliament; that is your new policy.

Sir, the hon. the Minister of Transport is suddenly outraged. It has occurred to him that we want to retain this Parliament as the sovereign body without representation. That has been his policy for years. Why is he so shocked at it? Has the enormity of his crime suddenly occurred to him?

I am speaking about the change in your policy.

We are prepared to give an alternative; you are not. We are prepared to give a meaningful participation in a federal assembly which will deal with matters of common interest. We are prepared to try to seek channels of communication and co-operation. But the hon. the Minister says: “All I give you is self-determination; take independence on my terms or you stay where you are under my heel.” And for the Coloured people, he does not even say “take independence”; he says “you stay where you are”. That is what the hon. gentleman says and then he wants to talk to me about morality.

That brings me to the last point of difference. It is this: Our policy seeks co-operation with all races in the interests of the greatest good to the greatest number within the framework of one state. The Nationalist policy so fears co-operation with other race groups that it is prepared to sacrifice the very integrity of the State itself and ignore the common welfare of all race groups in the interests of one exclusive minority group, namely Nationalist Afrikanerdom. Sir, if ever there was reason for having no confidence in this Government, it is the sort of policy envisaged by the reply given by the hon. the Prime Minister to the hon. member for Durban North.

Sir, what has been the use of bringing to their notice the dangers that exist in South Africa and the troubles we have as a result of poverty and as a result of inflation, the rest? What replies have we had from the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon?

Nothing.

It was a wonderful after-dinner speech at the local golf course, full of jokes and full of fun, but answers for South Africa? No, Sir, we have no confidence in this Government and it is time the people realized it as well.

Question put and the House divided:

AYES—47: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cadman, R. M.; Cillié, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F. Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

NOES—114: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager, P. R.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visse, J. H.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Question accordingly negatived.