Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House I think I made what hon. members opposite could consider justly a fair offer. I told Government members that the United Party had gone to great trouble to construct a diagram showing what its policy looked like, so as to explain to the people of South Africa, as is our duty as an Opposition, how we intend governing South Africa under our federal plan. I then made this, I believe, fair offer to the hon. gentlemen on the other side, and said: Would you mind please letting me have, letting the House have and letting the country have a diagram, a copy of your policy. There were only two conditions which I added. The one was that the copy should be signed by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration, to authenticate it, and the other was that I should be permitted to hand that diagram to the Press. I am so glad to see that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration has now taken his seat. Sir, I am not expecting any great draughtsmanship. I am not expecting a future Picasso or Piet Mondrian sketch. All I want is a simple diagram, and I have given the hon. members on the other side, all 118 of them, sufficient opportunity, since last night, to come with this representation of their policy. I can see indeed how eager they are to present me with that policy, to let the country know how their Bantu policy and their colour policy looks on paper. And now, Sir, may I suggest that there be a short interval of, say, about four or five seconds while hon. members on the other side bring me a diagrammatic representation of their policy? [Interjections.] I trust, Sir, that there has been no mistake and no misunderstanding between myself and the Minister of Bantu Administration. The hon. the Minister, you know, has an unfair advantage. We gave him a diagram of our policy, and in his briefcase he has a copy of it. He told us last night that he had one. He has one; I have seen him waving it around here. I can let him have another copy; we have it here. I am at a disadvantage. I have no copy of their policy. Can it be, Sir, that after 25 years in power they cannot yet make a simple sketch or a diagram of what their colour policy is? [Interjections.] I offered to pay an amount of R5, and then they said it was not enough. I then offered R10 to any recognized welfare society for such a copy. Might I ask the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration across the floor of the House, because there may have been some delay, whether he is going to send me a diagram of his party’s policy. Does he know what it looks like? Has he clarity in his own mind about it?

Which of the many sketches you have made is the right one?

Sir, I did expect something, you know. There are 118 members on the other side and not a single one can tell me what their policy looks like on paper. Can you imagine that they are asking us questions across the floor of the House concerning details of our policy, when we are going to come into power in 1975 or 1976? They ask us what our policy is going to look like one day after we have come into power, but they cannot tell us what their policy looks like, 25 years after they began implementing it.

Will you give me a copy of that plan?

But of course; I shall certainly do so.

Can you give it to me now?

I am using this one for my speech at the moment, but you can get another one. I shall certainly see to it that you get one.

[Inaudible.]

Order!

My goodness, the hon. the Minister seems to be quite confused! Does he not know then that that diagram has been published in the newspapers in South Africa? Does he not know that it has been made public and made available to the Press? No, Sir, the country will be shocked to learn this today. There are 118 members and they have been in power for 25 years. Sir, it would have been right, it would have been in order, I would not have objected if the mighty Department of Bantu Administration or the mighty Department of Bantu Education had been asked to render assistance in the matter. The Department of Planning or the Department of the Prime Minister could have rendered assistance. They have good draughtsmen and good brain-power there. You may ask them, but I am sure that they will not be able to do it either. [Interjections.]

Order!

Do you know, Sir, it is a curious tactic of hon. members on the other side—when they do not know what their policies are, they continually come to us and try to demand from us that we should tell them more about ours. In my own modest way, I did try last Friday to reply to about nine or ten of their major questions. But you will observe, Sir, that not a single one of their papers had the courage to publish those replies. At the same time we are more than justified, in view of the length of time they have been in power and in view of their lack of draughtsmanship we have just seen, to ask them to reply orally to a few of the questions that we are entitled to ask. They ask us what powers we are going to give to our federal assembly. Would it be wrong for us to put a similar question to hon. members and Ministers on that side? Would it be wrong of us, while they are in power, to ask them at this stage, while not a single one of their Bantustans is independent yet, what powers they are prepared to give them now or, say, next week or next month? Are they going to give them their own department of immigration? Will KwaZulu get its own department of immigration, or the Transkei? Will they be given their own department of posts and telegraphs, with the right to have their own stamps? Will they be given their own finance department, their own police department, their own interior department, their own general health department, their own transport department?

*Hon. members on that side are always asking us what powers are going to be given to the Bantu homelands. I have now mentioned a few of the departments. Tell me whether those departments will be transferred to the Transkei, the Ciskei or KwaZulu. Sir, the entire Cabinet is sitting over there, and again we are getting no replies; and then they have the political presumption to ask us those questions. Sir, it is reasonable, after all, to ask hon. members on that side where the boundaries of these States are going to be. We still do not know that today. It is more than reasonable to ask them how they are going to develop those Bantustans of theirs economically, after 25 years of virtual neglect. At first the Tomlinson Commission said that no White capital would be allowed in the reserves. Then the Government came along and said that they had established an agency system, an agency system they had taken over from the old United Party. How are they going to see to it that you have sufficient industries and other economic possibilities in these areas to provide the Bantu population increase of hundreds of thousands every year with a proper economic life? Sir, they ask us questions about our policy. Their policy is independence for the Bantustans. Give me the name of one of those Bantustans which have asked for independence; which is satisfied with the conditions imposed by the Government. We get no reply; they are sitting there tongue-tied. Why do the Ciskei, KwaZulu, Bophuthatswana refuse to accept independence on the conditions imposed by the Government?

†Then, Sir, we hear that if the Bantu homelands do not want this independence, things will remain just as they are. These are the words used by the hon. the Prime Minister: “Things will remain as they are.” And what is the position today? What is it other than blatant baasskap throughout the whole of South Africa? What is it, in the words of the Prime Minister, other klaar …boereverocukcry”’! If he can use that word, what is it other than “Bantoever neukery” also? Sir, the hon. member for Potchefstroom said by way of interjection during the debate: “Ons gee vir bulle on afhanklikheid; as hulle dit nie wil he nie, dan is dit ‘finished’ en klaar”. That is a good description of their policy, Sir-the “finished-en klaar beleid”. It has failed, it is unacceptable to the Bantu people, so it is finished and klaar.

There is nothing left of it.

Look out, I shall fetch Japie in a moment.

Sir, it is surprising to see them running around without any sense of direction as to their policy, without a sense of direction as to the policy itself, without a sense of direction as to its logic, without a sense of direction as to its morality. Sir, I say that they are without a sense of direction as to the policy i elf. Do they still remember a valued, able, capable official who was at the head of a department, one Dr. Eiselen? Do they remember him as one of the fathers and architects of their apartheid policy here in South Africa, and of the Bantu homelands policy? Do they remember that it was this same Dr. Eiselen who declared on 22nd October, 1972, only three or four months ago, that the policy of the Nationalist Party today was not the same as the policy of Dr. Verwoerd? Under Dr. Verwoerd hon. members on that side at least had a policy that showed some consistency, however wrong it may have been, but today Dr. Eiselen says that their policy is not the policy of Dr. Yerwoerd. [Interjection.] But, sir, has the hon. the Minister not read the speech of Dr. Eiselen?

Read it to us.

Has he not read that Dr. Eiselen said that the location of the Bantustans made it impossible for them to become independent because they were so dependent on their neighbours? Does he not remember that Dr. Eiselen said that the roads and the post offices and the railways that there are in the Bantustans were on such a scale that it would be impossible for them to find the money to take over the services? Does he not remember these words of Dr. Eiselen: “The basic problem is that you have to give rights where the people work, where the people live, in the big urban complexes of South Africa. You cannot carry out your policy by giving them vague rights in a distant Bantustan. “Sir, I am telling hon. members that there is no logic in their policy. Let me quote to them their great friend and mentor and first journalist of Die Burger. I just want to quote briefly. He writes (translation)—

Sir, those are not my words. They have never been logical and consistent and they will never be. I ask my hon. friend on that side: Please get rid of those words “logical consistency” when you talk about your own policy here in South Africa. And, Sir, what about morality? On that point, too, their policy fails. There has recently been a most impressive condemnation of the morality of their policy by a well-known theologian.

Who?

A member of my church and that hon. member’s church, the Dutch Reformed Church. His name is the Rev. Mr. Kobus Kruger. He is on the staff of the University of South Africa. I think it will be a good thing if I just quote briefly from what was said by the Rev. Kruger in this regard.

That is the closest you will get to a minister, when you are quoting one.

Sir, I hope hon. members on that side are listening and I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister is also listening, because I know he is seriously concerned about the moral implications of this policy. He has spoken about them and I know that he spoke honestly and sincerely, and I should like him to reply to this. The Rev. Mr. Kruger said (translation)—

He added these words, which are particularly illuminating—

This is the Nationalist Party—

Can Christian love and those abstract ideals ever be put into practice?

†Mr. Speaker, I dealt at rather greater length than I expected with the policy of the hon. members opposite and have dealt with only one of the signs of how their policies are crumbling and how they are unable to carry out any sort of ideal that they have, and in the few minutes left to me I want to say something about the atrocious and incredible bungling that has taken place in connection with the matter which, as all members know, is near to my heart, namely television in South Africa. [Interjections.] They were the hon. members, Sir, who promised us television. They were the gentlemen who through their Dr. Piet Meyer promised us that we would have television in 1974, who through Mr. Fuchs, the director of programmes of the SABC, promised us we would have it in 1975. But now we are told through the mouth of the hon. the Minister of National Education that we are only going to get television in 1976. Why these incredible delays, Sir? They decided that they were going to do away with all advertising on television. In its stead the hon. the Minister promised the country that the Government would let us know how they were going to finance television. We are still waiting for the fulfilment of that particular promise. How is television going to be paid for? I would be happy to hear of any alternative plan, but what have we heard from them? Nothing yet. This matter has been at Cabinet level and they have not yet decided anything. What are they doing about training the people needed to service these television sets? Let the hon. Minister of Labour in addition tell me how they are going to find and train the people who have to manufacture these sets, thousands upon thousands of them. It is a fact that the majority of them will have to be non-Whites. Has the hon. the Minister of Labour applied his mind yet to their training, to removing restrictions inevitable from his policy? But, Sir, the worst of the whole thing came in regard to the appointment of the consortium of five sets of firms who were to manufacture television sets. I can go on at length about that issue but time does not allow me. I would like, though, to look at only one of these consortiums, the one between quite a prominent manufacturing firm and another firm called Perskor. [Interjections.] I should like to know something more about Perskor. Who are they? Who are these electronic whizz-kids who are going to manufacture television sets for South Africa? Who are these tycoons of television? Who are these electronic geniuses? Sir, there they are in front of you! The far-sighted chairman of Perskor is a Mr. B. J. Schoeman. No, Sir, it is not a case of mistaken identity. It is this far-sighted man who said we must have oil pipelines and we must have dry-docks for huge tankers. That far-sighted man is now one of the consortium through another firm associated with this other firm I have mentioned. What is his talent in the field of television? Printed circuits? Because Perskor is a printing firm. Then another genius of Perskor is the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. One remembers that one of the important components of television sets are television coils. If one looks at the serpentine convolutions of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration one can understand that there is probably some reason why his talents can be used in the manufacture of black and white sets. I am also very surprised that the hon. the Minister of Finance is associated through Perskor with this television business. Television naturally must have loudspeakers. Sir, we have quite enough loudspeakers on the other side. But the matter is serious. Basically it is serious. It is serious in this respect that it is wrong that Cabinet Ministers who have decisions to make in regard to television, in regard to their policies, in regard to labour, in regard to customs and excise, should be associated with a firm such as Perskor which has a decisive influence in the consortium to manufacture television sets. The time has come that these matters should be investigated at the highest level by both sides of this House to see that that state of affairs, the involvement of hon. Ministers in projects, however innocently they are involved, should be stopped as soon as possible.

I cannot elaborate on this but I say that if one looks at these two issues, the collapse of their policy and the delay in regard to television, one can only say that the continued existence of this Government is beginning to be a tragedy for South Africa. I am afraid that they have minds which are as empty as some of the Cabinet seats, that their policies are discredited as much as their politics are discreditable. I conclude by saying that the sooner they go, the sooner South Africa will get up and go.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Orange Grove has now reached the stage where relations between peoples and individuals are being diagrammatically depicted on the drawing board. If he continues in that vein we will probably see the day where the relations between my wife, my children and myself will also be diagrammatically depicted on the drawing board. Human relations and relations between peoples are not controlled by diagrams. Nowhere in the world are they controlled by diagrams; they are controlled by sound common sense. The hon. member again posed the question: What if some of these envisaged independent states refuse independence? He received the reply to that question a few days ago from the hon. the Prime Minister. However, the question which stands out like a sore thumb, he does not want to answer: What of his party’s policy, what of their plan if one refuses to enter that federation? What of their plan if one is a member and says that it wants out? What of their plan if three, four or five refuse to enter that federation? What alternative remains to them; what single other alternative? [Interjections.]

The hon. member referred to a swindling of the Bantu (Bantoeverneukery). I want to ask the hon. member for Orange Grove whether he can look a Bantu people in the eye and tell it that it is not a swindling of the Bantu when he tells that people that this White Parliament will remain sovereign and White over them until the Whites, and the Whites alone, one day decide otherwise. Can he say to a Bantu that it is not a swindling of the Bantu when the prospect is held out of there being a form of means test and that that means test is calculated to maintain our position of domination over them as Whites? Can he say that this is not a swindling of the Bantu? [Interjections.]

Order!

We have now reached the stage where it has apparently become clear now that the United Party did not really change its policy, it changed its mind. That is how I interpret it. There was a change of mind, a change in the tools being utilized. It does not make sense. If I rise to my feet here today and say that my party’s policy is that there should be harmony in race relations, that there should be economic welfare, and that there should be peace, I have not yet said nothing. Then I have only stated aims with which we will all agree. I am speaking of policy when I come to the methods I want to use in order to achieve those aims. It is here where the United Party, as far as the method is concerned, has made a radical change. It has swung from the union concept to the federal concept—a completely fundamental change. Let us now consider that federal concept which they now find so acceptable. Here in my hand I have a statement by a Member of Parliament, a person who was described a few months ago by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself as being a “pillar of support” in this Parliament. I am referring to a Natal Senator, Senator Niehaus, and leader of the United Party in South-West Africa. He made this statement 12 years ago. It is therefore still within living memory. If what he laid down here was true at the time, it is still true. He was criticizing the policy of the National Party, and he did so on the basis of the fact that it would result in a federation.

He said the following [translation]—

A federal parliament—

I have been quoting from the SuidwesAfrikaner of 12th June, 1959. It is a pillar of support of the Leader of the Opposition in this House who uttered this profundity. [Interjections.] Before I come to the actual point to which I want to refer, and this is the Opposition’s federation plan for South-West Africa, a plan which is in turn a different plan to the federation for the Republic of South Africa, a plan which is fundamentally different, I want to refer to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said in this House yesterday. I want to put him to the test in regard to certain of the things he mentioned here.

Where is he? *

I cannot concern myself over his whereabouts. I simply want to test him. He attacked what he calls petty apartheid, and he mentioned examples. The one example he mentioned, dealt with the Post Office. He asked: Why must there be humiliation, why must there be separation when I, the Coloured and the Bantu go to buy stamps? Now I want to tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that I have often stood in a queue together with non-Whites, and that it did not worry me. Nothing untoward happened to me as a result of doing so. Now I want to put this question to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, or whoever wants to reply: If there is to be no apartheid in front of the counter, as he put it, what about behind the counter? [Interjections.] I want to know what single argument he can advance as to why there should be apartheid behind the counter if there is not supposed to be any apartheid in front of the counter. The hon. member does not have a single argument which he can advance in this regard. Let us carry this through to its logical conclusion: If there is to be no apartheid behind the counter, what about the offices behind that counter?

What about the restaurants?

I am still coming to the restaurants. When there is no single argument which justifies apartheid behind the counters, what about the entire Public Service?

What about the restaurants?

I am still coming to the hon. member. What, then, of the entire Public Service? If the hon. member for Bezuidenhout wants to be consistent, he must say that the staff in the Public Service should be appointed purely on merit; then he must say that the head of a department, too, can be a Bantu. If he says that, I will respect him for doing so, for then he is at least being consistent. But when he has achieved that pitch of consistency, I want to know from him what single argument remains as to why they want to retain this White sovereign Parliament of South Africa. What single argument remains in favour of that? It is easy to mention petty examples of lifts, but what remains when one tries to be consistent and tries to justify every step one takes on merit?

Do you want separate pavements as well?

The hon. member also mentioned the example of restaurants. Let us go to the Railway station of the hon. the Minister of Transport, in Cape Town. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Durban Central must contain himself.

According to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout he must have the right to take his non-White friend to the restaurant on the station. According to him he must have the right to sit down with his non-White friend on a bench in the station. According to him there should not be benches for Whites and benches for non-Whites; there should not be separate amenities. Now I want to know the following from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, he being a consistent man: When he has taken his friend to the station restaurant and they have had their meal, and he and his friend have sat down together on the bench and they eventually want to board the train, what single argument can he advance as to why they should not share the same compartment? He has no argument left. In other words, then he must say: Very well then, I accept it; we shall share the compartment from here to Windhoek in South-West Africa. When he accepts that, when he demands these other things, he must carry this matter through to its logical conclusion. When he accepts that, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member this question: What single argument remains as to why there should be separate residential areas? When he has accepted that there will be no separate residential areas, then I want to ask the hon. member: What single argument remains as to why the non-White servants should have separate quarters in his house? What single argument then remains? He says we must not act in a humiliating or derogatory way. I want to ask him this question: Is it not acting in a derogatory way to his non-White servant when he or she has to occupy separate quarters? The servant can work in my house today, but tonight he or she cannot sleep in any of the bedrooms in my house. In any case, they have to go outside and make use of separate toilet facilities. Is that not being derogatory? It is very easy for the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to come here and to mention these petty little matters, but the logical consequences, the road which he has to follow, he does not follow to the end because it does not suit his pattern of living and because it does not suit the pattern of living of the entire White community in South Africa. I want to go even further and say that it does not suit the pattern of living of the non-Whites either.

I want to make haste to come to the hon. member for Green Point. He said yesterday:“The time has come when we must see an end to the pettiness which has been happening in regard to the access of one race group to another, or of mixed race groups to various functions. I must just mention one in passing. The Chamber of Commerce organized an exhibition in the Drill Hall here of modern office equipment for people to see what modern equipment is being used throughout the world.” The hon. member then went on to say that this permit had been refused. I just want to say to the hon. member that I believe that an administrator should exercise his discretion and not let himself be bound by formulae, by structures and by practices until he has no discretion left. That is what I believe, and for that reason the Minister of Community Development, for example, is vested with discretion. On the other hand an administrator cannot administer unless he follows a pattern. There must be a fixed pattern, I guideline. The hon. member mentioned this example, but I could just inform him that that permit was not refused. A permit was granted for one day on which non-Whites could come to view the exhibition. That is the information I obtained this morning. The permit was not refused, as he said. Since these separate functions are “pettiness”, and this practice should cease, I want to ask the hon. member whether, if he were to become a Minister of Community Development, he would issue a permit for a mixed dance in a place of public assembly in Cape Town?

The case I mentioned was a prominent one. [Interjections.]

Why does the hon. member not draw a line clearly somewhere? He generalized here and said that there must be an end to this kind of thing, that this “pettiness” must cease. He was merely generalizing, and gave no indication of where he was going. To the first question I put to him his reply was apparently negative—he would not issue a permit. I now want to put a very fair question to the hon. member for Green Point. If his party were in power, would he allow that discretion with which he has been vested to be exercised in such a way that the policy on which his party come into power were undermined and subverted? He would not allow it, and if he claims that right for himself, he must grant me that same right.

I come now very quickly to my next point. Two front-benchers on the Opposition side said that the Executive Committee of South-West Africa had intimated that they support the federal system. I want to tell them that it is incorrect. It is quite incorrect. I have a memorandum here, but to read it will take up too much time. If hon. members want to be honest and want to convince themselves of what the Executive Committee said, they can read it.

But why then did Die Burger write this?

I cannot give an account of what Die Burger wrote. I just want to read one paragraph from this memorandum. In this chapter from which I am now reading, they deal with the position of the Whites: “It should therefore be clear that the absolute, vast majority of the White inhabitants of South-West Africa has proved through the years that the Whites believe that their future is indissolubly bound up with that of their co-Whites and fellow nationals in the Republic of South Africa.” This is their policy. This is the standpoint they adopted. I can give the hon. member more than this, but …

Will you let me have a copy?

The hon. member can have one with pleasure. I shall also point out the relevant paragraphs to him. Only, he must make sure he returns it to me. That is the condition. I think those two front-benchers should test the sources from which they obtain their information a little. I think there is something wrong with those sources.

Last year the hon. the Leader of the Opposition went to open a congress in South-West Africa, and announced a federal policy for South-West Africa. At the head of that federal scheme there will be a supreme, multiracial federal council. That federal council will be the highest authority in South-West Africa. It will be the organ which, in consultation with this Parliament, must lead South-West Africa to independence. In other words, on the day South-West Africa has been led to independence, the Government of South-West Africa will be vested in a supreme, multiracial federal council. That is clear. I do not think any arguments can be advanced against this. Not one single word of provision is made for the Whites in South-West Africa, as they are trying to imply that they are making provision for the Whites in the Republic of South Africa. They will not be able to demolish that structure which they would then have built up and with which they then want to achieve independence in South-West Africa—and let us also hope that the independence of South-West Africa would then have been accorded international recognition. Surely they will then be unable to demolish that body which they, in addition, claim will have been vested with powers of this Parliament—they did not say what powers—and has been led to self-determination. Surely it would be foolish to advance such an argument. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition went further. He said that, apart from this supreme federal Parliament there should be two or more federal legislative assemblies. Then the United Party indicated quite clearly in this document which it submitted to Dr. Escher that the one legislative assembly would represent the northern half of South-West Africa. It would include Kavango, Owambo and the Kaokoveld. That community will be brought together in one legislative assembly. That is very clearly indicated. That community represents half of the people of South-West Africa—and they will receive one legislative assembly.

But then they go further, and their plan contains a rather wonderful guarantee. In this constellation which is being built up in South-West Africa, the rights of the minorities, there will have to be proper protection for the smaller ethnic groups. In the northern legislative assembly one then has the Kavangos, the Ovambos, the Ovahimbas and the Hereros. In that assembly for the northern area, which will inter alia consist of the minorities, the Okavangos, the Ovahimbas and the Hereros, the rights of these minorities must be fully safeguarded. In other words, that legislative assembly must be constituted on a federal basis.

What is your policy?

The hon. member can help me now. In other words, they must establish a federation there, for it is only by means of a federation that they can protect the rights of the Okavangos, who are a minority. In other words, they must in addition give the Okavangos another governing body, apart from the legislative assembly, in order to exercise those rights. If they give this to the Okavangos, they must also give it to the Ovambos and the Ovahimbas. Now they already have a federation there. We come now to the legislative assembly in the south. In the south there are Whites, Coloureds, Rehobothers, Namas, Damaras and Hereros. In that legislative assembly the rights of minorities and of each of those groups must also be protected. Someone in South-West Africa, one of the United Party people there, suggested that there should in addition be a separate legislative assembly for the Whites, the Coloureds and the Rehobothers. In turn, then, the rights of the Rehobothers and the Coloureds as minorities must be protected. In other words, each must be a federation in itself. The powers of the legislative assembly must be diminished so that these minority rights may be protected. The legislative assembly may not have powers over them.

Now they already have two or three federations, and these federations they are going to join together in a supreme federation. Now I want to know, Sir, what remains of the supreme federal council which is eventually, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition put it, going to be the highest authority in South-West Africa, that multiracial, supreme federal council?

Sir, I have here a report of the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. It appeared in the Suidwes-Afrikaner. The headline reads as follows (translation): “Graaff sketches U.P.’s Federation Plan for South-West.” No newspaper in the world has reported him more sympathetically than this one, which is the only Afrikaans-language United Party newspaper in the whole wide world. In no other newspaper did he receive this publicity. He received full publicity in this newspaper, and I read it carefully. What I am saying here, is therefore correct, and when I say that there is no built-in guarantee for the Whites in South-West Africa when it becomes independent, then that is also correct.

There are other problems which crop up. I am quite certain that not all those peoples of South-West Africa are going to fall in with this federation plan. What are they going to do with them if they do not fall in with this plan? Are they going to force them in, or are they going to leave them out? Suppose the Hereros, for example, join and then find that this supreme federal parliament and this federal legislative assembly does not work for them; they want out. Are they (the United Party) going to keep them in? Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition realize that in that supreme federal parliament of his at least eight different languages will have to be spoken? I know those peoples of South-West Africa. Not one of them will relinquish their language rights. We guarantee them the protection of those rights. I say that at least eight languages will have to be spoken in that parliament, and then I am leaving out the dialects. Can you imagine the Babel-like confusion of languages there, Mr. Speaker?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made certain statements in South-West Africa. While I still have a minute or two left, I want to dwell upon this. I am again quoting from the Suidwes-Afrikaner. It states that the National Party has already made mistakes, and then it refers to the “alarming catalogue”, the alarming situation as it is today. I cannot mention all the points raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition; I am referring to one of them that he mentioned there (translation)—

Is that party’s policy today that the mandate still exists? I am waiting. Is it their policy that the mandate still exists? I am waiting, but I do not receive any reply. He said this was one of the alarming things the National Party had done. He went on to say—

I want to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who said that. Another reference to an alarming thing by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, was this, and this I grant: South-West Africa has acquired the sovereignty of South Africa on at least an equal basis. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wish to deny this? Does he wish to deny that this is the position here in this Parliament? Does he wish to deny that South-West Africa’s 10 votes in this Parliament can be decisive in any critical situation? And then he wants to deny that South-West Africa has acquired the sovereignty of this Parliament. He said the Government is not laying its cards on the table for South-West Africa. Let one of his members rise in this Parliament and point out to me where the Government has not laid its cards on the table for South-West Africa. Why did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition make this statement in South-West Africa to create unrest in that Territory, where responsible people went out of their way, under the circumstances prevailing there, to maintain calm there? He cannot furnish me with a single example of where the Government did not lay its cards on the table for South-West Africa.

What about all the fishing concessions?

Sir, he was referring to problems which the National Party had created. He said—

With reference to the admission that South-West Africa allegedly has international status, he went on to say—

Did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition give thought to this matter when he said this? Surely he knows when that statement of international status was made. Surely he knows that this international community has claimed for itself this right since 1945-’46. Why does he not lay his cards on the table for the people in South-West Africa? [Time expired.]

The hon. the Prime Minister appealed to this House to say or do nothing which could prejudice the position of South-West Africa. Small wonder the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs sat with his head cupped in his hands while the hon. the Minister of Community Development was speaking a while ago. The hon. the Minister of Community Development got up here and devoted 20 minutes of his speech to the policy of the United Party and did not say one word—not a single word—about the policy of the Government concerning South-West Africa. He spoke about federation, but the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs himself had said to the U.N. that federation or confederation could be a possible solution. The Prime Minister speaks of a multiracial advisory council for the whole of South-West Africa, in which all eight languages mentioned by the hon. the Minister, will be used. But this hon. Minister, a Minister of this Government, uses this opportunity to play politics with South-West Africa, while he refuses to face the matters raised by the hon. member for Green Point in connection with his department. What have we had from the hon. the Minister? First he read out a statement made 12 years ago. Sir, I can go back 12 years; I can go back even further and talk about the days of “baasskap”, the days when apartheid meant “baasskap”; the kaffir in his place and the coolie out of the country. What do we gain thereby in the year 1973, Sir? We look to the future. We cannot solve our problems by reading out old Press statements made 12 years ago. He tested the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, and what was his test? If White and non-White were to stand in the same queue in a post office, what would the position be behind the counter? That was the big test, Sir. Under the Nationalist Party the Whites stand in one queue and the Blacks in another, but when they get to the counter, up comes a pretty White girl and she serves the Black man first and then the White man. That is the apartheid of the Nationalist Party. But I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has never had tea with a non-White? Does that embarrass him? Are any of these Ministers embarrassed to travel in a lift together with a non-White? [Interjections.] Who of these Minister is embarrassed to have tea or coffee with a non-White? No, not one of them is; they just do not have the courage to say so. We say it is these small things which are hurtful in South Africa. The world will come to an end if White and non-White get into the same compartment on a train, but they may board the same aircraft and then the world goes on and it does not come to an end. No, I am not going to waste more time on replying to the hon. the Minister.

However, I do not want to be petty. I do not begrudge the Nationalist Party their “big brag” which we have had this session, the “big brag” about their achievement, their achievement of having remained in power for 25 years. But, Mr. Speaker, there was a slight head-wind which they experienced in 1970 and that wind has gained some force. It gained so much force that it blew six Cabinet Ministers out of the window last year. One of them was blown a long way from here, and this hon. Minister was blown in. And is it an improvement? But I leave it at that. I do not wish to elaborate on that. In their desperate attempt to check the head-wind, they got rid of six Ministers, but that was not all; they also tried to encourage the economy a little, to give the economy the “kiss of life”. But that was not enough. So this session, and again in this debate, and again from this hon. Minister, we have had the old recipe to which we have become so accustomed. Put a little Black peril in the pot, spice it with a little Afrikaner hatred and there you have a mixture which will solve all problems. If you can only generate enough Afrikaner hatred and enough fear of the Black man, you solve all political problems. They think, Sir, that the wind has dropped.

†They are making a mistake, Mr. Speaker. They may think that the wind has stopped blowing. This is the calm before the storm, and the tragedy for South Africa is that this Government is not even able to see the storm clouds which are gathering over South Africa or, if they see them, they close their eyes to them and pretend they do not exist. I remember, Sir, the excitement and ostrich eggs being brought into this chamber after a certain by-election last year.

*That was typical, because, after all, they are an ostrich party. Those eggs were their own eggs—those of a party which buries its head in the sand and which cannot or will not see what is happening around it in South Africa.

†I want to say that this Cabinet is so puffed up with arrogance, so bloated with power, so paralysed by their own self-deception, so propped up by tribal loyalty that they believe they are invincible. They believe “alles sal regkom” as long as they can have a little diversion to detract attention at the moment. It is old hat. We have had it throughout the history of South Africa. Whenever the Nationalist Party has been in trouble, it has started a character assassination campaign against the leaders of this party. They did it against General Botha; they did it against General Smuts; they drove General Hertzog into the political wilderness, and they did it against Mr. Hofmeyr. It is the old, old tactic. We are used to it. There is nothing new in this.

Who assassinated Strauss?

There are, however, two new ingredients in this present campaign and I want to bring these before the light of day. The first is that the Nationalist Party has embarked on this campaign to try to hide the divisions and tensions within their own ranks which split that party—behind their hollow laughter and their whistling in the dark. I want to name some of them. They are divided on the Coloured question, so divided that that division has come out in public. We have had suggestions of Coloureds in the Senate, we have had suggestions of Coloured homelands and we have had all sorts of different solutions suggested. They are so divided in their own newspapers and their own party that the Prime Minister has had to appoint a commission to try to cool the issue and to take it out of the political arena of their own caucus. They are divided on sport. I challenge the hon. the Minister of Sport to deny that in his own caucus there is total division on the sports policy of the Nationalist Party. He cannot deny it; he knows that it is true.

I deny it.

Not only does South Africa not understand their policy, but they themselves are divided on what they think they understand. I challenge them to deny that they are divided on the Bantustan issue and on independence. They are divided on the question of the urban Bantu, so divided that their own newspapers say quite openly that they have no answer to the problem of the urban Bantu. They are divided on the question of petty apartheid. The hon. the Minister’s predecessor admits that he disagrees with a ban which he himself imposed. There are members on that side who know and who cannot deny that they disagree with the petty hurt which their own petty apartheid brings about. They are divided in their own ranks because of petty jealousies. The hon. member for Stellenbosch is not only chairman of one of the Nationalist Party group, but of two groups—just to make sure that he would get a Cabinet position. He finds that one of his chairmanships has gone to the Minister of Sport and the other has gone whistling out of the window. We have the hon. member for Paarl as chairman of the economic and finance committee still sitting in a front bench while the hon. the Deputy Minister has jumped virtually straight out of the provincial council. We have the former chief organizer of the Nationalist Party in the Cape who was certain to get promotion, who believed that he could not be overlooked because he had been the chief executive of the Nationalist Party in the Cape, a certain Mr. Piet Marais. I do not see him on the Treasury benches. We have the hon. ex-member for Benoni, the R60 million member for Langlaagte, chairman of the Bantu Affairs Commission, who was so certain of being in the Cabinet that he took it for granted. Where is he?—drawing maps in Zululand which his own Minister denies as being official maps of the Government. Then they talk of division and strife! This is a deliberate campaign and I say publicly in this House that they are fishing on dry land.

But there is another feature which is different in this present campaign against the United Party. They have found allies of the new Left helping them, allies with paranoic illusions of grandeur, who see themselves as gods who through the power of the fourth estate can shape the destinies of peoples in South Africa, can shape the destiny of South Africa moulded nearer to their heart’s desire. They found that when they came up against the United Party they bumped their heads against the steel of a Graaff who will not be dictated to, who will do what he and his party decides and not what anybody tries to impose on the United Party.

Hear, hear!

Because they could not twist or bend or bow the leader of the United Party or the party itself they set out to try to destroy him and to try to destroy the party.

Vause, you are really very loyal.

This is the issue which is clouding the political scene in South Africa at the moment. One day all those who are trying to destroy the United Party will thank God that they failed, because only the United Party stands between South Africa and a one-party dictatorship. Nothing else! Only this party that sits here prevents South Africa from being a one-party dictatorship and South Africa should know it. We have seen the arrogance of that side of the House. What is more only this side of the House and this party stands between South Africa today and a desperate tragedy for both Black and White in South Africa, a tragedy which could lead to the destruction of the whole stability and civilized standards of our country. Yet, in this atmosphere we get these diversions.

I want to sweep a bit of the debris out of the way and will try to get down to the real issues. The first bit of debris I want to sweep out of the way is to say that the Progressive association, or as they call themselves the Progressive Party, are irrelevant in the politics of South Africa today. This is not a debating society where we debate the theory of what life would be like if everyone was as we wanted them to be; this is Parliament whose duty it is to govern South Africa, to govern it in reality. So I say without any question or doubt that the Progressive Party is totally irrelevant; is nothing but a talking shop, a pressure group, a social club …

At some time this might not be the opinion.

… with no place in the reality of the politics that really face South Africa.

The next bit of debris I want to sweep out of the way is what I believe is a bitterly unjust and unfair attack on my colleague the hon. member for Durban North. I believe that there has seldom been anything so unfair and so unjustified as the attack that has been launched on him. It has been launched on the basis of two or three words which have been taken out of Hansard. What are the facts? The facts are that the Prime Minister asked the hon. member for Durban North a question, a question which he misunderstood. He misunderstood the question and there were interjections. As soon as the question was repeated and the interjections stopped, the hon. member for Durban North said quite openly and I quote from col. 297:

In other words, he admitted that there had been a change. In the same debate I had already said the following and I quote from col. 190:

Talking of the community governments—

I said openly, and loudly and clearly that we were wrong and that we have changed. Yet every newspaper in South Africa has accused the United Party of being afraid to admit that we have changed.

The third bit of debris that needs to be swept out of the way is the illusion that the Nationalist Party has a policy that will work. In this respect I want to call as witness a person who believes that the Nationalist Party policy would be a disaster for South Africa. This is the witness’s view—

This is no lightweight but a person for whom the hon. the Prime Minister has the greatest respect. I want Co describe him—

That is the man who wrote what I have just read out. Of him was said—

Sir, this is the opinion of a man for whose intelligence the hon. the Prime Minister has the greatest respect. This man says—

So, let us sweep that bit of debris out of the way. The Nationalist Party has no alternatives at all. Much as I would like to, I have no time to deal with that now, but they have admitted and it stands on record, that, if the Bantustans refuse independence there is no alternative. In other words, it is not self-determination but “take it or leave it”.

They have no policy whatsoever for the Coloureds, or for the Indians or for the urban Bantu and they talk vaguely of some sort of commonwealth in the future. Then they demand answers from us!

During this session we have already established in this House certain things. We are agreed on both sides of the House that this Parliament, in the thinking of both the Nationalist Party and ourselves, is the instrument of constitutional change. It is the instrument whereby the Nationalist Party will create independent Black states; it is the instrument through which the Progressives, if their coming into power were ever realized, would hand over power to the Black proletariat; it is also the instrument which the United Party would use to build, to create, the federal structure in which we believe. It is the instrument which would create it and which would remain the regulator. So both sides of the House are agreed that only this Parliament can be the instrument of constitutional change. Therefore it is the sovereign body, the body with power in South Africa.

We are agreed on both sides of the House that there should be community governments with their own legislative assemblies. There is no query on that: The Nationalist Party believes in it and our policy stands for it.

Since when?

Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with people who can think, not with that hon. member.

We have established something further, namely the points of difference between us. The Nationalist Party believes in fragmented independence and the United Party in a common destiny linked by a federal assembly. These are the differences and the points on which we agree: Community governments—with one party splitting them into independent states; the other linking them within one State.

There have only been three criticisms of our policy on that matter. I am not talking about the unintelligent criticisms we have had, but of people who have seriously tried to analyse and consider our policy. Those three are: Will Parliament—or when will Parliament—phase itself out and hand over to the federal assembly; what will be the powers of the federal assembly and what is the formula for the election of the 120 members represented on responsibility within the federal assembly?

One hundred and twenty.

Yes, it is 120.

One hundred and fifty.

The hon. member for Klip River ought not to interject. I said at a public meeting that his presentation of our policy contained a “moedswillige leuen” and I challenged him to sue me, but I am still waiting to be summonsed. Let me answer the first two together. Parliament creates the federal assembly, and when it is created the federal assembly becomes the body for consultation between all its constituent units, between the Whites and their community governments, the Coloureds, the Indians and the Bantu. The federal assembly is the place where they would meet and be able to talk about those things that affect them all.

A debating society.

It starts as that, and the next stage is that Parliament can then transfer power to the federal assembly. That is the sequence: You consult, you talk and then you transfer power. It is the only, the logical and the obvious sequence. We will not be diverted from that sequence by demands, that we determine now what will happen in the future, the exact powers and the exact stages, any more than that hon. grinning Deputy Minister of Finance likes to be diverted into telling me what the programme for the independence of one single Bantustan will be. Just as they cannot tell us the programme or the date for independence, so we will not be forced into completely hypothetical dates. Obviously—and I want to say this loud and clear so that there can be no doubt about that—when we talk of the transfer of power, obviously in time—there is no timetable—but in the years to come, if Parliament so determines of its own free will—this Parliament representing the White people—that it is in the interests of South Africa to transfer all its powers, it would have the right to do so. Therefore, potentially this Parliament, as it now has the right to destroy itself, will have the right under our policy, if it was satisfied that it is in the interests of South Africa, it could transfer all its powers. But we impose a guarantee. We say that before it can transfer powers which hold the keys to the security of the State, it must have a mandate from the White electorate of South Africa. Now what is wrong with that? We are not running away from anything; we are not hiding anything. The attack is not that we are hiding things; it comes from people who want us to say that is not our policy. They want us to lay down a date, e.g. the 1st January, nineteen-“voertsek” and say that on that date we will destroy ourselves and hand over to the Blacks. We retain the responsibility for the stability of South Africa in the hands of this Parliament and we say it will be the regulator, the body which puts its foot on the accelerator or applies the brake in the development of the federal structure.

If you ask me what is our policy in this so-called phasing-out process—which is not stated in our policy statement at all—I say our policy is to create a federal assembly, to make that federal assembly work and to retain in the hands of the White electorate through their Parliament, the control and the regulation of the process of evolution which is the basis of United Party policy.

I do not have the time to deal with this now. I shall do so on another occasion, but we also do not run away from the 120 representatives in the federal assembly. They are to be elected according to a formula to be negotiated, a formula incorporating economic aspects but to be negotiated with each of the federal units.

I want to conclude by emphasizing this: The basis, the guts, the core of our policy is consultation. We believe that for any policy in South Africa to succeed, we must take with us the non-White peoples. But as an Opposition you cannot negotiate. You can only negotiate when you are the Government and when you can give and take. Only a Government can negotiate; and Opposition cannot. When we become the Government the evolution of the federal system, the detail within the structure, will be determined on the basis of negotiation, negotiation as a Government. Not all the taunting in the world will force us to say as the Nationalist Party and Progressive Party say: Here is an immutable blueprint which cannot be changed in one detail or line. We say: This is the structure and this is the direction for bringing people into harmonious coexistence within one state and the detail we will negotiate when we are the Government.

Lastly, Sir, this is the choice that faces the non-Whites. The choice under the Nationalist Party is having everything of nothing. They can have the lot: The vote total independence—everything of nothing in poor, poverty-ridden states with no economic viability. Under the United Party we offer them something of everything under the co-ordination of our federal policy and through co-operation, negotiation and consultation—in a genuine effort to share power—while we retain the foot on the brake and on the accelerator and the hand on the steering-wheel, guiding South Africa to a better destiny.

Mr. Speaker, to me as a young man it is a special privilege to be allowed to take my place in this House, a privilege, especially as I still regard myself as a member of the youth of South Africa. Now it is a fact, Sir, that modern man and the youth in particular, are orientated more particularly to the future. Youth and society are turning their eyes to the future more and more. In fact, being orientated towards the future is a characteristic of our times. The reason for this is to be sought especially in the fact that the unparalleled technological progress during the past decades and the tremendous population explosion, to mention only two reasons, have given rise to serious questions and misgivings about our future. The young man knows and experiences that his world is constantly changing dramatically and spectacularly. The rate at which this is happening is still accelerating. The computer, bio-medical achievements, such as organ transplants, automation, urbanization and many other factors are shaping a future which gives us cause for serious reflection. These developments have tremendous social, cultural, ecclesiastical and other implications. Apart from the fact that they make life highly complicated, there is also the possibility that they may change our traditional way of life, our use of leisure time and even our outlook on life drastically. More than that, Mr. Speaker, if we fail to take this rapid and sustained changing into account, the possibility exists that our backlog in the professional sphere may become even larger, our labour effectiveness smaller and our culture poorer. Let me put it differently: The future will place an ever-increasing premium on each man’s ability to adjust himself socially. The future will place an ever-increasing premium on each individual’s efficiency.

In the light of these thoughts, I want to venture to touch briefly on a few aspects of education and training this afternoon, aspects which, with a view to the future, deserve our serious attention. I do this not only because there are two universities, two training colleges as well as several primary and high schools in my constituency, Johannesburg West, but also because this matter is near to my heart. There is a beautiful Chinese poem, full of wisdom, which I should like to quote in this regard—

Or, Sir, the same idea expressed even more briefly—

Mr. Speaker, when we plan for the future, an investment in education and training is the best investment in our country and its people. Not only is it of great value to the individual in that it moulds him intellectually and spiritually and leads him to greater maturity, but, Sir, it is also the condition for economic growth and progress in all fields. Edwin F. Denison made a thorough study so as to determine the reasons for productivity. He came to the conclusion that education was by far the most important factor. He established that education was responsible for an increase of 23% in America’s real national income during the years 1925 to 1957.

For this reason I should like to deliver a plea for education, for education in all its facets, including facets far removed from the school and the university. Today the school and the teacher, to start with them, have to prepare the child for a highly complicated life and world. But that is not all; in addition they inevitably have to accept responsibility for a major share of the task of moulding and educating the child which really is the task of the family. The inestimable influence which a teacher has on the moulding of the child in the broad sense obliges us at all times to ensure, even in healthy competition with the private sector, that the best people will remain in that profession and will enter that profession.

With regard to university training and research we shall have to budget more generously in future. In these fields we cannot afford to fall further behind in the developed world. We cannot afford other countries draining away our intellectual strength because we do not have sufficient bursaries and opportunities for research in South Africa. The effective utilization of intellectual powers is not only a condition for sustained progress, but also essential for ensuring that this process of change will not get out of hand, but will always be channeled in the desired direction.

The challenge with regard to training in the technological field is an equally enormous one. We shall most definitely not be able to depend to an unlimited extent on immigrants in our attempt to supplement any shortages we have in the technical field in the future. Differentiated education is, in my opinion, a step in the right direction in this regard, but the whole question of technical training over a wide front will have to be tackled with much courage and imagination.

Moreover, it is my conviction that the biggest challenge in respect of education in the future is to be found at the level of adult education. In future the aspect of permanent or continued education will become more and more important. In brief we mean the following by “permanent education”: Our world of rapid and sustained progress makes it necessary, makes it essential, for man to be moulded and educated all his life long. This means that circumstances within each profession or trade or even outside them are constantly changing so rapidly that continued education is necessary for each age group and in each profession. It is necessary for the lawyer, the technician, the teacher, the clerk, the newly-married, the aged—yes, for every one—to be moulded and trained for the special demands of the profession he is practising and for the particular phase of life he is entering. Holiday schools, evening classes, correspondence courses, in-service training and many other methods are already being employed to a limited extent, but through combined planning they may be extended very profitably. The size and influence of the university and the training centre of the future will be measured not so much in terms of the number of full-time students, but in terms of its contribution to and its involvement in permanent education. In future educational institutions will progressively have to play a bigger role in society, particularly with regard to permanent education. Permanent education is essential for ensuring that a person will remain well-adjusted in his job; it is essential for ensuring that his potential will be fully utilized, and for ensuring that his possibilities will be developed to their fullest extent, so that he may find pleasure in his work. One aspect, Mr. Speaker, of continued or permanent education, is in-service training. We are grateful to be able to say that in-service training has been introduced by many concerns, including Government concerns. However, the object of in-service training may never be to train a person to be a better production unit only; its object should always be to mould the human being and to make him a better human being. In-service training may be stimulated further and fruitfully so by tax concessions, to mention only one aspect, to approved in-service training programmes. On the whole, however, Sir, the State and the private sector will have to join forces in extending this whole matter of permanent education in a meaningful manner.

Mr. Speaker, I have already remarked that the development of the future is going to make tremendous demands on our way of life as well as the use of our leisure time. I do not want to elaborate any further on the use of leisure time, except to mention, however unbelievable it may sound, that man has more leisure time today than ever before, and in the wake of technical progress, leisure time will become even more generally available in future. Therefore it is also necessary for man to be guarded and trained in how to use his leisure time meaningfully. In this regard the great job of work done by sporting and youth organizations, must never be underestimated. What is more, I believe that we may even have to consider making more facilities and funds available so as to ensure that these organizations will be able, at their different levels of operation, to continue their work effectively.

In conclusion I want to ask that we should consider, in view of the demands of time in the future, spending more than the present figure of approximately 4% of our national income on our overall programme of education. In the short term this may sound inflationary. In the long run, however, it is the best way of combating inflation, for it has been proved that education and training give rise to increased productivity. But I make a special plea for this since I believe education to be the best investment in the future of our country and its people.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure and privilege for me to welcome the hon. member for Johannesburg West to this House. He has held our country’s banners high in several countries, one could almost say on the battlefields of those countries, and he did it with pride. We welcome him here and we wish him a successful stay among us, though of course a short stay, since we hope to capture that constituency the next time. But in the meantime he is very welcome among us.

You would have liked to have had him in your team.

The hon. member for Johannesburg West quoted with approbation a Chinese saying which says that if you teach a man to fish, he may eat for the rest of his life. I would like to think that we in South Africa, the White people, have succeeded in doing exactly this to the non-White population. We have come here with a background, the background of Europe, and we have taken the indigenous population we have found here; we have taken them by the hand and we have taught them how to fish. We have taught them that there is a way of life which offers them a constantly broadening experience, a constantly rising standard of living and a totally new way of life. One of the difficulties that we have is to find on the other side of the House the recognition of what this White community in South Africa has achieved and the reality of what they have achieved here in South Africa. One of the problems we always have in conducting a debate with the members of the Nationalist Party is that they are so “toe” in regard to what has been done by the White community in South Africa that they will not recognize it and will not debate with us the vital issues that really face South Africa.

*Sir, I should like to deal with another point, a report which appeared in Die Burger yesterday in which Die Burger egged on the English Press to attack us, the English-speaking group in the United Party, because of, according to them, the lack of leadership we should have provided in this country. I wonder who Die Burger is to speak of leadership in that manner, because here we have a newspaper which, to my mind, has already taken over completely the leadership of the party opposite, and which has pinned down the Nationalist Party and the Nationalists in a cage from which there is no escape except through the federal policy of the United Party. I want to say a few things to Die Burger and, in so doing, I hope to penetrate to the thought processes of the Nationalist Party. I want to say these things to them because in this House I cannot see either the thought processes of the Nationalist Party or any leadership. If one manages to get through to and start a dialogue with the leaders of the Nationalist Party, we will perhaps be able to make some progress in this country. In this country we see that what can only be described as an unrealistic floating on a distant cloud which has nothing to do with reality in this country. Sir, it reminds one of the words in the Bible—

What the leaders of the Nationalist Party and particularly Die Burger did, was to lull the electorate to sleep with this idea that everything is in order in this country, that the Nationalist Party has been in power for 25 years, that the White population is established and safe and that the non-Whites are quite satisfied with everything that is happening in the country now.

Labour peace and quiet.

I should like to quote a few words to my friend from Rissik. With all pastoral love one wants to make this request to the Nationalist Party and to the Nationalists themselves who support that party. All they have to do, is to take one step back and have a close look at that Nationalist Party’s leadership to make sure they have anything to say about what is going on in this country and about the real problems we are dealing with in this country.

†One is continuously amazed at the vision that this Nationalist Party has of our country. I find myself questioning time and again whether we live in the same country with the Nationalist Party.

No, you are living in Natal.

Even I have to admit that Natal today is so much a part of the Republic that we have just about exterminated the Nationalist Party. As I can see it, as I look at what the Nationalist Party holds as its vision of South Africa, I just do not see that even the most fevered mushroom hallucinations taken to their uttermost can come anywhere close to the vision of what the Nationalist Party has of South Africa, so totally are they divorced from the reality. I say with sorrow and with love that the Nationalist Party has turned its back today totally on what is going on here in South Africa. They have abdicated the leadership that they ought to be exercising. They have completely abdicated and turned their backs and then they have the copper-bottomed cheek to come along to us to say that there is any kind of division in our party or any kind of lack of leadership or any kind of unwillingness to reach out and to take hold of the real problems that face us. If ever there was a party which has failed to grasp the nettle that faces us in South Africa, it is that party who simply abdicated, shrugged their shoulders, turned their hands, turned their eyes in upon themselves and refused to face what is going on not only with themselves, but with us and every single race group here in South Africa.

We are engaged in a struggle for the minds of men. Our problem here is not a question of Black faces. Our problem is the minds of Black South Africa. That is what we are engaged in: A struggle to influence and to gain the confidence of the mind of Black South Africa that the system which we have brought here of a Christian Western civilization will find among those people so much support, goodwill and participation that it can be perpetuated and carried on into the future and that it will survive not simply because we are strong, but because the peoples among the Black South Africans are themselves gaining so much, have so much to hope for, have a future to consider, and will find themselves actively in support of the things that we have done and are doing here in South Africa.

The Nationalist Party, I believe, has closed its mind completely. There is no place in the mind of the Nationalist Party that I can find where the non-Whites, who accept our civilization and our values and the things in which we believe, can be accommodated; none whatever. I want to put three propositions to the hon. members on the other side, proposition which deal with their failure to recognize the reality of what happened in South Africa. First of all, I want to say to them that revolution is made by the middle class. It is an historical fact and I do not expect to debate it. The people in this class are self-conscious enough, they are educated enough and they are wealthy enough to be able to inspire revolution. They are resentful enough of the upper classes to foment revolution and they are educated enough to provide intellectual stimulus without which revolution is almost always unsuccessful. Here in our country we have a growing Black middle class and it has no recognition whatsoever in the thinking of the Nationalist Party. I think it is vitally important that the people who support the Nationalist Party should realize that revolution is made by the middle class, and a middle class of Black people is growing in this country whilst their very existence is totally ignored by the Nationalist Party. Their very existence is completely and totally ignored; and in their minds there is no problem because if you do not look at them, they are all going to go away.

Then I want to go to the second proposition. There are two main streams of thought today in the Marxist school of thinking. The one says that the urban Black proletariat is the very seed-bed of revolution and the other says that revolution is endemic in the rural peasantry. One of the things we, the White people in this country, have done is to create an urban Black working class, the proletariat without which the Russian communist-style revolution is impossible. This is what we have done. We have taken these people out of their rural fastnesses, we have brought them together in the urban areas, we have given them work and we have made of them the working class without which the Russian-style communist revolution is impossible. We have created a situation which is potentially revolutionary. Where in the whole thinking of the Nationalist Party is there any kind of recognition that that working class urban Black person even exists? Where do they even recognize the existence of such a group of people? They are potentially the most revolution-minded people in South Africa, people who, if they are not taken along with the authorities, if they are not satisfied, if they cannot be assured of a rising standard of living, if they cannot see the doors opening in front of them, leading perhaps not so much to a richer future for themselves, but to a richer future for their children, will …

That is strange talk from Natal!

The hon. the Deputy Minister says that it is strange talk from Natal. We live there and we are facing precisely the conditions that that hon. Deputy Minister and his Government have created. We are there in the middle of it, and we know exactly what is going on; that is why we are so distressed about it, because that hon. Deputy Minister and his Government will simply not see that these people are there permanently, that we cannot do without them, that we cannot send them home, that we cannot wish them away, and that we cannot blow on our tootie-flutie and they all disappear out of the window. Then there is the other side of the coin. In our country we also get the rural peasantry, those people living in the Bantu Reserves, and one would have thought that the Government with its own policy of developing the homelands would at least have made a serious effort to make sure that the goodwill of those people is retained. One would have thought that the Government would have made a serious effort to take to those parts the riches of the White man, the White man’s capacity for production and the White man’s initiative and know-how in order to create in those areas the means of satisfying those local populations. Make no mistake about it at all. Unless you satisfy those people, unless you free them from poverty, squalor and ignorance and all those social problems, you are not going to be able to maintain the sympathy of those people for the ruling class in this country, the White people. The whole blueprint of the Nationalist Party was based on precisely that one factor. The recommendation of the Tomlinson Commission’s report was based upon the investment of capital funds in order to create in those Bantu areas a viable economy, an economy which would be able to fuel from a domestic saving and capital formation in those areas, a sufficient growth which would satisfy, maintain and keep them in those areas and which would at least prevent the outflow of the natural increase of those people. I want to ask where in the whole of South Africa, in all the Bantu areas that we have, this Government has made one single effort of any meaning at all to carry out the policy they are supposed to have espoused. Where is the development and where the satisfaction? What you are finding today is that, because of the increasing population in those areas, the per capita income is falling. You are going into reverse. You are not even coming close to maintaining the position that you had when the policy of this Government was first set out in the Tomlinson Commission’s Report. So one wonders what this Government can offer the Afrikaner people, the Afrikaner Nationalists who vote for them.

Afrikaner hatred.

That is the answer! What positive achievement is there that this Government can offer after 25 years? The great development and the most important thing that has happened is that we have reached out to the non-Whites and the Black population particularly and given them a whole new way of life. We have created a system of civilization, something they have never known before. We have reached out to the Black mind in South Africa and planted a seed there which can grow, flower and bloom and can be of immense significance; it can give shade to us and to their successors for years and centuries to come. But what do we find from hon. members on the other side? A total ignorance and absolute unwillingness to concede that there is even one permanent Black inhabitant of any one of the urban areas in this country. Not only that, but when they wish to endorse them out and send them back to the areas from which they came, there is not a single effort made to make any real kind of progress or development or anything else of any meaning or of any significance. In other words, you have the three revolutionary possibilities right here today: The middle class deliberately frustrated …

If you recognize that they are permanent, why do you give them a Black and White Parliament? [Interjections.]

Why do you not get up and make a speech?

Does the hon. the Deputy Minister say they are not permanent?

Come on; answer that!

Let me repeat the question: Does the hon. the Deputy Minister say they are not permanently in the urban areas?

We have told you how many times that that is exactly what we say. They can have complete independence.

The gist of it all comes down to one thing, namely that there is not one Black leader today in the areas created by the Government who says that they have had any kind of satisfaction from that Government. There is not one of them who is not using that magic word “more”. That is what they want: More!

More what?

You may well ask “more what”? They want more of everything; they want more than what this Government has given them. I want to ask hon. members: Where is the “more”, which they want, to come from? It comes from the central economy of South Africa where Black and White work together permanently and where they are producing wealth which is leading to the fantastic development which we are experiencing, which is being denied to those rural areas represented by those Black leaders. They are being denied this by the deliberate, set intentions of this Nationalist Party. They are deliberately frustrating not only the middle class, not only the urban workers, but also the rural peasants. I am absolutely unable to understand what future, what hope there is for South Africa under a Government of this kind. Not only that, but we have the development going on in our present urban areas, which is fuelled by the interaction between Whites and Blacks, upon which every single one of us depends. To attempt to funnel off at this stage, to attempt to satisfy, the needs, the desires and the demands of those Black leaders, we are at last going to get some kind of recognition from the Government in the form of legislation which is going to allow foreign funds to be invested in those areas. Foreign funds mean foreign technicians. I challenge any member to tell me where the technicians are going to come from out of our present integrated society, technicians to serve and to establish the industries which will be established in those areas when foreign funds are invested for production. We are strained to the absolute utmost even today in the present situation which faces us. The whole of South Africa’s productive capacity is committed to what we are now doing. Everything we have today is committed to the full. We are producing all we can, we are changing the face of South Africa. We are creating a revolution here which will persist and endure and which can be matched nowhere else on the whole continent of Africa. All we get is a closed face from the Nationalist Party, “toe” for life. That is what we get, nothing else. We do not get a glimmer of light or a glimmer of hope, not a chance that they will recognize the process that is going on.

Jimmy smiled!

Oh, Jimmy smiled, did he? This reminds me that the Nationalist Party is like people who boarded a fleet and then sat in the harbour sure that they were secure under the shelter of the canons at the mouth of the harbour. This is the present position with the Nationalist Party, that they will be protected by that Government in power for ever. I want to point out to hon. members that time after time in history the fleet that is outside, the fleet that is mobile, the fleet that has its options open, the fleet that plies the rolling oceans had the advantage over the fleet that sat in the harbour. One has only to look at Drake who signed the king of Spain’s beard in 1587. One has only to look at Robert Blake who sank the Spanish fleet at Tenerife. One can look at Nelson, the great man who sailed into Copenhagen and who sank Napoleon’s hopes and fleet at Aboukir …

Who did it?

I can assure the hon. Deputy Minister that it was not King Canute. It happened time and again in history that the fleet that is outside, which has the initiative and can move and manoeuvre, is the fleet that wins. That is the position of this party of ours. We have our options open. We have the initiative. In anything that may happen in the policy that this party espouses, the initiative is in the hands of White South Africa as the guardian. We are the regulator in this Parliament of White South Africa, which has its initiatives open, which can pioneer new routes.

We do not want so many options open, but beliefs in principles.

The hon. the Deputy Minister talks about principles, but by what principles do they deny the very existence of over eight million Black people in this country upon whom our very existence depends? Will the hon. the Deputy Minister tell me on what principles they deny eight million Black people who live in White South Africa today?

We do not deny them anything. We are leading them to full nationhood.

The Deputy Minister says they are leading them to full nationhood. We have over four million people living our urban areas today, the absolute fuel cell of development and growth in South Africa. Will the hon. the Deputy Minister tell me where they are leading those people? To full independence? Will he tell me how we can lead those people to full independence? The very utmost that can be said for National Party policy is that they are seeking to create some kind of petty states which will always be in the orbit of the White community in South Africa. They cannot develop away from us and they cannot develop without our sympathy.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No. Mr. Speaker, to attempt to link the Black urban communities with these so-called homelands, these petty statelets that are being set up, is reversing the whole trend of what has happened in our history. It is reversing the whole trend of what has offered such rich promise to Black South Africa.

It has happened in the whole of Africa.

It has not happened in the whole of Africa. What has happened in this country? Surely hon. members can understand it. This is a country where we, the White people, because we are here and because of our strength, wealth and knowledge, have done something which has happened nowhere else in Africa. There is not one other country in Africa where it has happened. We have taken the Black people out of their tribal societies. We have put them down in urban areas. We have developed them there into major economic force in this country, on this continent of Africa. It has not happened anywhere else. This is the only place where it can happen, the only place where it can continue, because we are here. My invitation is that the Nationalists who support the Nationalist Party, should at least take a look at that party for which they have voted in the past. Have a look at it, understand it and try to find where the link is between the policies that they espouse and the reality of what is happening in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, there is no link. Because there is no link, what they are doing is leading us, Nationalist Party supporters and United Party supporters, into a corner from which there can be no escape. My invitation to the Nationalists is to come out of their harbour and sail with us on the broad open sea where we can enjoy the wind, where we can choose our course and where we can find a way which will lead to prosperity for all the peoples here in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, before I reply to certain arguments of the hon. sailor from Mooi River, I must make a few general remarks. In the first place, in the past few days we have seen that several United Party people issued statements to the effect that there is no division in the United Party. This afternoon the hon. member for Orange Grove told us the same; this applies to the hon. member for Durban Point as well, and now again the hon. member for Mooi River. It is amazing that everyone is now suddenly so eager to say this. It is almost a case of “the lady protestant too much”. It looks a bit suspicious if hon. members so continually strike these chords.

The hon. member for Mooi River made a few remarks in connection with the urban Bantu, and I think it is a good subject about which we on this side of the House, and members on that side of the House, can cross swords for a bit. What the hon. member’s argument, as I understand it, amounts to is that the Bantu live here and must be developed on a permanent basis to a state on the grounds of their material link with the cities. The National Party and the Government on this side of the House regard other ties, which the Bantu in the cities have, as stronger than the material and financial ties our hon. friend speaks about. This side of the House is aware of the fact that every Bantu in the urban areas has national ties with his people in the Bantu homeland areas. Does the hon. member want to deny that those persons, who live here, although having become urbanized and in many respects perhaps having cultivated the habits of the urbanite and having adopted his dress, are still members of a specific people, that the Xhosa still speak Xhosa, that the Zulu are still Zulu and still speak Zulu, and that the Zulu, Xhosa and Sotho still maintain the Zulu, Xhosa and Sotho habits and culture, even though they live here in the cities? I want these hon. members to tell us whether they deny the national ties of the urban Bantu, and whether they believe that those national ties do not exist; and if they do exist, do hon. members on that side of the House want to tell us that the national ties of the urban Bantu are not of all-prevailing importance? Sir, elections are taking place in the various Bantu homeland areas, and the fellow citizens of those Bantu in the homelands are voting, even though they are living in the cities on a permanent basis. They are making use of their franchise. The gist of the matter is the cultural ties of every person, his national context. Do hon. members opposite want to deny this? I want to ask hon. members a question, and I see the hon. member for Durban Point is here. He was a member of the commission which drew up the report about the federation policy for Sir De Villiers Graaff. Can he tell us the following in connection with the various legislative assemblies they are now going to establish? Let us take the old White Legislative Assembly of the Transvaal. Will this legislative assembly be able to decide who is allowed in and who may live in its area?

May I reply, Mr. Speaker? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may not reply now.

Can the hon. member tell us, across the floor of the House, whether the legislative assembly itself can decide who is allowed, yes or no? Can he tell us, for example, whether the White Legislative Assembly of the Transvaal will be able to decide who may be allowed in its area?

Tell me whether in 1979 …

Sir, I am asking the hon. member a very simple question. I want to know if the hon. member will tell us whether this White Legislative Assembly of the Transvaal will itself be able to decide who may live in its area?

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member is afraid to answer that question because he knows what it is going to lead to.

Make your own speech.

Sir, the answer to this question is very clear. There can be only one answer. The answer is “Yes”. The answer is that each legislative assembly will itself decide who may be allowed into its area.

Tell us about your policy.

It is also interesting to note that the policy of hon. members on that side of the House makes provision for a specific legislative assembly in respect of the urban Bantu. Those urban Bantu’s Legislative Assembly will most certainly have the same powers as the White Legislative Assembly, i.e. to decide who will be allowed into its area. This means that the Bantu in the urban areas can decide for themselves who will live in the Bantu areas. Can the hon. member deny this? In this connection I want to refer hon. members to an interesting report I have here before me. It is a report which the hon. member for Durban Point also signed. It is headed: “Highly confidential. The constitutional committee—interim report.” It is apparently the report which the Mitchell Committee furnished to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. In this report we find a few very interesting matters which we have thus far not heard from the United Party. Let us look at certain paragraphs in the report. I quote from paragraph 2:

In other words, the report was completely unanimous. Paragraph 3 reads as follows:

Paragraph 17 of the report reads, and I quote only the main sentence:

This is a very interesting report, Sir. The report makes it very clear, in respect of the urban Bantu, that each legislative assembly will have a specific land area. The main sentence of paragraph 10 reads as follows:

Paragraph 26, which is still very interesting, deals with the delegation of powers to the legislative assemblies, and reads as follows:

Now we have a situation in which we will have a legislative assembly in respect of the urban Bantu, with influx control falling under that legislative assembly itself. I challenge any hon. member on that side of the House to tell us and the country that any restriction will be placed by such a legislative assembly on non-Whites who want to come to the urban areas. The logical conclusion we draw is that the Department which is responsible for influx control, i.e. the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, will disappear. The legislative assemblies themselves will decide who may live in their specific areas. The logical conclusion is that these people themselves will decide who will be allowed into their specific areas. I now want to say that nowhere do we find people having placed a restriction on the influx of persons to the urban areas where persons of the same race are involved. An interesting article, which we found in The Star of 1st December, 1972, makes the following remarks about Lusaka in Zambia. It reads as follows—

Then the desire is expressed by several people about the possibility of applying influx control in Lusaka, but that is something that is impossible. This article goes on to state:

Hon. members on that side of the House must tell us how they are going to apply influx control to the cities if they give the urban Bantu their own legislative assemblies, which can then rule over their specific areas. I would very much like to see this question answered, because it is very clear that with influx control we are dealing with one of the essentially most important matters for both Whites and non-Whites. Without it an unhealthy situation is created, in which there is a high crime rate, in which there are poor social conditions which are to the detriment of Whites and non-Whites. Sir, the hon. members on that side of the House will have to give this side of the House and the country more particulars in that connection.

I now want to come back to a certain remark which the hon. member for Durban Point made. He referred a moment ago to the Progressive Party as a “social club”, and as of no significance. If I remember rightly, this is most certainly not the attitude of their hon. friends in the newspaper offices of the Sunday Times, because on 12th November, the Sunday Times wrote as follows:

Then they suggested that the two parties should come together to conclude an election agreement. Then they make the following interesting statement—

We should like to see whether the two parties are going to move in that direction.

Sir, I think we must take a brief look at other aspects of the United Party’s policy, as announced in this House by the Leader of the Opposition, and as published in the Press. We on this side of the House have an ideal and a vision. We on this side of the House have a direction in which we are moving and in which we are striking a course as far as South Africa and its people are concerned. We have an ideal for the Whites and we have an ideal for the non-Whites. We have an ideal for the Whites, which means that in all respects the Whites will remain their own masters and be able to determine their own destiny. That is our ideal; that is the principle we build on. We want to retain our identity. We also have an ideal for the non-Whites, the ideal that they satisfy their own aspirations; it is our ideal that they should be able to develop as far as they can, as far as they want to go, and that they should live their life to the full in their national context. That is our ideal. It is our ideal to abolish all differential measures that could be derogatory. We have that ideal, and we are moving in that direction. Sir, we have a vision for South Africa, as stated on numerous occasions by this party and its leaders, and we have a vision for its people. But I want to ask hon. members on that side of the House: What is their ideal and what is their vision? Hon. members on that side tell us that they will keep the reins of power in their hands and that they will decide, in the future, what they must do, but the question is this: What is their ideal? That is what we want to know. Where are they going with South Africa? How do they see the final picture as far as South Africa is concerned? Do they see it as a mixed Government of Whites and non-Whites, or do they see a constitutional situation in which Whites and non-Whites will each separately govern themselves? Sir, I should like to see the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on some occasion, stating his ideals for this country. It is no use his saying that decisions will be made in the future about what action should be taken. The question is what is his ideal and his vision. Our ideal, our vision, is very clear. Let us investigate the United Party’s position, for a moment, in respect of the Whites. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that the Whites will remain boss here and that the Whites will be able to decide how they want to hand over their powers. Sir, my only objection in that connection is that the Leader of the Opposition did not give us the full picture as contained in the report to him by his constitutional committee. In this connection I should like to quote to you briefly from this report. In this report it is very clearly foreseen that Whites and non-Whites will jointly rule the country in respect of all aspects of government. I want to refer here to paragraph 8, and after that I shall refer to paragraph 23. Hon. members, who perhaps have the report on hand, may see whether I am quoting correctly. Paragraph 8 of the report, this “Highly confidential report to Sir De Villiers Graaff”, which is signed by several of the senior members on that side of the House, reads as follows—

And then later—

In other words, in all those cases of common concern that cannot be left to the legislative assemblies, the federal assembly must rule. This means, put in simple terms, that the federal assembly must eventually rule the country. But this is made even clearer in paragraph 23, which reads as follows—

In other words, the committee has stated that they must now say what powers will be granted—

It is the report of the committee of that side of the House to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He knows there would be trouble in telling the Whites that Whites and non-Whites must rule together in areas where Whites ruled in the past. The report then continues—

In other words, if we are to speak of the ideal of the Whites, as seen by this committee, it is very clear that it is not a case of the White Parliament alone making decisions in future, it is a clear and unequivocal view that Whites and non-Whites will rule the country together; in other words, in respect of all departments entrusted to the federal assembly and to the present White Parliament, the powers of which have not been relinquished to the various federal assemblies. The question now is why our hon. friends are not prepared to announce this clear statement of the future to South Africa as a whole. Sir, we are faced with a situation in which the non-Whites of this country are not being told now what their position will be in the future, but in which the line has been drawn and the machinery created very clearly, and in which the framework has unequivocally been fixed within which the Bantu of this country must move to be able to rule over the country as a whole. I want to tell you, Sir, and I want to argue in this House, that the Leader of the Opposition, having had this report and having known what the findings of these leading members of his committee were, has not been frank with the people of South Africa, as he ought to have been. We want to challenge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and also that side of the House, to put it to this side of the House and to the Whites that the gist of the United Party’s policy is not as the hon. member for Mooi River said, that the Whites will decide in future, but in fact that Whites and non-Whites will rule the country together. The unfairness of this one cannot deny for one moment. We on this side of the House, as we have said, are a party with an ideal, and we realize that we are working towards that ideal, that we are working within South Africa and that we are working in such a manner as to establish the best possible relations between the peoples. This side of the House is encountering obstructions in this connection and not any help from that side of the House.

If I may, in conclusion, just come back briefly to an aspect of the speech of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout yesterday—I do not want to say a great deal about that, because the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was already crumpled yesterday by my hon. friend, the member for Wonder-boom, and also I do not want to re-hash old stories—I just want to make a single point about that. If the hon. member for Bezuidenhout thinks that every form of distinction between Whites and non-Whites is necessarily insulting, and that it is perforce an indication that the Whites regard the non-Whites as being inferior, that standpoint of his is a very dangerous one for South Africa. His is then a disgraceful standpoint.

He did not say it.

Did I hear an hon. member say that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout did not say it? Of course he said it, and I shall state where he did so. I quote from his speech yesterday—

It is surely absolute disgrace for any member to make such a remark in this House. [Interjections.]

What is the reason for that?

If hon. members on the opposite side of the House want to say that every arrangement, which points to a distinction, embodies an insult as far as the non-Whites are concerned, they are on a dangerous tack, because that means that all distinguishing measures must be done away with. These are disgraceful remarks, and it was likewise completely disgraceful and farfetched of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to have made a remark such as the following, and I quote (translation)—

I should like to know from hon. members on that side of the House whether they do not agree, since we make arrangements of this kind, that this is done to eliminate friction between the races. It is being done, surely, for a specific purpose, i.e. the establishment of better human relations. For the hon. member to see in that an insult to the non-Whites, is nothing but an interpretation he should be ashamed about. Changes do take place from time to time in South Africa—and we can be honest and speak to each other frankly in this connection. On this occasion I can quote what the hon. the Prime Minister said, according to a report in Hoofstad of 14th November of last year (translation)—

We on this side of the House realize, in other words, that as time goes on there will, in fact, be measures that become superfluous because no more friction will take place in that sphere. The Prime Minister made this clear. For hon. members on that side of the House to tell us that every separation is indicative of an insult, is nothing more than impudence and denseness.

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to reply to the questions of the hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, for the simple reason that that hon. member has already made up his mind that what ever good he may see in the United Party’s federal plan he wants to make suspect because, according to him, its outcome will be that the Blacks and Whites must rule together in South Africa. The impression the hon. member is trying to create, as far as that is concerned, is that the White man will then, as a whole, lose his say in South Africa and have to be made subservient to Black domination. That is why I say it is difficult to reply to that hon. member, because whatever good there may be in this policy, it remains that hon. member’s approach. Now he comes along with the argument that because nothing is said about influx control in our report in connection with the legislative assemblies, this means, according to that hon. member, that if the United Party is in power and Soweto, for example, has its own legislative assemblies, they will do nothing about influx control, and that they will be allowed to bring in one Bantu after another. That is now the hon. member’s big argument. Let us take another look at his argument. Under this Government, under an apartheid Government, the Bantu in the urban area have increased more than ever before, to such an extent that there are eight million Black people living in our White areas today. I now want to put a question to the hon. member. If we now reach a stage where the normal increase of Black people in our White area is such that we can no longer absorb them, and if under his policy independent states exist and Chief Buthelezi or Kaiser Matanzima say that they do not want to take the Black people, what is that hon. member going to do? now the hon. member comes along and asks these types of questions, knowing that in that report provision was made for joint standing committees, committees that will be composed jointly of members of this Parliament and members of the legislative assemblies. Does the hon. member now want to tell me that this is not a matter that can be thrashed out by those committees? The Bantu in the urban area are surely not going to decrease under the policy of that hon. member and his party. There will quite simply be more and more Bantu, and that hon. member and his Government will be faced with the same position—they will have to make a greater land area available for those people round our cities. According to that hon. gentleman this is such a terrible problem that we shall be faced with because our policy, according to him, is to allow complete Black domination in South Africa. The basic concept of federal development is that there will be certain spheres of our country’s administration where, after one has had a devolution of powers to one’s various legislative assemblies, powers will remain that will have to be jointly administered, because we have joint interests in this country. Now that hon. member wants to come along and create the impression that under our policy there must be complete domination. This brings me, then, to the point of the hon. the Minister of Community Development. I spoke, on a certain occasion, in reply to the speech of the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation. That hon. Minister claimed in this House that our federal policy is a deadly recipe for revolution, and I then said the following in reply. I quote from col. 246:

That hon. Minister tried to create the impression that nowhere in the Executive Committee of South-West Africa’s report to Dr. Escher had the idea been created that the possibility of a federal plan for South-West Africa exists. Am I correct, or not?

Not quite correct. I said so just now.

The hon. the Minister was then good enough to give me the full report, I then having had only a photostatic copy of the relevant section. I now want to read to the House and to the hon. member what there is on page 5 under the heading “Federation”—

The next paragraph is interesting. I did not even say they want to do it; I was conservative and said there was the possibility that it could perhaps be done amongst them. Now listen to this—

If that is not clear enough an indication that the possibility for future constitutional development in South-West Africa is being presented, and that federation is that possibility, I want to know from that hon. gentleman what is clearer than that.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? Would the hon. member be so kind as to also read out the Executive Committee’s standpoint in respect of the Whites?

Yes. The standpoint of the Executive Committee in connection with the Whites is that they have always been in contact with South Africa, that they are closely linked to us and that their views and their position in South-West Africa must be borne in mind very clearly. But nowhere in this report do I find …

No, not that.

Wait now! Nowhere do I find that the report also embodies the possibility that the non-Whites can federate with the Whites in South-West Africa.

Mr. Dirk Mudge is an M.E.C. in South-West Africa, and, according to Die Suidwes-Afrikaner of Friday, 16th February of this year, he gave the reasons why it is not necessary to state their whole policy in respect of federation. What does he say? He says (translation)—

That is all we spoke about, i.e. that the possibility of that constitutional development exists for South-West Africa. I now want to ask the hon. member: Say the Nationalist Party were still to remain in power for 50 years … [Interjections.] … and it is the hon. gentleman’s view that the Whites of South-West Africa should link up with the rest of the Republic, can he see a federal trend in that country which includes the non-Whites and excludes the Whites?

I can foresee it.

The Minister says he can foresee it. If that hon. gentleman says he can foresee the Whites occupying a small patch in South-West Africa, surrounded by all the other people, yet always having some or other link, federal or whatever the case may be, with South Africa, then …

Not a federal link.

Very well then; any other link. All around them there are people, in a federation which is completely independent, such a position being possible. The Whites are there in a patch, and the hon. gentleman is prepared to leave them in such a condition.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I should like to continue with my argument.

Must I deduce from that that your party is definitely going to incorporate the Whites in South-West Africa in a federation?

The speech which the Leader of the Opposition made, on a certain occasion, states very clearly that in South-West Africa there must be a form of federation that very clearly must link up with us on a federal basis in South Africa. That is our reply. Exactly the same problems which the hon. member for Pretoria Central spoke about and which he says can develop under the federal idea of the United Party, I want to tell the hon. member can also crop up if his federation in South-West Africa were to become a possibility.

I should now like to come back to the Budget. The hon. the Minister’s salary and wage increases for public servants are certainly the foremost characteristic of the Budget. Although it is welcomed, the general reactions of the recipients are extremely interesting. The public servants and the Post Office staff regard the increases as compensation for the tremendous increase in the cost of living, and not specifically as encouragement to enter the service or as encouragement to greater productivity. That is why public servants sound the warning that they are shortly going to take another look at their own position if there is a further tremendous increase in the cost of living. The hon. the Minister of Finance expects that price increases will not immediately level off, but that they will continue to increase and possibly only level off at a later stage. An interesting point now, as far as I am concerned, is that no salary increases to the Public Service in this country can stand in isolation. To expect the private sector not to follow suit, is in my opinion an idle dream. They will be placed under tremendous pressure, and pressure they will not be able to withstand. This pressure will again result in further inflation; prices will again soar, and this ought to be obvious to any member, even to the hon. member for Klip River. Unless we can reach a stage in this country where we can have stable prices, salary increases will simply be swallowed up by a higher cost of living. In the long run this can be of no significance. Therefore I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Finance that his salary increases must go hand in hand with a period of stability in respect of the price structure in this country. This is, in my view, the greatest shortcoming in the present economic and financial policy. The public at large expect stability, and we are entitled to ask the hon. gentleman what is going to be done about this. A hole is being plugged up here, a hole for the public servants, the Post Office staff and the Railways staff; but, Sir, as far as the private sector is concerned, that hole is just as big. There are thousands of people in this country who are not obtaining any extra income at this stage, who will be faced with only increased prices. This Government cannot only satisfy one sector and leave the other sectors dissatisfied. I say that under these circumstances these salary increases are correct, but the hon. gentleman must take the country into his confidence when he replies, and also tell us what the Government is going to do in respect of those who are only faced with increased prices and are going to get no increase whatsoever in salaries or wages in these circumstances.

But it has also emerged quite clearly in this debate that over the years this Government has not only failed to solve the economic problems, but also that it has failed to give a measure of permanence to our race question. Over the years apartheid has undergone a metamorphosis. From extreme supremacy it has changed to separate freedoms. Now again it is multi-nationality. Whether one calls it multi-nationality or multi-racialism, it makes no appreciable difference: it is merely six of one and half a dozen of the other. But multi-nationality, in the Nationalist Party’s terminology, means only one thing, and that is that the Black man will only be able to have real freedom in his own state. If multi-nationality is worth anything, there must, in the first place, be at least economic viability for each state or each area. In this, this Government has failed hopelessly, and it is going to fail even more hopelessly in the future. That is why so many voices are being raised against the Government to the effect that it must revalue its policy in that respect. If it cannot move more quickly to have economic independence go hand in hand with political independence, its policy must of necessity be a failure. It is not necessary for me to quote proof of the lack of development in those Black areas. The best proof is the fact that the Bantu are becoming increasingly dependent upon development in the White area.

Mr. Speaker, what is the effect of this on the Black man? He is simply forced to become increasingly more pessimistic about his own future. He is forced to doubt the sincerity of the Government. This only brings about further estrangements between Whites and Blacks. We are now dealing with a greater measure of Black consciousness than ever before. One cannot expect the development taking place in the White ranks, and the meagre development in the Black ranks to go unnoticed. Lack of development in their own areas will cause them to fix their gaze increasingly on other powers, it being very difficult to foresee the end result of this as far as South Africa is concerned. Black consciousness must then, of necessity, be roused further. It is, after all, an irrefutable fact that the homelands will simply not be able to absorb their population increase, even though we were to implement all the consolidation plans and the 1936 legislation in letter and in spirit.

Sir, I see this as the biggest challenge this Government is faced with today, and as far as the Government is concerned I see no solution, and consequently no possibility of success in that regard. For that reason this Government will have to make adjustments that come nearer to the realities of one’s South African situation. Blueprints on paper, which have not been implemented in essence for 25 years, eventually become no plan at all. A plan that is not implemented, or cannot be implemented, is eventually no longer a plan; then one just drifts along.

Sir, let us accept, for practical purposes, that the Black man comes to discuss the question of independence with the hon. the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister invited them to come and discuss independence with him if they wanted to. My question to hon. members on that side is this: If the Black people come to discuss this with the Prime Minister or with the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, is the Government going to give independence to them? The hon. the Prime Minister was warned, during the past few days, by his Minister of Foreign Affairs, that the world is not going to believe in the sincerity of the Government unless it gives independence to these Black areas in the foreseeable future. That is why I am saying that this matter is now becoming a topical and urgent one. We are entitled to ask the Government whether they are going to give independence to the Bantu homelands if they come and ask for it. If independence is given to them, will the citizens of these independent states still be subject to the discriminatory local laws in the rest of South Africa? If they are still to be subject to them, does this mean real freedom for the Black man? Will the Black man, as a citizen of a free state, be able to move freely to another state? Sir, the Government can no longer evade these questions. I want to refer hon. members on that side to a speech that was made just a few days ago by General Hiemstra, in which he said the following (translation)—

Sir, hon. members on that side are so fond of putting questions to the Opposition. I still remember very well that the hon. the Minister of Finance said in 1951 -—I do not have the cutting with me now—that apartheid means equality. Sir, if it is their view that the Black man can have separate freedom, then his separate freedom must be similar to the freedom that any citizen of any free state enjoyes, and that is to be able to go where he wants to without any discriminatory laws being applicable to him. This Government can no longer evade these questions. Voices are already being raised in the Nationalist Party’s own circles to the effect that petty apartheid will have to disappear. I am glad the hon. member for Johannesburg West made his maiden speech here today, because on a certain occasion that hon. gentleman, in reply to questions put to him, said—

This appeared in The Argus of 18th October, 1972.

You are being very hopeful now.

No, I want hon. members to reply to those questions. They are always so keen to know from us what the final picture will be. They say that apartheid means equality. If that is so, a stage must be reached where discriminatory legislation can disappear. I want to quote from what the hon. member for Johannesburg West said.

Apartheid eventually leads to full status.

Good. If the hon. member says apartheid leads to full status, then a Coloured or a Bantu can surely have no lesser status than that hon. member? He can go just where he wants to. There is no discriminating legislation applicable to him. But I just want to quote from what the hon. member for Johannesburg West said on that occasion—

That is right. Yes. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Potchefstroom also agrees with that. Now the first question I want to ask is this: If we must first go via Timbuctoo to get to De Aar, why this waste of time? Why these arguments in this House, if that is the hon. gentleman’s target for the future.

May I ask a question?

Give me a chance. I want to put my own standpoint. Why not say, then, like the United Party, that there are social and residential conventions in this country, but let us give the people an option, a choice. Why must we allow the Nico Malan to be used for one race group? If it is the view of those hon. gentlemen that when they have achieved success with their apartheid policy, this discriminatory legislation will no longer be necessary, why are they not prepared, like the United Party, to give the people a choice. Let us have a free community in South Africa so that decent race relations can be cultivated.

Residentially as well?

If that is the eventual object of those hon. gentlemen, why are they not prepared, for example, to open up certain restaurants, cinemas and certain hotels in this country to all people? The hon. member will know what I mean when I say “certain”; this applies to those people who apply for that when the local authority closest to the public decides that they can, in fact, be allowed.

That is not what Japie says.

Hon. members on that side take fright at this, and yet it is applied amongst themselves. I want to refer, for example, to their multinational sport. In 1967 they refused to state that they would allow multi-racial sport in South Africa? Why? Because they were afraid of its social implications. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, fortunately there is no need for me to reply to all the questions put by the hon. member who has just sat down. The reason for that is that the policy of separate development in South Africa, as it has unfolded during the years and as it is still unfolding from day to day, is perfectly clear and comprehensible to anyone with common sense whether he be White, Black or Brown. When one listens to a shocking speech such as the one delivered by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout yesterday evening, some of the most shocking things said in such a speech sometimes pass unnoticed. It is only when one has another look at that speech that it strikes one how shocking some of the things are which that hon. member said. I am pleased the hon. member is present, because I want to refer particularly to two things he said yesterday evening. At one stage he said—

Earlier in his speech he also said—

As a member of the House of Assembly of South Africa and not as much as a member of the Nationalist Party, I want to dissociate myself with disgust from this atrocity, these diabolic statements uttered by the hon. member.

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

Mr. Speaker, as you please. Then I say “this treacherous statement” instead of “diabolic”.

Withdraw it!

I have withdrawn the word “diabolic”. I want to reject it as untrue and not only in this House, but tell South Africa and the outside world that it is rubbish, irresponsible and contemptuous. Since the hon. member mentioned uniforms, I want to ask whether, during the time that they were in power—from 1938 to 1945—the Coloureds, the Bantu and the Whites wore the same uniforms in the North. The hon. member himself wore some uniform at that time.

But the hon. member was not there. [Interjections.]

Quite saintly the hon. member asked at the beginning of his speech—

I shall tell him why. The speeches of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, such as the one he made last night, are one of the reasons why the world adopts the attitude towards South Africa that it does adopt at the moment. The reports of the English-language newspapers are responsible for the attitude the world adopts towards South Africa, and the remarks of certain clergymen are responsible for the world’s attitude; not the policy of separate development. That is why abroad, in the east and in the west, there is a climate which is favourable for terrorism against South Africa, because such untruths emanate from South Africa and from the Opposition benches in South Africa. That is why, even in friendly countries, a climate is created which is favourable for terrorists against South Africa. When one day we are confronted by the situation of experiencing terrorism in South Africa, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout should ask himself what his role was in the creation of that situation. The hon. member said we were regulating the non-Whites by prescribing uniforms so that the non-Whites might be seen as inferior. Which Government in South Africa started recognizing the human dignity of the non-Whites? Which Government in South Africa started writing it into the Statute Book? It is the Government that is in power today. It was first done under General Hertzog in 1936, but especially since 1948 and continually up to today, we have been doing so. When Britain and the European countries, countries such as France and the Netherlands, still had their colonies in Africa and in the East and in the West, who started a policy of separate development indicating the guide lines along which we are leading the non-White peoples to full maturity today? This Government did.

When was that?

In 1948. I do not know whether the hon. member was born at that time. Who started teaching their children and who perseveres from day to day to bring it home to the public’s mind that we must restrain ourselves from making derogatory and petty remarks to the non-Whites? Who insisted that the word “kaffir” should be done away with and who said that we should address our Bantu in a proper manner as “Bantu”? The Nationalist Party and the Afrikaner did.

Who spoke of a “koeliemeid”?

Sis, John!

I am convinced that there are more people sitting on that side of the House today … [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also spoke of “ White jingoes” yesterday evening and said—

I do not know what a “White jingo” is, but I do now what a “jingo” is. We in South Africa know them all. We know why they are called that. [Interjections.] But that is not the point. The hon. member said—

I ask: Is this the start of enforced petty integration? Will we start forcing our people to associate with one another across the colour bar? Are we going to start “bussing”? Is that what the hon. member expounded yesterday evening with his Leader’s approval and acclamation, namely that we should force our people through action with regard to certain aspects of association with people of a different colour in the country?

Why do you not deliver your own speech?

I am delivering my own speech. That hon. member does not have to tell me how to deliver a speech. The hon. member has laid down certain criteria regarding how we should go about achieving success with our colour policy abroad. He said—

He went on to say—

Let us see whether the United Party’s federal policy meets the requirements of “fairness” and “sincerity”. A man may laugh at me because I am poor, a man may ridicule me because I do not wear as expensive clothes as he does, a man may scorn me because I am an Afrikaner, because my mother taught me, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” But if someone wants to insult me, he must let on to me that he underestimates my intelligence; then he must hold certain things up to me which he believes I will accept, while he means something else by them. If there is one thing on earth …

They are confidence-tricksters!

If there is one thing on earth which makes “sincerity” an empty word, an empty shell, it is an attitude which underestimates one’s intelligence. That is what the United Party’s federal policy does; it underestimates, in fact shows contempt, for the intelligence, not only of the Whites, of the Bantu or of the Coloured, but of all racial groups in South Africa. I believe that three-quarters of the hon. members sitting on that side of the House, are already convinced of that at this stage.

The first point indicating that it is an underestimation of the intelligence of especially the Coloureds, Bantu and the Indians, is the fact that it is stated that the White Parliament will be retained and that it will be able to hand over powers to and withdraw powers from the federal assembly. How does this bring one to the position “that one nationality does not dominate other nationalities in the same country”? What happens to the sound of the disappearance of domination by one racial group over another? It all becomes empty words. Where is the “fairness” and “sincerity”?

Let us also look at their legislative assemblies. They say that there will be four legislative assemblies for the Whites, two for the Coloureds, one for the Indians and eight for the Bantu. As far as this matter is concerned I just want to deal with the eight legislative assemblies for the Bantu. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said that seven of them would probably be for the homelands, while one of those legislative assemblies would be constituted of representatives of the urban Bantu. If they want to establish only seven legislative assemblies for eight homelands, it already means that one of the homelands will not have a legislative assembly.

More than that. It is not economical that …

Thank you. I understand that it will not be possible to accommodate more of the existing Bantu peoples in their own legislative assemblies. In other words, some of the legislative assemblies will be made up of different Bantu peoples thrown together. But I leave it at that. The eight Bantu peoples of South Africa should just take cognizance of the fact that, under the United Party’s federal policy, not all of them will get their own legislative assembly, but that some of the smaller peoples will either be grouped together with the bigger peoples—therefore, swallowed up by the bigger peoples—or will be thrown together with other small groups in a coalition legislative assembly.

I want to mention another aspect. We know that the present ratio in South Africa of Bantu in the homelands and Bantu in the White areas is approximately 50:50. This party now comes along and tells the Bantu of South Africa through the mouth of its chief leader, “We shall herd together 50% of you in one legislative assembly and the remaining 50% we shall herd together in seven or more assemblies and in this way all of you together will be constituent parts of the federal assembly.”

Is this anything but a disregard for, a contempt of not only the intelligence of the Bantu, but also their dignity? Is this “sincere” or “fair”, to use the words of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout? Does this take the intelligence of the Bantu, the Coloureds or the Indians into consideration? The federal assembly is the biggest insult imaginable to the intelligence of all racial groups. Its composition, viz. the representatives from the legislative assemblies, will be calculated according to a formula, and in this way the majority of a party in the federal assembly will be determined. They do not say this anywhere, but by implication this means that the White majority is going to be retained in that federal assembly, according to a formula unknown to us. I do not think the United Party people are people who should really venture to deal with formulae. I know that in a Senate election they slipped up on a formula and as a result we have more senators in the Cape than they have. However, the United Party says it has a formula in terms of which the White majority are entrenched in the federal assembly. They say it will ensure a White majority because the Black people and the Brown people will never be able to make up the financial and material backlog and consequently the Whites will remain in the strongest position in the federal assembly. What a terrible insult this is, not only to the non-Whites, but also to the Whites, but especially to the Bantu and the Coloureds! Our Prime Minister has repeatedly said that wealth is something that can be attained by anyone. I want to state plainly that I believe that the Bantu and the Coloureds in South Africa will indeed make up the material leeway, that eventually they will catch up with the Whites. They have the necessary numbers, the necessary ability to work, and in their homelands the Bantu have the necessary agricultural potential and the necessary mineral potential. The Coloureds with their ingenuity are already making up the leeway. Our side of the House has such a high regard of the Coloureds and the Bantu that we do not doubt for a single moment that they will make astronomical progress in the next decade or two. But this professed entrenchment by way of the formula which, as I have already said, is a ludicrous formula in any event, is an insult to the non-Whites. In this federal concept they are indeed declared to be constitutionally inferior by the United Party. I think it is scandalous.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout had objections about uniforms, but what about the terrible reflection on the ability of the Bantu and the Coloureds? The federal assembly is also an insult to the Whites and everyone in South Africa in the sense that the United Party wants to make us believe that this body is going to be a second-rate advisory body pure and simple. I am utterly convinced that it is utter nonsense that this federal body will be kept subservient to this South African Parliament. The whole complicated composition of this South African U.N. indicates that they have plans up their sleeves for this body to be the supreme body which is to govern South Africa eventually. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said this. He said—

In other words, from the start this federal assembly is to act as a government in its own sphere. It is constituted in such a manner that it will have to function as a government. I want to say that the United Party is fooling the electorate of South Africa if they tell them that the White Parliament will continue to exist. I do not believe that that White Parliament will continue to exist for a moment longer than the establishment of the federal assembly. My reason for that is that an assembly which votes for the constitution of that body will also be foolish enough to vote for the abolition of this Parliament

Mr. Speaker, finally we want to ask these hon. members: With whom do they want to federate? To me this is the one question which has never been answered satisfactorily during the entire discussion on the United Party’s federal idea. They spoke of a racial federation. I must say they are very far-removed from their original racial federation. They are very close to a geographical federation. But we know that with all federations, unifications or commonwealths that have come into being, be it in the United States of America, the Union of South Africa, Canada or Australia, there have been various states, colonies or provinces which eventually formed a federation and hammered out at a round table conference what the eventual form of their union or federation would be. It was only after agreement had been reached at that round table conference that they approached the supreme authority of the day, the British Parliament, and asked for a constitution. Sir, if a federal constitution is to be drafted here, how are they going to draft it? Are they going to do it at a round table conference? If they are going to do it at a round table conference, what form will the representation take at that round table conference? Will there be one representative for the Whites, or will the representatives for the Whites have one vote? Let us rather decide this on the basis of voting. Will the representatives of the Coloureds be entitled to one vote? Will the Indians have one vote? How will the Bantu vote at that conference? Will all 16 million Bantu be entitled to one vote, or will each of the homelands or a group of homelands each be entitled to one vote? These are questions to which we want to know the answers. I believe that not only we as Whites, but also the Bantu and the Coloureds are interested in the answers to these questions. Will there be only one vote for the urban Bantu, who make up 50% of the Bantu population of South Africa? Who will be the representatives? Will this Parliament send representatives of the Whites? Will they have Mr. Tom Swartz, whom they ridicule, as a representative of the Coloureds? Will they invite the chief ministers of the homelands whom they call puppets of this Government? These are the questions to which the Opposition should really have replied before coming here with such a detailed explanation of their federal plan. Suppose the White Parliament which established the federal parliament, were to disappear and that there was an entrenchment in that federal parliament regarding the rights of a population group, whether White or non-White, who would see to it that those rights would be honoured and maintained? Sir, then the whole thing would miscarry. On what would the United Party fall back? On the National Party’s policy of multi-racialism or what?

Yesterday evening the hon. member for Bezuidenhout conjured up a picture for us which left me with the impression that he had done with the Whites of South Africa and that he had done with the Afrikaner. He disregards them and to him their future and their welfare is no longer to be found here in South Africa. He only sees Brown people and Black people here. What he is aspiring to is to be able to go up in that constellation, where he will be patted on the back by foreigners; where he will be in a position to be elevated by them who are not members of these small, insignificant Whites around him. Sir, I want to tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and his party, who agreed with him last night, that I and my colleagues on this side of the House and, I believe, also the South African people, the youth of South Africa who looks to the future, have faith in the future of their country, in the people of the country, and as they look ahead, they see a future for themselves in this country, together with the Black people and together with the Brown people, and a future for their children, together with the children of the Black people and the Brown people. They believe that that future will be one of peace, of harmony and of prosperity. Sir, we believe that no matter how dark matters may seem, we will fulfil our role in Africa and in South Africa and we will fulfil our role to the benefit of the entire Continent.

The hon. member for Orange Grove put a number of pointed questions to us today in respect of our policy and challenged us to reply to them. The hon. member for Orange Grove …

I asked where the map of your policy was.

Yes, I am coming to that map shortly. Sir, what interests me greatly in connection with this diagram or map, which the hon. member for Orange Grove held up to us here in this House today with so much pride, is that the hon. member was really suggesting that their policy was cut and dried and that each and everyone understood it now. But what I find strange, is that the English language Press has intimated that it will take them at least two years to convey this new policy to the voters, and this in spite of that simple diagram held up to us by the hon. member for Orange Grove. I want to say to the hon. member for Orange Grove that it is not necessary for us to draw diagrams. I shall tell you, Sir, why it is not necessary for us to draw diagrams. For the next 25 years, just as in the previous 25 years, the voters will return us to power. They understand our policy. Our policy is acceptable. We do not require a diagram. Sir, if I were a member of the United Party, I would hide that diagram of theirs under my bench. I would never take it out and I would never show it to the Press, because everyone ridicules it. The Star says it makes no difference whether one holds it the right way up or not.

It is like a modern painting.

It is like a modern painting.

The Star never said that.

I do not wish to cross swords with the hon. member for Yeoville here, but it was said by an English language newspaper. Furthermore, everyone knows that it is so. Therefore it does not matter whether it was The Star or the Pretoria News or the Rand Daily Mail.

Not one of the three said that.

Then the hon. member for Orange Grove came along here and asked what we would do if the homelands did ask for independence, and what if they did not ask for independence. Am I right? Are those the questions he asked? Sir, it is such an easy question, but the hon. member waxed lyrical about it. He really thought he had us cornered. He asked, in the first place, what we would do if a homeland did not ask for independence. The answer to that is very easy. I wish to remind the hon. member that General Hertzog requested the Statute of Westminister in 1928 at the Commonwealth Conference, and that Statute was accepted and in 1931 we had the Status Act. As from that time we here in South Africa could have asked for independence at any time, if we had wished, but we did so only in 1961. In other words, we had the free choice as the Union of South Africa to ask for it whenever we wanted. The same goes for the homelands. If they do not want independence, surely the hon. the Prime Minister said, and surely the hon. member for Yeoville knows this …

Are they sovereign already?

If they want independence, they must ask for it. Wait a moment. The Prime Minister said that if they wanted independence, they must ask for it. And if they do not ask for it, surely it means—after all, this is simple enough—that they are completely satisfied as they are.

No.

Oh, Sir, let us not have any argument about that. What is more, the Prime Minister said in this House that if they were to ask for it, they would get it. They may ask for it. What more do they want? What is the problem of the hon. member for Orange Grove? The hon. member for Orange Grove seems to be under the impression that the same will happen with us as did with them when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout delivered a speech here and set a cat among the pigeons. It is a simple and an easy question. Those who do not ask, may remain as they are, and those who ask may have their independence. Therefore I do not know what the hon. member’s problem is.

But they are asking.

But I have said they may ask. Surely they may decide whether they want it or not. Surely that is quite irrelevant to the question which he put to me.

Then the hon. member for Newton Park came along and put what was, in his opinion, a tremendously intelligent question. He asked whether the citizens of independent states would still be subject to discriminatory legislation here in White South Africa after such states had become income independent. He called it “discriminatory legislation”. But surely the hon. member for Newton Park, who, unfortunately, is not present at the moment, knows what the position is as far as Lesotho and Botswana are concerned. Why should the position be different if the Transkei were independent? Does he think we shall treat the people of the Transkei differently to the way in which we treat the people of Malawi or Lesotho or Swaziland or Botswana? But since the hon. member for Orange Grove put so many questions, what is your standpoint? How would you treat the citizens of Lesotho and Botswana in this country? Are you prepared to treat those people in accordance with the directive which the prospective leader of the United Party, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, yesterday laid down as a norm in this House? Would you apply petty apartheid to Basutos and the people who come here from Botswana?

They are citizens of their own country.

In other words, will you abolish petty apartheid if you come into power?

What does Dawie want to do?

I shall come to the hon. member for Yeoville in a moment, I do not wish to attack him now. I still have much ammunition left against him. The hon. member for Orange Grove must answer me now. The hon. member and his chief leader said they agreed with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that these discriminatory petty apartheid measures must be abolished. Will hon. members do that? Suppose the unlikely were to happen and the hon. members came into power, would the hon. member abolish those measures, the petty apartheid measures?

We would treat them as citizens of a friendly country; you treat them as enemies.

The hon. member for Orange Grove is a much older man than I am. I do not want to get him into trouble here. But he asked us numerous questions in the course of this debate and I am replying to them in all honesty.

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

Yes, certainly, but in Afrikaans please. No, forget it, it does not make any difference.

Does the hon. member not agree with the hon. the Prime Minister that there is no such thing as petty apartheid?

Yes, of course. I expected an intelligent question from the hon. the leader of Natal. Does the hon. member think I would be sitting on this side of the House if I did not agree with the hon. the Prime Minister? Look, we do not have the same problems as the hon. members opposite have. I want to put it clearly that I have much sympathy with the hon. member for Zululand. I notice that he has been very nervous just recently. The hon. the Minister of Tourism has such an unnerving effect on hon. members on that side of the House that each one of them is talking about him. They are worried because we now have a very strong leader in Natal, but we shall return to that later.

I should like to put this question to the hon. member for Orange Grove; it is not an unfair question to ask him, because I take it that he is an intelligent person. If the United Party were to come into power—and his leader says they are going to abolish those apartheid measures which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout mentioned—would they abolish them or would they still apply them to foreign African citizens as at present? The hon. member must reply to that.

Say now in public how you would treat citizens of independent countries. Would you treat them as inferior citizens? Remember that you are answering before the rest of Africa on behalf of your party.

Order! I cannot allow a dialogue here. The hon. member must continue with his speech.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member need only say whether they would abolish petty apartheid if they came into power. The hon. member need only say “Yes” or “No”. [Interjections.] Does the hon. member say “Yes”? Well and good. The hon. member’s Leader said that he agreed with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said the pettiest of petty apartheid was the Immorality Act and the Mixed Marriages Act. Therefore I assume that the hon. member would repeal those two Acts.

But you said you did not know what petty apartheid was. [Interjections.]

I want to place on record that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that the Immorality Act and the Mixed Marriages Act were the pettiest of petty apartheid and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition associated himself yesterday with the statements of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout after the hon. member for Wonderboom had asked him a question. The hon. member for Orange Grove has confirmed that they would repeal those Acts. Now I assume, in other words, that it is the official policy of the United Party that they will repeal the Immorality Act and the Mixed Marriages Act. [Interjections.]

Come on now, talk!

The hon. member must tell me now. Now hon. members opposite are afraid to talk.

He is writing.

I repeat my challenge to the hon. member for Orange Grove, and I am doing it for the third time, to tell me whether they would repeal the Immorality Act and the Mixed Marriages Act if they were to come in to power—yes or no? [Interjections.]

There will still be people for whom it will be necessary. It depends on how many will need it.

I think the hon. member for Orange Grove is busy drawing another diagram, because all the details of that diagram on the cartoon which he drew and which he made such an issue of today, have not yet been drawn. He is redrawing it at the moment. I am not being derogatory when I say that it is a cartoon. After all, the hon. member joined in the laughter when the hon. the Prime Minister ripped their policy apart.

Tell us about this “klein apartheid”.

While we are now on this so-called aspect of petty apartheid … [Interjections.] They criticize us and we are now being pulled apart over petty apartheid.

What is it?

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout gave a definition of petty apartheid and that definition of petty apartheid has not been repudiated by any member of the Opposition.

Do you agree?

Of course it has not been repudiated. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville whether he agrees with the definition of petty apartheid given by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. [Interjections.] I should very much like to have the attention of the hon. member for Yeoville so that I may put a question to him.

He is busy with a dialogue.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Yeoville does not wish to conduct a dialogue with me, but I ask the hon. member whether he agrees with the definition of petty apartheid given by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

I agree with the definition which my Leader has clearly given. I do not know why the hon. member is asking me this.

What leader? [Interjections.]

I wish to ask the hon. member for Yeoville whether separate entrances to post offices and separate schools …

Separate schools!

Yes, that is relevant. Do they want to do away with separate schools and separate entrances at the stations and separate platforms? Would the hon. members do away with that—yes or no?

As soon as you say you will apply apartheid in aircraft, I shall give the answer. [Interjections.]

There is no apartheid in aircraft.

Why not?

It is so because of a very practical reason; it is so simply because, there is no friction as a result of the difference in the volume of traffic. We are practical people faced with a practical situation. Since incidents do not occur because of the practical circumstances which apply in respect of air travel, it is not necessary to do it at this stage. There is no friction, but when friction develops and when one places two races in a situation where friction may develop, we take measures to eliminate friction. This is what that party calls petty apartheid. This is what hon. members wish to abolish.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Is it a fact that there is no apartheid behind the counters in post offices?

But there is apartheid behind the counters.

Where?

Oh, no.

I shall tell hon. members that there one has a work situation where …

Oh!

I do not understand what hon. members mean. Where is the example?

Come with me to the Durbanville Post Office.

Come to the Yeoville Post Office.

Tell me where one does not get apartheid in the Durbanville Post office. There is apartheid in the sense that the non-European staff are put there with the very object of serving their own people.

No!

Those jobs are separated …

They work alongside each other.

Wait a moment! There is also apartheid in the sense that non-Whites do not serve a White.

But the Whites serve the non-Whites.

… and that there are definite arrangements in that post office to separate White and non-White staff. If the hon. member is not satisfied with that situation, why has he not raised it a long time ago?

Such nonsense does not concern me.

We are living in a time of federation and in a time of diagrams. Now I read in the Sunday Times …

Is that your newspaper?

In the Sunday Times I read—

Captain Buthelezi went on to say—

What is your point?

Now I see in Die Transvaler of Monday, 19th February, that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was asked to comment on the matter of this offer by Captain Buthelezi. Mr. Basson said to Die Transvaler (translation)—

You don’t say!

Not one of the Natal leaders want to speak. They said to Die Transvaler that they had no comment. They are Mr. Eric Winchester, Mr. Arthur Hopewell, the Chief Whip of the U.P., Mr. Vause Raw, Mr. Douglas Mitchell, until recently Leader of the U.P. in Natal and the man who in 1961 advocated that Natal should break away from the rest of the Union. It is the same idea as that embodied in the appeal by Captain Buthelezi.

So what? What is your point?

This report in the Sunday Times is, of course, a very prominent report. It appears on page 2. The United Party is the advocate of federation …

What are your comments?

… and here they get this offer. I should like to hear what the reaction of the United Party is to this offer of federation.

The reaction of the leaders.

I should like to ask the Leader of Natal.

Yes, I shall give you an answer.

To me it is strange; it is already Friday.

It is Thursday.

It is Thursday and Captain Buthelezi made the offer on Sunday. It amaze me that, with all these federation plans in the air, the United Party has not yet reacted to it up to now …

Well, if you will stop talking, I shall answer you.

… from which I immediately deduce that the Natalians are considering it seriously. Mr. Japie Basson, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, said very emphatically (translation)—

So far I have heard no reaction in this regard from the Leader of Natal or from the defeated, would-be leader of Natal. One would like to know what the reaction of Natal is to this. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout would, of course, also very much like to know what their reaction is to this.

Do you want it now?

I thought you would have reacted to it a long time ago. Will the hon. member for Zululand tell us whether they are considering it or not?

Natal has already given its answer. It supports overwhelmingly the federation of the United Party.

I should just like to know whether the hon. member accepts this proposal by Captain Buthelezi or whether he rejects it.

Natal supports our policy.

In other words, the hon. member says that he rejects this proposal for federation?

Natal supports the policy of the United Party.

But what about Captain Buthelezi’s plan?

What do the Nats from Natal in this Parliament say?

The hon. member for Yeoville must just try and contain himself a little. I should like to have an answer from the Leader of Natal regarding their reaction to this offer and proposal by Captain Buthelezi.

The whole United Party in Natal supports the principles of the United Party which affects all races in that province.

The hon. member evades my question. The hon. member says that Natal supports the United Party’s federation plan. I accept that; after all, we know it. I want to know whether this proposal by Captain Buthelezi is accepted or rejected by the United Party in Natal. [Interjections.] I accept, therefore, that the United Party cannot give me an answer on this, that they are nevertheless giving it consideration, because the Leader in Natal does not want to tell me that he rejects Captain Buthelezi’s proposal. In other words, they are still considering it. Much has been said here about the homelands, inter alia, by the hon. member for Orange Grove, to return to him now.

The hon. member for Orange Grove asked us where the boundaries of these homelands were going to be, and when we would hear about them. I cannot believe that there is a member of Parliament who is so uninformed that he does not know that we are in the process of consolidating these homelands and of drawing the boundaries. The fact that that hon. member still asks this question, indicates to me that he is totally uninformed.

May I ask the hon. member a question? If it has taken 25 years to make a start with consolidation, how long will it take to complete it?

The drawing of the boundaries will probably be completed within a year or 18 months. [Interjection.] We shall return to this point. The lines will be drawn shortly. The hon. member for Orange Grove waxed lyrical about an article by the Rev. Mr. Kruger and the question of casual labour or migratory labour. It is very interesting when one listens to criticism of migratory labour, to read an article in Newsweek, not a Nationalist magazine, of 20th March, 1972, dealing with the matter of migratory labour. When we are dealing with migratory labour, the whole matter is presented as being a problem peculiar to South Africa and a problem which is solely the fault of the National Government. This is the impression which hon. members opposite create to the outside world and the allegations which they make when they say that it cannot work. In considering this question, one first asks oneself the question whether these 800 000-odd foreign Bantu labourers who are here in the Republic of South Africa and who come from Lesotho, Botswana and Malawi are specifically someone’s fault. Whose fault is it?

Who is the Government of the country?

You ask who is the Government of the country? Now I want to ask you a question: Would you allow them into the Republic with their families?

[Inaudible.]

No, you must answer me; you made an interjection. Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member please answer me? Will they allow casual labourers from Lesotho, Botswana, Malawi and other countries into this country with their families?

No.

The hon. members criticize us and say that we break family ties. But are they prepared to allow the casual labourers from Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland here?

They come of their own free will.

In other words, the hon. member for Durban Point alleges that the others do not come of their own free will.

No.

No, but the hon. member says that the others come of their own free will. In other words, he implies that those who come from the homelands do not come of their own free will.

No, they do not have a choice.

Who forces them to come? Sir, let us look at the position in Europe. Here I have very interesting figures. I quote several details—

This gives a total of eight million of them in Europe. The article goes on—

Now, Sir, we come to the question of the family ties. Here they say—

Sir, the point I wish to make is that throughout the world there are temporary and casual labourers who go and work in other countries and throughout the world they are not allowed in with their whole families just like that. There it is the accepted practice. When we do it here in South Africa, therefore, the Opposition has no right to question the morality and the justice of that step. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, after this “non-speech” of the hon. member for Lydenburg, preceded by that of the hon. member for Waterkloof, one finds it difficult to argue with these hon. members. You know, Sir, if these hon. members had not had questions to put to the United Party this afternoon, or if they could not have read from speeches made by hon. members on this side, or if they could not have quoted from newspapers, they would not have been able to make any speeches.

I think we should examine here this afternoon the few points which were made by the hon. member for Lydenburg. He attacked the hon. member for Orange Grove on the matter of the diagram for which we asked that side of the House. I am sorry, Sir, that the former member for Umhlatuzana is not here this afternoon, for he was so presumptuous as to draw a diagram of the United Party’s policy. The hon. member for Durban Point called it a mischievous lie at a public meeting, I also did so at Commondale during the Wakkerstroom by-election and we both challenged him to take us to court. Sir, perhaps they can ask him to draw a diagram for them; he may be able to help them out of their embarrassing position.

Sir, the other point made here by the hon. member for Lydenburg was in respect of the attitude of the English Press towards the policy of the United Party. Hon. members opposite are so fond of quoting from the Sunday Times. I think they should read the Sunday Times a little more often. They will recall this report which appeared in the Sunday Times: “Plan to bring South Africa to her senses.” This is a report which was written by the Sunday Times, the English Press which had allegedly attacked our policy so. This report started like this—

Sir, that is the attitude of the English Press.

May I ask a question?

Sir, the hon. member has already asked so many questions that I can no longer reply to his questions. The hon. member mentioned the question of the independence of the Bantustans and said that if the Bantustans did not ask for independence, they were apparently satisfied to remain as they were. Sir, how absurd can a person be to advance such an argument in this House? And then the hon. member spoke about petty apartheid. He wanted to know from us whether we would, as soon as these states were independent, abolish petty apartheid in South Africa if we came into power. I think the hon. member should have some discussions with the hon. member for Johannesburg West, for that hon. member stated in his by-election campaign in Johannesburg West that as soon as these states were independent petty apartheid would disappear. Hon. members opposite should stop asking questions and repudiate their own members instead. What has been illuminating in this House this afternoon is that hon. members opposite have now admitted that petty apartheid does exist, after the hon. the Prime Minister denied its existence. We find that illuminating. It would seem to us as though we are making some progress after all. And then, Sir, the hon. member came forward with those politics which we ought not to have in the political sphere of South Africa, i.e. those of talking about the Immorality Act and mixed marriages. Sir, I do not wish to be nasty; I would rather not talk about the Immorality Act. The hon. member launched a tremendous attack on the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in regard to his standpoint in respect of petty apartheid. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout stated in this House that under the Nationalist Party mixed marriages were taking place in South Africa; it merely depended … [Interjections.]

On a point of order, Sir, the hon. member for Lydenburg has just said, “Now you are lying”.

Did you say that?

Order! Who asked that question?

Mr. Speaker, I asked it.

No, who asked, “Did you say that?”

I did.

I want to warn that hon. Whip. Did the hon. member for Lydenburg say it?

Yes.

Then the hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it.

On the question of mixed marriages, I just want to say that mixed marriages are in fact taking place in South Africa today. We had the classic case of the Afrikaner girl who wanted to marry a Chinese; she then went to the Race Classification Board, obtained a Chinese identity card and subsequently married the Chinese. What is the use of this legislation in South Africa? Sir, we have reached a state of affairs in South Africa where we have a Government that wants to govern South Africa by way of exception. Hon. members opposite are attacking us on petty apartheid and all sorts of strange things. But I want to ask hon. members opposite why they first refused to admit a Japanese jockey because he was not White, whilst, on the other hand, when we sell iron ore to Japan, they make these people “honorary” Whites. Then there is the question of mixed schools in South Africa. I want to ask the hon. member for Lydenburg whether he knows where the Malawian diplomat’s little girl is going to school. She is attending a white school. Politics of that type we no longer need in South Africa. As regards the hon. member’s challenge in respect of chief Gatsha Buthelezi’s invitation to Natal, I want to put this question to hon. members opposite: If the Whites of Natal were to decide tomorrow that they wanted to federate with Zululand and with the Transkei, what would the Government’s attitude be? Would they allow it? This kind of hypothetical question will bring us nowhere in this country. Sir, I want to tell you that one finds it practically impossible and most difficult to conduct in this House a constructive debate with hon. members on the other side of the House. Hon. members on that side of the House are developing an absolute obsession with trying to make a reality out of the impossibility and the impracticability of their policy. They talk about segregation and about separation and about apartheid, but the voting public of South Africa are not seeing any results in that respect. The problem is that the philosophy of members on that side of the House, the philosophy of separate nation states, the philosophy of fragmentation and of multi-nationalism, is in absolute contrast to the attitude adopted by hon. members on this side of the House, the acknowledgment of a common loyalty by all of South Africa’s people to one common South Africa, the acceptance of a common loyalty of all South Africa’s people to one common South Africa.

May I put a question?

No, I do not have the time to answer questions. Surely South Africa can no longer grope along blindly on this road to nowhere under this National Party Government. Throughout the arguments of hon. members opposite one finds a limited train of thought, that of a so-called White South Africa and never mind the rest. In this polluted atmosphere, in this desperate attempt by hon. members opposite to give substance to what is not reality in South Africa …

Order! What atmosphere is that? Here or where?

I am referring to the policy of the Nationalist Party, Sir.

Just take care not to pollute the atmosphere here in this House.

The hon. the Minister of Mines should rather confine himself to sport, for in that respect he has many problems. Sir, I want to tell you that the only weapon this Government has in its attempt to give substance to this policy or non-policy of theirs, is the weapon of “the United Party or the U.P. people wanting to deliver the White man to the Black man in South Africa”. Sir, those arguments no longer hold any water. Let me say this here this afternoon, as a member of the White community of South Africa, as a member of young South Africa and as a member of this hon. House, we who are sitting in this House, N.P. and U.P. supporters alike, we who are sitting here in this highest public body of South Africa, we shall have to call ourselves to order. We shall have to call ourselves to account, and we shall have to take another look at the problems of South Africa that are facing us. We who are sitting here, we as the privileged White community, we who have the political position of power in our hands, we who control the economic strength of South Africa, should for a change make a reappraisal of our responsibilities towards other race groups and communities that have to face South Africa’s future with us. The other day in the no-confidence debate the hon. member for Stilfontein made a cutting remark here on the skinny Bantu coming here from the homelands and getting quite fat after spending six months here in White South Africa. Sir, I can tell that hon. member that there is no point in making cutting references to those people. They are just as much South Africans as we can wish to be They are our responsibility. They are here, and it is the White man’s responsibility to look after those people in their parlous position, if they are supposedly as skinny as the hon. member said. We as the most civilized and the most developed group in South Africa have a responsibility towards the millions of underdeveloped and undercivilized people in South Africa. And, Sir, this is my concern which I want to express in this House this afternoon. I, as a young South African, who, if it so pleases the Lord, still have a long way to go with South Africa, want to express my sincere concern at the present state of affairs in South Africa. Instead of South Africa and all its people moving closer to one another, extending to one another the hand of friendship, there is estrangement today, people are being estranged and driven away from one another. Where does this Government stand after 25 years of being in power in South Africa? What is the result of its policies after a quarter-century of government in South Africa? It is my conviction that this Government is responsible for the gulf, for the division and for the estrangement among South Africa’s varied people. I believe that this Government is responsible for the division of the loyalty which this country has built up among people over many, many years. I believe that these 25 years will be recorded in the history of South Africa as the quarter-century of estrangement in South Africa.

Where is Koffiefontein?

I did not go to Koffiefontein. If the hon. member did, he could perhaps tell us a few things. What state of affairs have we reached in South Africa? We have reached a state of affairs where seven million Bantu people are sucking a political dummy in under-developed so-called nation states in embryo. We have eight million urban and rural Bantu who are hanging between somewhere and nowhere from temporary permanence in the White areas of South Africa. [Interjection]. We have two million Coloured people who, after 25 years, of N.P. régime, are hanging for their future from a commission which is still to be appointed to solve this problem for the Government.

You were still sucking a dummy at the time.

The hon. member, too, was a child once upon a time. He should not be jealous because I am still young and he is so old. In this country there are 600 000 Indians whom this Government only recognized in 1962 as forming a real part of South Africa. There is no question of solutions being found in South Africa. When we on this side of the House put forward in the No-confidence Debate through the mouth of my hon. Leader an alternative proposal which we believe to be a solution for South Africa, all one finds on that side of the House is wilful ignorance.

What do your newspapers have to say?

A choice has to be made. At the beginning of this session of Parliament my hon. Leader once again gave us a very clear exposition of the dangers of integration and the impossibility of segregation. What have we achieved in South Africa after 25 years of N.P. régime? We know that in 1948 it was Dr. Malan with his apartheid. In 1954 this became Adv. Strijdom’s white supremacy and “the kaffir in his place”. In 1959 Dr. Verwoerd came forward with his moral separate development. In 1972 the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development christened it “multi-nationalism for South Africa”. What do we have today? Where is apartheid in South Africa? Where is the separation in South Africa? Where is the segregation of which we hear?

Now you sound just like a Hertzogite.

Where are the separate nation states? Where is the so-called White South Africa of which this Government has been talking? [Interjections.] The real position in South Africa is that only 7 million of South Africa’s 15 million Bantu are in actual fact physically present inside the Bantu areas. Despite the presence of 7 million people inside certain areas of South Africa, their contribution to the total production of South Africa amounts to a meagre 1,9%. We also know that between 1960 and 1970 the number of Bantu in White areas increased at an annual rate of 150 000. That gives us the total of 1,5 million people who did not return to the Bantu areas but came to the White areas of South Africa. We saw that between 1966 and 1972 the number of Bantu employed by Whites increased at an annual rate of 70 000. The Whites in so-called White South Africa are still dependent on the non-Whites of South Africa, for 90% of their labour in the mining industry, for 80% of their labour in the agricultural industry and for 70% of their labour in industry and the manufacturing trade, no matter how hon. members may want to argue this point. Prof. J. L. Sadie predicted that in order to reduce the number of Bantu in White areas at an annual rate of only 5%, opportunities for employment would have to be created within the borders of the reserves at an annual rate of 181 000. Dr. A. S. Jacobs, a former member of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council, said on occasion that if by the end of this century we wanted to accommodate 70% of the Bantu inside the Bantu areas, we would have to create between now and the year 2000 5,8 million opportunities for employment within the borders of the reserves. What success have we had if we look at the results achieved by the hon. members on the opposite side of the House? In reply to a question put to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration in this House he stated in 1968 that from 1960 to 1966 35 industries had been established at a cost of R1,l million and that employment had been created for 945 Bantu. For the period of the next two years his reply to the same question was that they had established another 18 industries at a cost of R2,6 million and had by doing so created employment for 700 Bantu. In other words, 1 645 opportunities for employment were created over a period of eight years. That is approximately an average of 200 opportunities for employment per year. Now one takes a look at the figure of 200 000 given by Prof. Sadie and the figure of 181 000 per year given by Dr. A. S. Jacobs. It therefore works out at, 1 % of what is regarded by these people as the minimum number of opportunities for employment required for making any aspects of apartheid, of separation and of segregation something of a possibility in South Africa. And then we do not even mention the cost that has to be incurred by the White taxpayer of South Africa. At this rate it works out at R2 000 per opportunity for employment. Now I ask how we as 24 to 3 million Whites in this country can afford this absurd policy. This is what my hon. Leader has in mind when talking about the impossibility of segregation in South Africa. This is what my hon. Leader means when he suggests that economically South Africa cannot afford this policy. Every year thousands of Bantu enter the labour market, some from Bantu areas, but also thousands from the White areas in South Africa. I want to put this question to the hon. members, my hon. friends opposite: Where are these people going to work, in the Bantu homelands or in the White areas in South Africa?

You are only convincing yourself.

The hon. member is free to rise after me and to say that what I am saying is not true. This is how the numbers of these Bantu within the White urban areas of South Africa are growing and how they are becoming a permanent part of South Africa, or temporarily permanent, as hon. members want to put it, in this position of being between somewhere and nowhere in South Africa. They are not getting any stability, they are not getting any family life, they are not getting any permanent residence, and hon. members on that side of the House do not and do not want to acknowledge their loyalty to South Africa. Segregation is still the password. If we in this country do not create peace, friendship and prosperity amongst all the people in South Africa, I want to say here today that we are going to destroy this country for all who are living in it. Without mutual peace, without mutual friendship and without prosperity for all race groups in South Africa amongst all of South Africa’s people, who in this country are not only facing the future along with the Whites, but are responsible along with the Whites for the economic welfare of South Africa and for the prosperity of South Africa, we cannot avert the dangers coming from beyond our borders.

Then we come to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. He accused the United Party of seeing the urban Bantu as a person without national ties, allegedly cut off from the Bantu peoples in the Bantu areas. The Government tells us it wants every people to realize its own nationhood. This is the old story—the sky is the limit. To a limited number of Bantu they want to give everything we supposedly have in White South Africa. The time has arrived for the hon. members on that side of the House to tell us where the Coloureds and the Indians fit into the future of South Africa. This has become a cardinal question, but when we speak to them—segregation is still the pass word—we are told that there is no middle course; we either integrate or segregate in South Africa. The day this Government reaches a position where it has segregated the mass of the Bantu politically and geographically from the rest of South Africa, are they then going to integrate the rest of the people left in South Africa, or are the hon. the Minister of the Interior, the hon. member for Rissik and a few other verkrampte hon. members on that side of the House going to recommend to the commission on the future of the Coloureds that the Government should reconsider keeping a Colouredstan in mind? This is a cardinal question which hon. members on that side of the House should answer for us. In taking a realistic look at the policy of the United Party, I find that this policy—even if hon. members on that side of the House differ with us—makes provision for every situation in South Africa. It makes provision for the Bantu living in the Bantu areas of South Africa; it makes provision for the Bantu living in the White urban areas; it makes provision for the Coloureds and for the Indians of South Africa as well. This is a policy which I do not wish to discuss any further, for it was discussed in the no-confidence debate for a whole week. If hon. members still do not understand it, then it is a case of wilful ignorance. This policy makes provision for any situation in South Africa. That is something hon. members on that side of the House cannot say in respect of their policy.

That is why I do not find it strange that young South Africa is starting to turn its back on this Government. [Interjections.] Hon. members on that side may well laugh, but here I have a report from Die Vaderland, a N.P. newspaper in the Transvaal of 10th August, 1972, with this heading: “Where were the young Nats?” Let me read to hon. members from this report (translation)—

The report goes on to say—

That is what happened to the N.P. congress in the Cape.

Look at Chris Heunis!

Now, I do not know where the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance was. This report went on to say—

That is the state in which these hon. members and the Government find themselves. They expect young South Africa to have confidence in a Government which has no solution for South Africa. Theoretically, this I will concede, they do have a solution for a section of the Bantu, but this side of the House and I are waiting for them to tell us what their solution is for the Coloureds of South Africa. The other day the hon. the Minister of Water affairs referred here during the No-confidence Debate to “the first Republic in South Africa”, which was there for the White man of South Africa. After that he referred to the policy pursued by us on this side of the House and said this would be the second Republic” for South Africa; this would be a “mixed Republic”. I want to put this question to the hon. members opposite: Are they going to share with the Coloureds that first Republic which they established in South Africa, or are they not going to do so? If they are going to share it with the Coloureds, it will also be a mixed Republic. I want to say here today that hon. members on that side of the House will have no alternative other than accepting the principle—I am not saying the policy—of this side of the House, i.e. that of federating with the Coloureds, the Indians and the urban Bantu of South Africa at some stage or other.

Mr. Speaker, in the final part of his speech the hon. member for Turffontein referred to the fact that the youth of South Africa have supposedly turned their back on the National Party and that they support the United Party. Now I want to tell the hon. member for Turffontein that the hon. member for Johannesburg West is sitting over there on his left. Since there are two universities in Johannesburg West, and a training college and since there are many young people, what was the result of the election in Johannesburg West? The result was that we have a Nationalist sitting over there with a greater majority than at the previous election, and that was because the youth have confidence in this National Government and give the National Government their support. I cannot hold it against the hon. member for Turffontein for speaking in the debate this afternoon as he did, because—and I do not want to offend the hon. member—before 1948 he was still a very young man—I do not know whether he had yet been born or whether he was still sucking a dummy. The hon. member need not tell me that I am jealous of his being so young, because I am almost as young as he. I cannot hold it against that hon. member for speaking as he did this afternoon, because he does not know the history of the United Party. After all, that hon. member does not know the history of the United Party during the years prior to 1948. He says that this Government has prejudiced co-operation between the population groups in South Africa. If there ever was a Government which, through the years since 1948, has brought about cooperation between the various population groups in South Africa, it is this very National Party. I still remember very well the years when that side of the House was governing South Africa, when there was no place for an Afrikaans-speaking person here in South Africa … [Interjections.]

I can still remember very well that there was no place for an Afrikaans-speaking person in the Civil Service and elsewhere. An Afrikaans-speaking person had to fight with his back against the wall for every forward step he took. Then that hon. member has the impertinence to say here this afternoon that this Government has done nothing to promote co-operation. I can contemplate history, these 25 golden years of the National Party—the hon. member for Durban Point has said that we are holding our “Big Brag” now—with gratitude that it fell to us to be able to govern South Africa for 25 years. I have spoken about the “Big Brag”. I shall come back to this tomorrow, but I should just like to refer in passing to the “Big Brag” of those hon. members. Last year there was a “Big Brag” for them too after the election at Brakpan. Unfortunately that big brag was only a temporary thing for them, but we shall deal with it tomorrow. One would really have expected the hon. member for Turffontein to get up and thank the hon. the Minister of Finance for this Part Appropriation he has introduced, because of the important announcement which has been made in connection with the increase in the salaries of Post Office workers and of our civil servants. The hon. member referred to obese people, but I want to tell him that when looking at hon. members sitting in front of me, particularly the hon. member for Durban Point, it seems to me as if all of them are living off the fat of this land, probably not only the hon. member for Turffontein. Mr. Speaker, in the financially troubled times in which we are living—because monetary crises occur from time to time throughout the world—I expected hon. members to stand up and thank this Minister that we have a Minister of Finance such as he in these times. I want to give you the assurance, Sir, that it will be recorded in the annals of the history of our Ministers of Finance in South Africa, that we had here not only a man who was one of the best, but one who was the best, in spite of the fact that hon. members, when they were in their “Big Brag” stage last year, said, among other things, the following in the Sunday Times of 6th February—

Then the report continues—

Now I want to say this to the hon. the Minister of Finance. He must not take offence at what they said at that time. You know, Sir, that was their “Big Brag.” It was just after the Brakpan election. We still recall how the hon. member for Durban Point was blossoming forth. He adopted a proud attitude. He already saw himself as Minister of Defence in the not-too-distant future. I still remember so well how each of those hon. members came walking into this House like a cat with seven tails. The hon. member for South Coast was licking his lips, because he would become Minister of Water Affairs after a long, illustrious political career. The Minister of Transport has in fact already on occasion described this very effectively here. I am thinking of the hon. member for Durban North, but at this point I must say that the shares of the hon. member for Durban North were very high at that time. I do not know—if there were to be a change of Government now—whether they would make the hon. member for Durban North the Minister of Justice. Sir, I went to the trouble to page through the newspapers of that time. I want to tell you, Sir, that they make interesting reading. I am going to keep these newspaper cuttings of mine. I think they will also make interesting reading for my grandchildren. In them I saw how the newspaper of the United Party, the Sunday Times, had dropped them, as I will prove to you in the course of my speech. On 6th February that staunch ally of the United Party, under the heading “A Bankrupt Government” wrote as follows—

Then they proceeded to furnish the contrast.