I have to inform the House that my attention has been drawn to a report which appeared in Die Transvaler yesterday under the heading “Volksraad met vyf L.V.’s vergroot”. A similar report under the heading “Transvaal kry drie nuwe setels by” also appeared in Oggendblad yesterday. As details contained in the Report of the Select Committee on the Constitution and Elections Amendment Bill were published in these reports before the minted Report was made available to members and the Press later the same morning, the newspapers acted in conflict with Standing Order No. 173 and, in my opinion, committed a breach of privilege by so doing.

I wish to emphasize once again that, in terms of a ruling by Mr. Speaker Jansen in 1935, as confirmed by me in 1964, the report of a Select Committee does not become public property when it is presented to the House, but only when it has been printed and made available to members. Yesterday I accordingly withdrew the Press Gallery and Lobby facilities of the representatives of the two newspapers and requested the editors to discuss the matter with me as soon as possible. In the circumstances I do not consider further steps to be necessary at this stage.

The question of the restoration of Press facilities will be considered after I have interviewed the editors and after a suitable apology has been published in a prominent position on the front page of each newspaper.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, when I moved the motion of no confidence at the beginning of this session, I was constrained to say that although the Government had been in power for 25 years we were no nearer the solution to the major problems with which our country was faced. Now, after six months, after the Government has celebrated 25 years in office, these problems seem to me to be even more dangerous than they were at the beginning of the session. When one looks back over the session, there are certain developments which I think one must take account of if one has the interests of South Africa and its security, both internal and external, at heart.

The first of these, I think, is the international situation which appears to be becoming ever more threatening to South Africa. The Minister of Foreign Affairs was able to give us very little for our comfort in the discussion of his Vote. It became perfectly clear that the policy of dialogue with the rest of Africa, with one or two less important exceptions, had failed miserably. It became clear, too, that international pressures were building up devastatingly. In tact, the Minister’s statement was a Jeremiad, and well it might be, for he had one failure after another to report. And now, Sir, with the coming of what is called “peace” in Vietnam, it seems clear that all the propagandists in the Western world, whether they be communists, whether they be anti-apartheid or whether they be just do-gooders, will be turning their attention from Vietnam to Southern Africa and ourselves in particular, and the prospects look anything but bright. Obviously the pressures are going to be enormous not only on this Government but also on individuals and corporations seeking to do business or conducting trade with South Africa, or seeking to supply us with that investment capital which we so desperately need for our development.

The second development during the session which I think is one of which we have to take note, was the growing pressure upon us in connection with South-West Africa and the unrest that is building up in the territory itself. Clearly the continuation of negotiations through the Secretary-General of the United Nations Organization seems to have reached a point of crisis. The next few months may be most difficult for South Africa.

Why talk about a “crisis”?

A “point of crisis”.

Why talk about a “crisis”?

I think the hon. the Prime Minister knows as well as I do that it is undecided as yet as to whether negotiations are to continue.

Yes, but why call it a “crisis?”

Why not? It is a crisis; it is very much a crisis. But, Sir, I go further. Not so long ago we would have been confident of the outcome of a referendum, if that vehicle were chosen to decide the future of South-West Africa. Today things do not look so happy. Even the Advisory Council, which has been brought into being by the Prime Minister, now seems to be making very slow progress indeed. I think the fact that both Red China and Russia are serving on what the United Nations call a “Committee for Namibia” is another development which is both comparatively new and disconcerting at the same time.

Then, there is a third factor which I think was noticeable during this session, and that is the growing evidence of communist activity in Africa and in the Indian Ocean. There is no doubt that both Russia and Red China are exploiting the situation in the knowledge that the entire Southern African seaboard is strategically important, that the agricultural, industrial, and above all the mineral wealth of South Africa can play a very important part in the strategic balance of power in the world. The two countries therefore have a common aim in seeking to wrest South Africa out of the orbit of the countries of the Western world. Their techniques differ, but their objectives seem to be the same. The one, Russia, has been offering mainly industrial and technical aid to the emergent states in Africa. Red China, true to the precepts of Mao Tse-tung, has tended to offer agricultural aid. But more recently, Sir, their efforts are becoming more significant and more sophisticated, and it is very significant indeed that the reports that are available seem to indicate that the Tanzam railway, which the Red Chinese are building, is going to be finished ahead of schedule. Only then will we have an indication as to whether their purpose is colonization and the destruction of the present order, or mere subversion of the present population from the West. I suppose, Sir, we will get a clear indication when it is decided whether the 17 000 or so military workmen who have been occupied on title railway are to go back to China or stay in Zambia or other parts of Africa.

Then, Sir, there is a fourth factor and that is the increase of terrorist activity on our northern boundaries. That increased activity is evidenced by the growing casualties amongst our own Police in the north and amongst the security forces of Rhodesia. There is evidence also of murders and other atrocities against civilians. Sir, what has been particularly disconcerting is the double standard which the mass media overseas seem to be employing in judging this situation. This has been evidenced so strikingly by their reaction to the murders at the Victoria Falls of innocent Canadian citizens. Sir, when one looks at possible future developments, it becomes clear that a lot depends on the Rhodesian situation. If that is brought to a speedy and successful conclusion, then a lot will have been done to restore stability in the area in which we operate. If the dispute drags on, then it is very possible that guerrilla activity may proliferate dangerously. I put it no higher than that; it may proliferate dangerously and that, Sir, is a disturbing prospect.

Sir, I have mentioned four factors which are outside of the Republic. Now I want to mention four factors inside the Republic that were notable during the last session. I think the first is the evidence that the Government is becoming increasingly worried about security matters, both internally and externally. Our defence expenditure is breaking all records. We have had reports and evidence of numbers of bannings without trial, at the Government’s behest, during this session.

The second factor, Sir, has been the unprecedented labour unrest amongst our Black labour force in South Africa and the strikes which they have mounted with such remarkable success, strikes which have changed the entire South African scene irrevocably in so far as labour relations are concerned. I have no hesitation in saying that a new situation has been born. It is true that the Government is trying to meet it with the new legislation, which it is not right for me to discuss at this stage but which cannot alter the fact that we shall never return again to the pre-1973 position as regards relations with our Black labour force. What it is all going to mean is not very easy to forecast. Clearly there are going to be developments that are going to result in more emphasis than ever being placed on the permanency of our Bantu labour and our dependence upon that labour. But there is one thing, Sir, that cannot be denied, and that is that there has developed an awareness amongst that Black labour force of the potential power which it could wield, and we would be shortsighted indeed, Sir, if we denied that this realization could lead to difficulties and frictions and tensions in the future.

Nor is that the only fact that can lead to tensions. There is the third point I wish to raise, and that is the vast movement of population envisaged under the Government’s homeland consolidation plans which are creating an area of human relations in which, unless there is the greatest tact and forbearance and tolerance, the most intense emotions can be aroused both amongst White and Black in South Africa. You know, Sir, the movement of even comparatively small groups of people from their traditional homes and settlements has led to difficulties in the past. We should be foolish indeed if we overlooked the fact that the movements now being planned as part and parcel of the creation of nation states, could create great difficulties indeed.

This brings me to the fourth factor, namely the growing area of disagreement between the Government and the leaders of the homeland Governments which it has created. I do not want to deal with many of the statements these gentlemen have been making, nor with many of the demands they have been making not only against the Government but against the Whites of South Africa. But there can be no doubt that their strident voices are being heard outside the homelands, are being heard in the urban Bantu townships and are being heard sometimes outside South Africa. At present the demands are for land and these have been intensified during this session. But there is no doubt that soon some others will follow, the more militant leaders, demanding rights of other kinds as well and rejecting the Government’s entire policy of separate development. I think this attitude has already become apparent from recent utterances by Bantu leaders speaking from the apartheid platforms created for them by the Government. I am going to give only two examples. The one is that of Chief Kaiser Matanzima speaking at Duncan Village near East London on the 6th May. He said—

And he warned that if their land demands were not met, the children of today’s Bantu generation would stand toe to toe with the White man and wrest their land from him. Chief Buthelezi of the Zulu people has been less dramatic but no less emphatic. He expressed the disillusionment of the leaders created by this apartheid policy in that policy. The words he used, in the presence, I believe, of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development at the opening of the first ordinary session of the KwaZulu Legislative Assembly were these—

A policy which engenders such rejection, such resentment, on the part of the people for whom it is intended cannot by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as a solution to the problems of South Africa. It is developing before our eyes as a source of friction and not as a source of racial harmony. No wonder the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is seeking a concensus on Bantu policy. In spite of the impossibility of the position in which he finds himself, he still clings desperately to ideological principles which have not only caused the failure of his own policy but are not acceptable to anyone thinking realistically of the future of South Africa.

Now, all these factors, the eight of them which I have mentioned, involve threats in a greater or lesser degree to the security of South Africa. These are threats which cannot be met by just increased expenditure on defence or by a larger Police Force. They will have to be met and dissipated by other policies and other action. I believe the only way we can cope with these threats is if we are able to present to the world and internally a united front of all our peoples—Black, Brown and White. You see, Sir, just as you require the local population on your side in the face of terrorist infiltration, so I believe we require all our peoples with us in the face of world threats and particularly in the face of internal subversion and internal threats to our security. The question is how we are going to achieve this. I believe there are three essentials. I believe the first essential is that all our peoples must feel that they are progressing materially, that they are enjoying improving living standards, living standards which are improving faster than in the rest of Africa, living standards which are beginning to catch up with the countries of the Western world. I think that is the first essential.

The second essential is that we must have a growth rate economically which will not only enable us to afford to improve those living standards, but will be great enough to provide job opportunities for all those coming into the labour market each year. We must have a rate of growth which will make us powerful enough economically to resist being pushed around by the outside world and which will enable us also to afford the armaments and weaponry that we need for our defence and which will attract much needed investment capital, immigrants and know-how to South Africa.

I think the third essential is that we must so manage our race relations that there is harmony between all our peoples based on the acceptance of a common destiny and a common loyalty to each other and to South Africa. [Interjections.]

I believe that any Government failing to promote these essentials or, for that matter, failing to promote anyone of them is placing South Africa’s security at risk and, in fact, becomes a security risk itself. Let us look against this background at the Government’s record over the past year or two, particularly over this session, first in regard to living standards. Nobody can deny and nobody even tries to deny that today inflation and rising living costs are eroding the progress that we should be making in improved living standards. Responsible journals today are writing about the cost of living explosion and as it being the ugliest of the symptoms giving rise to grave concern over the health of the economy. That was past the middle of last month. It is even readily admitted that the rate of price increases is approaching double figures and by some measure is well into the Latin American class. Let me remind the House that it is not unknown for some countries to adjust salaries monthly, because the rise in the cost of living is so virulent. I hope that it will never come to that in South Africa, but I must confess that some of the figures are frightening, and it would seem that the worst is yet to come.

With the rise in the cost of living from April last year to April this year of 10,2% it is quite amusing to recall that the first economic development programme thought that any cost of living increase over 1,75 per annum was dangerous; yet now it is 10,2%! Food prices are increasing; if they continue to increase as they do it will be something of the order of 17,5% per annum if one is to judge from the period March last year to March this year.

What is more worrying is that our overall rate of inflation does not compare well with that of the more developed countries of the world. I have a list here of 11 of the most important countries in the world. The only country where the inflation rate is growing more rapidly than that of South Africa, is Ireland with all its troubles, with an inflation rate calculated at 10% as against South Africa’s 9,9%. When you look at the other Western countries, you find that our inflation rate is one and a half times as much as that of countries like Germany, France and Belgium. It is nearly twice as much as that of Japan and nearly two and a half times as great as that of the United States of America. The rising cost of living, especially the rising cost of food, always hits the lower income groups the hardest and the very poor hardest of all. That means that many Whites in South Africa are having a hard time, but the overwhelming majority of those in trouble are members of the non-White population. White and non-White find that their living standards are not catching up with those of the Western world, in fact it seems that they are lagging behind even further. What is so galling to the non-White is to feel that under this Government the wage gap between White and non-White is not narrowed but tends to grow bigger, in spite of all the Government has said. It is galling to people to find that because of job reservation, because of lack of training facilities and in many cases because of Government policy, they are prevented from making the best use of their potential ability. I know the Government has made certain concessions during this session; in fact it has heeded some of the Opposition’s advice. I want to warn once again, as I have warned before, during this session, that the most formidable guerilla fighter with which we have to contend is the guerilla fighter Poverty who is in our midst. I want to warn that his weapon is the strike, whether legal or illegal. We should never forget that the man who is frustrated, the man who is hungry, is the easiest prey to the agitator in any part of the world.

What about the growth rate? Over the past two years the growth rate has been most disappointing, in fact it was dangerously low last year. This year, despite all the inducements offered, by the Government, I doubt if it is going to reach the economic development programme target. This means two things. The first thing it means is that there are going to be jobless Blacks in their thousands and jobless Blacks in their thousands mean only one thing to South Africa and that is trouble. The second thing it means is that we are not growing fast enough to become so important an economic force in the world that we will not be pushed around by our enemies.

I am the first man to say that it is not easy to estimate the extent of Black unemployment in South Africa. There are a vast number of “???uestimates” and a vast number of educated guesses. I think that the one that has impressed me most was that made by Prof. Jan H. Lange, professor of Economics at the University of the Orange Free State, who only last month dealt with this matter in a seminar held by the National Development and Management Foundation. He indicated that in his opinion African unemployment was rising at the rate of 100 000 per year. He said that if it was realistically accepted that about 1% of the African population entered the labour market annually it meant that 69 000 new jobs had to be found in the homelands and border industries annually and 75 000 new jobs outside the homelands. Then he recalled that since 1960 fewer than 15 000 industrial jobs had been created in the homelands and border areas. He said that he did not have the current figures but he estimated that less than 40 000 jobs were created yearly in the industrial section outside the homelands and border areas. That indicates a yearly increase in African unemployment, or under-employment to put it at its best, of something like 100 000 each year. He went on to emphasize the seriousness of the situation and he emphasized particularly how serious it was if the potential political and security implications were considered. He reminded his hearers that economic expectations and political sensitivity increase with the increasing literacy of a people. We know that the literacy of those people is increasing, both in the homelands and in the urban areas. He said that he could not help but shudder to think what would happen if increasing unemployment amongst the Bantu was not ended. What he said brought to mind something I read that was written by Paul G. Hoffmann in his book, Powers of Modernization. This man was for 13 years administrator of the United Nations Development Programme. Writing about unemployment, he says:

I endorse those views. What is interesting is that the Prime Minister himself has recognized the dangers of the threat of Bantu unemployment. His Economic Advisory Council in its January, 1973, report for the first time, I think, took account of the rise in Black employment at low levels of growth. I know that it is planning accordingly. But with present government policies I cannot see the sort of growth rate which they have envisaged being realized, which will be adequate not only to do away with the existing backlog of unemployment, but will also provide employment opportunities for those coming on to the labour market each year.

It is against this background that it is so hard to justify Government pressures for the removal of industries to the border areas. It is against the background of this that it is even more difficult to justify provisions which came into force under the Physical Planning Act on 1st June in the Pretoria-Witwatersrand-Vereeniging complex, whereby no factory which is not locality-bound can be established unless its ratio of White to Black is not more than two Bantu to one White worker in that factory. When you see provisions of that kind, and the pressures the Government is putting on people to move into border areas, you cannot help wondering whether the Government realizes the dangers inherent in Bantu unemployment. You cannot help asking yourself whether the Government appreciates the security risks which are involved as a result.

There are many reasons why industry is not expanding the way it should. I think all of them can be laid at the door of the Government. Firstly, because of the Government’s failure to control inflation, prices and production costs have continued to rise, and consequently have inhibited the growth of consumer demand. Already you see vast increases in the prices of motor-cars, increases in the price of steel—we are told that it is going up again —increases in truck and motor-car insurance—in fact, the cycle seems endless and limits demand for industrial expansion. Secondly, you have the high level of Government spending which is leading to more cost-push inflation through pressure on labour and goods in short supply. A very good example is what is happening in the civil engineering industry. Turnover is rising there very rapidly indeed, largely as a result of increased work from the public sector. Capital expenditure by the State on civil engineering works rose by 18% in 1971, and by 32% the following year. We have no figure for this year, but it appears that this year the turnover will be more than double the figure of three years ago. 25% of that is probably due to increased cost of production and increased cost of materials used. Nevertheless, 90% of the turnover this year is going to come from the public sector according to the information made available by that industry.

There is a third factor that has slowed up recovery, namely the devaluation. Despite the hon. the Minister’s prediction last year that it would push up the growth rate, it is still inflating import costs, and is another factor in this cost-push inflation. I have said that the revaluation is going to improve the position, but it is going to be some time before it filters through to the public.

Fourthly, I believe that the Government’s latest budgetry policy, namely foreign borrowing and deficit financing, could easily turn out to be inflationary without involving a real improvement in the growth rate. I am glad to hear that there is talk of an upturn in the economy at the moment. I hope that that talk is justified. I believe that for it to develop into anything really important, the Government is going to have to change its ideas about many things. There are still too many longterm inhibitions on growth, long-term factors which are preventing growth, such as the structural rigidity in the system applying to labour and applying to the training of labour. There is a lack of saving; there is the dead weight of bureaucracy in South Africa and the tendency to secrecy in Government decision-making which is so upsetting to the business world. All these things have induced a hesitancy on the part of the business men to get up and go and get the economy really vibrating once again. I am afraid that, unless those difficulties are dealt with, the slow growth rate is going to continue, and a slow growth rate in a sense means for us a slipping back because there will be such a backlog in the growth rate before long, when one looks at the unemployment situation, that there will have to be a tremendously rapid phase of growth before we can make up that backlog and achieve a high growth rate for the future. There is another thing: A slow growth rate plus cost-push inflation has devastating effects on the man in the street, because he is continuously having to face up to galloping price rises at a time when the general business climate tends to be one of gloom, because of the slow rate, and one of caution. The worst part of it all is that a slow growth rate means that our war on poverty is being slowed up. What is worst, our worst enemy, poverty of opportunity, is taking over more and more.

There is one last thing I want to say about the growth rate and about the slowness of that growth rate economically; one more charge I want to lay at the Government’s door, and that is that I believe that part of our trouble today arises from the attitude which this Government has developed and consciously fostered amongst our White labour force. That attitude has led them to believe that, come what may, they will have Government protection against competition with non-White labour, and that that protection will be there no matter what the pressure and no matter what the demand for an increased growth rate. I want to say at once that this is not an attitude which is conducive to that involvement of our whole labour force in the attainment of national goals which is so vital to fast development, which played such a very important part in countries like Japan and West Germany where the whole labour force seems to be patriotically involved in development and a growth rate necessary for the prosperity of the country. I believe that that is a situation which is going to have to be changed and changed pretty drastically pretty soon.

This really brings me to what I regard as the third essential for our security, namely harmonious race relations based on the acceptance of a common destiny for all our people with a common loyalty to each other and to South Africa. There have been too many debates in this House, during this session and over the years, for us not to have a very clear idea of the approaches of the two main parties to this problem. We all know that the Government does not accept that all our peoples of South Africa have a common destiny, although it sometimes does seem a bit uncertain about the destinies of the Coloureds and the Indians. Nor does it accept that we all have a common loyalty to South Africa and to each other, because it seeks to promote separate loyalty to separate states. Once again, it seems to be a little uncertain about what the position will be if those separate loyalties are not acceptable to states who refuse to accept independence. Well, Sir, such an attitude must be judged by any standards as a threat to our security. Because when we cease to seek common ends, frictions will inevitably develop, frictions which can so easily develop into hostilities between the different peoples.

As I mentioned earlier, a further step is to be taken on this dangerous road through the proposals for the consolidation of the various homelands, which is going to involve the moving of many hundreds of thousands of people, both Black and White, from their traditional homes to other areas. I know this decision has already been debated in this House, and therefore I cannot discuss it any further. But I think I must warn that it is going to be an operation which is fraught with many dangers to harmony in our country. I have to identify it as part—a very dangerous part, I may say—of a grand plan which I am convinced is going to prove to be a failure. I say that it is doomed to failure because there is a mass of evidence of mounting disillusionment, not only amongst intellectuals, but also amongst many supporters of the Nationalist Party, at the slow progress and the impracticability of this policy of separate development. One finds examples in many authoritative sources, and from people who must be distilling the views of others. Now, Sir, when they talk about the policy, they talk of “slagspreuke”, whereas in the past they used to talk about “geloofsartikels”. I think that makes the difference very clear indeed.

“Geloofsbelydenis.”

They used to talk about “geloofsartikels”, but now they talk about “slagspreuke”, because they realize that it will never be possible to implement them.

Gen. Smuts used to speak of a “magical word”.

Yes, apartheid has been a magical word for this Government, but I believe it is the word which is going to be put round their necks when they are chucked into deep water, and it will sink and drown them as sure as anything whichever drowned a political party in South Africa.

It is a dynamic policy.

Yes, Sir, it is a dynamic policy, progressing backwards all the time. In addition to the criticisms levelled against the feasibility and the practicability of the policy, as well as the progress made and the lack of development inside the Reserves, we have had something else. We have the uneasiness developing in many intellectual Afrikaner circles, expressed in many of the Afrikaans-medium newspapers, uneasiness over the injustices and the humiliations as a result of petty apartheid. It has developed in momentum over the years, and it has engendered a vast amount of sympathy and interest, and the implications for Black-White relations cannot be ignored.

Just look at Japie’s facial expression.

I believe that the facial expression of the hon. member must be registering approval at the reaction he is finding on the other side on my raising an issue which is definitely beginning to have such an effect upon the people of South Africa. Whether the Government knows it or not, a change in attitude on the part of the people, even if not a change of attitude on the part of the authorities, is very much in the air at the present time.

You said that 15 years ago.

Yes, and there have been many changes, and the Government has been trying very hard to steal many aspects of United Party policy … [Interjections.] … never more so than during this session of Parliament. What has happened during the session is that the militant statements by Black leaders, of which I gave examples earlier, and the obvious success of the striking workers in South Africa, have contributed very considerably to the feeling amongst many Whites that they will have to change their attitude. I believe that that is one side of the picture. There is another side, and the other side is that many Whites, the more intelligent ones, have for some time been accustoming themselves to change, either as an inevitability or as a voluntary morally or economically motivated adaptation. I think a perfect example of that is the mixed Games initiated by the Government. Those Games were a perfect example of change under pressure. Of course, the attempt to maintain such racial contact on a nation to nation basis is doomed to failure. The Government has not thrown in the towel yet. Nevertheless, whether it knows it or not, a change is coming. Another example is the about-face in the last Budget on the question of labour. I refer to in-service and pre-service training. In addition, we now find that what were before migrant labourers or temporary sojourners, have a “temporary permanency” in the urban townships. In addition to all this, Sir, you find that the Government itself is beginning to recognize the unreality of its policy for the urban Bantu.

When are you publishing yours, by the way?

I believe this week; I shall send you a copy. You will not find much in it that I have not told you already.

No, I shall not find much in it at all.

Oh yes, you will. Sir, to return from the hon. the Prime Minister’s digression to the urban Bantu, I may say that there has been talk amongst Nationalist supporters for some time of a new deal for the urban Bantu. So far very little seems to have been done. The new Deputy Minister is certainly evincing a new spirit. There is nothing yet to show that he has either new ideas or that he is going to be allowed to apply them if he has them. We await a demonstration from him with great interest. Thus, Sir, the whole question of the urban Bantu remains as dangerous as it has ever been, and as much a potential flash point for trouble as it has ever been in the history of South Africa. When you take an overall look at Government Bantu policy, you find that however dangerous it would be if it succeeded, it is going to be more dangerous when it fails, and fail it is going to. I believe that either way it is a threat to our security, physical, political and economic.

I think the Government has been hardly more fortunate or successful in its policy in respect of the Cape Coloured people. There has been a little progress this session, it is true. We hear that there is going to be a fully elected council after their next election. Some additional powers are going to be passed to the Coloured Representative Council, but the broad picture of the road in which policy is moving is just as confused as it was before. Or, Sir, was there perhaps a ray of light in the statement by the Minister of Coloured Relations in a recent debate in this House when he made it clear that he did not agree with the view that there were only two alternatives in respect of non-White policy—total segregation or total integration? He said that that was language that was used 25-30 years ago. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir, it was. In fact, it was used 25-30 months ago; it was used, I believe, 25-30 days ago, because it has always been accepted as the fundamental tenet of the philosophy of that party that there are only two alternatives, total segregation or total equality; that there is no third road. Can it be, Sir, that this hon. Minister believes that there is a third alternative, something for which the United Party has always stood? If he does believe that and if he has the backing of the Government for it, then I would like to tell him that we would like to hear about it very soon indeed, because in the meantime relations with the Coloured people are deteriorating faster than ever.

Sir, I said that there were three essentials and I indicated that they were necessary to unite our people in the face of internal and external threats, and I indicated that any Government failing to promote those essentials adequately, or for that matter any one of them, was placing South Africa’s security at risk and was a security risk itself. I think I have said enough this afternoon, Sir, to make it clear that this Government has failed not in one essential but in all three, and as such it has become a security risk for South Africa which should not and cannot any longer be tolerated by the people. Sir, what should we be doing to improve the living standards for all our people? I believe that we shall have to start by doing some of the things for which I have pleaded before. Firstly, Sir, we would have to take emergency measures to increase materially the wages of our lowest-paid industrial workers, and that should be a Government responsibility; secondly, that we would have to go back to the basis of the war years and have regular adjustments of wages and salaries to keep pace with rising living costs. You must remember, Sir, that because of the slack that can be taken up in many industrial concerns, those steps could be taken with very little effect indeed upon the inflation rate in South Africa. I do not believe, Sir, that we could have increased wages without greater productivity but I believe increased wages could bring a greater willingness to co-operate in schemes for greater productivity, especially if those increases tend to narrow the gap between White and non-White wages in this country. Then, Sir, fourthly, the Government must not only co-operate in removing the restrictions on the use of non-White labour, but it must act to destroy the impression it has created over the years that advances by non-White workers must be to the detriment of White workers. I believe that with the aid of its officials in the Labour Department and in consultation with the trade unions, it must open new fields for non-White workers and do its best to foster that feeling of involvement in the attainment of national growth. Lastly, Sir, the Government has got to establish proper channels of communication between employer and employee, where employees are not recognized under the Industrial Conciliation Act. Sir, I know that there is legislation before this House dealing with that subject, and therefore I will not say anything more about it, save to add that while we are supporting it we feel that it does not go far enough and that it does not bring us a final solution to this matter.

So far, Sir, the Government has not had the courage to take any of the steps which I have outlined above. I wonder if it will be a little braver in what I believe is the next big step we should take, and that is to strive to improve living standards by an all-out assault on the inflation front. I think the hon. the Minister of Finance has shown a little courage. He has revalued by 5%. We go along with that, but I do not think we must put out of our minds the possibility of a further upward revaluation, with our balance of payments as strong as it is and the position of the dollar by no means stabilized. But I think we have to do more, Sir. I think in this time of spiralling living costs and inflation we have got to examine the possibility of higher subsidization of foodstuffs in South Africa—higher subsidization from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, not from the industry concerned—and I believe that we should also consider selective importation of foodstuffs to try to keep down the prices of certain articles. I also believe, Sir, that the hon. the Minister of Finance should reduce sales duties further on certain essential commodities in order to tide the poor people over this period of bad inflation. Then, Sir, I believe that we have got to embark on crash training programmes for increased productivity and the acquisition of greater skills in our labour force, both White and non-White. Of course, in the long run, improving living standards is going to depend on a higher rate of economic growth, and I think we can only achieve that if we get rid of some of the problems with which the industrialist has been faced up to now. I think we have got to get rid of the bureaucratic bottle-necks and practices which so hinder and irritate the business community. I think we have got to plan a massive increase in labour productivity by ensuring that we have a better educated and better trained labour force, that we get rid of job barriers and that we move workers on a large scale from the less productive sectors to the more productive ones. That is going to mean moving workers from things like agriculture and the service of the State into more productive things like private manufacturing or the service industries. I have some figures, Sir, which seem to indicate that of the economically active population 30% and 13,7% respectively are employed in the Government sector and in agriculture; their contribution to the gross domestic product is only 9% and 9,6% respectively, whereas in sectors such as private engineering 13,2% of the economically active population are employed and they are contributing over 23% to the gross domestic product. Sir, I believe that the situation is serious, and I do not believe that any member of this House should leave for the recess without taking with him the responsibility of finding urgent solutions to the problems of fairer living standards for all our people and the creation of fairer opportunities for all our people in South Africa.

Sir, we are faced with problems with which many other countries are also faced. We are faced with a population explosion; we are faced with the problem of capital-intensive technology against a labour surplus; we are faced with migration from countryside to city, and we are faced with this big contrast between the haves and the havenots, and we must never lose sight of the fact that the biggest political upheavals in recent history have occurred in the countries with the highest rate of unemployment. Sir, we cannot plead ignorance any more. We have plenty of evidence that things cannot stay as they are. I think the strikes this year brought that home forcibly to many of our people, and they were only aggravated symptoms of years and years of frustration and submerged unrest. I believe that we have thousands of people in our country who are aware of the problems, people who are seeking solutions, people with the economic and sociological knowhow to help supply the solutions. We have as well the example of successful attempts in other parts of the world where these problems have been tackled and overcome. I am afraid, Sir, that the trouble is that we have a Government which has not got the guts or the desire to tackle these problems which are the result of its own policies. They have made concessions, but piecemeal concessions are not enough. They are even dangerous in that they camouflage the fact that we need an entirely new approach. You see, Sir, tinkering with pieces of a giant jig-saw, the jig-saw of co-ordinate development, is useless. The new pieces never fit into the old picture. What we need is a totally new image for South Africa, a wholehearted commitment, designing each piece to bring about a new vision for the future. That vision, I believe, has to be co-ordinated economic growth, co-ordinated political development and harmonious social relations, free of compulsion and free of harsh interference.

I think we have to decide how we are going to live in South Africa, how we are going to go on living here. Are we going to try to get away from needless discrimination? Are we going to let our various peoples shoulder the responsibility of taking decisions about themselves but sharing in the decision-making which affects all people? Are we going to ask for the greatest security and the greatest progress and the greatest happiness for all our peoples? I think we all know that the time has come for a change in South Africa. But what we need most of all is a change of Government and a change in the Government’s outlook.

I believe a constitutional change cannot stand on its own. It has to be accompanied by a number of things. I believe that at times it has even to be preceded by certain things. I believe that if we want successful constitutional change it is going to be necessary, firstly, to take steps to remove unfair discrimination, to root out this cancer of petty apartheid and to ensure that the dignity of all men and women is respected in South Africa. I think secondly, we have to take steps to ensure economic and social justice for all sections of the community, so that all who do a fair day’s work will receive fair pay and are enabled to maintain fair standards of living. I think, thirdly, we have to take steps to provide the educational and other opportunities for the advancement of all our people.

Now, all these steps are a part of the United Party’s federal plan which seeks to meet the challenge of our time, with a system of government under which the different communities can grow together in peace and prosperity and security for us all. I believe that plan, even at this early stage of development, can head off confrontation by providing consultation and productive co-operation between all racial groups and by offering also a framework for the sharing of power based on mutual understanding and mutual consent. I believe that that plan also holds out hope for the future which other alternatives, certainly those offered by the Government, do not.

The 16th edition.

My friend says it is the 16th edition. I believe it must be the 116th edition of Government policy which we have had this session. It has changed not only from session to session, but also from week to week and from day to day. That is why Government members are so sensitive about any adaptations of policy. But nothing that they say will change the fact that their policies have failed, and their continued application in the face of the incontrovertible facts which prove their failure are inimical and harmful to the security of South Africa and of every citizen in it. I believe if you want security, if you want peaceful progress in South Africa, you must realize that you will never get it from this Government. The only Government you will get it from is a United Party Government with its federal plan.

Mr. Speaker, we have come to the last major debate of this session of Parliament, a session which has taken an interesting course for both of the major political parties, in the sense that when we look at the Opposition party, we see that it has a tragic session behind it, a session in which it has taken one retrograde step after the other, a session which started with a major build-up being given to its political leaders, as is usually done before every session, a buildup which was gradually eroded, not only by this session, but also as a result of an inherent struggle within that party, as a result of differences in that party, which have also become apparent outwardly—and nobody has any doubt about that—and which have resulted in that party being unable to be itself and being unable to react to the challenges of the times. Here I am thinking of a few minor events. For instance, I call to mind the fact that they rid themselves so quickly of their shadow Minister of Education, of whom nothing but a shadow remained. I call to mind the reports of the Schlebusch Commission, which gave rise to internal struggle and disunity, which, perhaps, do not prevail in the party caucus, except in so far as the hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Wynberg and a few others and also Mr. Harry Schwarz are concerned. However, the Schlebusch reports have forced them into a struggle, the result of which is that their voters outside have been driven into two distinct camps; this is something everybody can read about, and we know this.

This session has led to the United Party’s newspapers, or, at any rate, those newspapers which normally support the United Party, now being able to advance 13 reasons why the party leader and the party policy must go, why the party as a whole can no longer remain. This session has been one in which the United Party has in fact lost ground in all respects. In the same period the National Party, in spite of the fact that at the beginning of the session it was already riding the crest of the wave as far as its power was concerned, has constantly gone from strength to strength.

Last year we did not only win all the contested by-elections with increased majorities … [Interjections.] … and the National Party did not only go from strength to strength in the debates in which it took part, but this year the National Party has also been able to celebrate its 25th year of being in power. For 25 years, under the leadership of four consecutive Prime Ministers, the National Party has held the reins of government and gone from strength to strength so that today we are as consolidated, unanimous, strong and solid as any party could wish to be. In 1948 the National Party had a majority of only five, but that majority has grown to one of more than 70 in 1973. That is a major achievement.

We have now come to the end of this session, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has come along and made the final rounding-off speech. As we know him, he tried to take a general view of matters and to fire a shower of small shot. Thirty, forty matters were touched upon at the same time. I do not know when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will learn that in making a speech in this regard and along these lines, one takes a few points and emphasizes them. One deals with those points and emphasizes them. One does not fire a shower of small shot when one wants to shoot big game; in such a case one uses a decent rifle which shoots one bullet at a time. [Interjections.]

What did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition do? In the first place, he presented us with a very interesting speech on the international state of affairs in the outside world. With that I have very little fault to find. He did not say anything new. He referred to international matters—the Tanzam railway line, the Chinese infiltration into East Africa, which we too are viewing with a heavy heart, and the question of dialogue. In a way he reproached us for our dialogue with African states not having shown more progress. Surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows the position just as well as we do, and if he wants to be honest he will immediately give credit for the fact that the blame for the lack of progress in regard to dialogue definitely does not attach to us. This must be attributed to the fact that Governments which had made a great deal of progress on the direction of having talks with us, had in the meantime been unseated through coup d’etats. I refer to Ghana and Madagascar in this regard. Over such eventualities we have no control. Instead of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition supporting us in our idea of dialogue, he reproaches the Government with the fact that more progress had not been made in regard to dialogue. Surely he knows that the poor progress made by us in regard to dialogue is imputable to circumstances beyond our control.

He also referred to the double standards being applied in the outside world. At last the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has also seen the light, because for years now we have been referring to the double standards in terms of which certain countries are permitted to do certain things without anything being said about them by anybody. In Uganda Amin may send out of his country thousands upon thousands of Asians and murder thousands upon thousands of them, and nobody says a word about it. In South Africa we may not even make a move, and even then the whole world is outspoken about it. It seems to me that in the eyes of the outside world, with its double standards, the concept of human dignity and human rights applies no further north than the Limpopo or perhaps the Zambesi. It is only south of the Zambesi that human dignity and human rights must be respected. North of that river no human dignity counts, no human life counts, nothing whatsoever counts, and they can carry on as they please. I followed the hon. member attentively while he was covering with the whole position, the position of the double-heartedness in regard to the Canadian women shot at the river and the stories we have to believe. This is nothing new.

Next the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the interior. In the first place, with a note of reproach in his voice, he said that it sounded to him as though the Government was growing more and more concerned about state security in the interior. Is he not growing concerned about State security too? Are there not four prominent members in his party who, with him and with us, are concerned about State security? Have they not openly taken a stand with us on the matter? Why do we therefore hear a reproachful tone in his voice when he says that we are growing more and more concerned about state security which is supposedly becoming more and more difficult and more and more trying to maintain?

Is it true or not?

Of course it is true. In addition to that he levelled the reproach that in the maintenance of law and order, we were restricting students without trial. In a moment I shall come back to this when I shall have an opportunity to say more about it.

The second point he mentioned was when he referred to the labour unrest which had prevailed and the strikes which had taken place. All of us are of course aware of the strikes and of the situation, and the hon. the Leader is also aware of the legislation which appears on the Order Paper at the moment and which has already been debated, legislation which represents an attempt to cope with such problems. Strikes in Europe and strikes in Britain which last from six to eight weeks and which paralyze those countries completely, apparently do not upset anybody, but when we suddenly have strikes in South Africa for a day or two, then everybody suddenly thinks that the skies have caved in upon us. Surely these are natural circumstances which one has to handle. The hon. the Leader was also accorded a loud “hear, hear” when he said that the days of before 1973 would never come back. These are facts with which we have to contend; this is a problem with which we must cope.

The hon. the Leader put forward a further standpoint, that of the human dignity of the urban Bantu. I quite agree with him that there must always be human dignity. We must treat people with human dignity. That is true, that is the way it will be and that is also the way it is being done. To the urban Bantu, the worker who is here in a temporary capacity to earn his livelihood here with us, we must, during his sojourn here, make available facilities to the best of our ability, we must make available facilities and we must provide him with what is necessary so that he may maintain an honourable way of life and an honourable pattern of life. There is nothing wrong with that, and we have been doing this all these years and from day to day. This is not something new which we have only learnt now.

The hon. the Leader sounded a warning against the fact that the consolidation of the homelands would bring about a very considerable movement of people who would have to be moved from one place to the other. That is true and we are in complete agreement with that. That must happen, for it is the only alternative to the other possibility, i.e. that all of them have to remain where they are, that there will be no question of its being possible to move them towards one another, no question of a nationalism of their own, no question of rights of their own in their own ranks. If we were to accept this alternative, it would mean that those people would eventually insist on political rights in the area in which they find themselves; in that way they would eventually acquire rights in our political institutions, which would necessarily imply the death-knell of the Whites being rung. It would be impossible for us to handle the situation in any way other than by granting them political rights in their own territories; should we not do that, we would have to share our political rights with them and eventually bow to their majority in numbers. Surely it is self-evident that this is the choice with which we are faced.

The hon. the Leader also sounded a warning in regard to the differences between this Government and the leaders of the Bantu homelands. I would not call them differences, but I want to make it very clear to him that the fact that the Bantu homeland leaders are coming to the fore and talking does not upset me. The fact of the matter is that these people are the products of this Government’s policy. Under the United Party’s policy Chief Buthelezi and Chief Matanzima would never have been able to hold the positions they do at the moment. They would never have been able to emerge, but would constantly have had to walk in the shadow of the Whites in the federal government without having any say in Parliament. They would never have been able to hold these prominent positions. In the second place, the fact that these leaders are as outspoken as in fact they are, does not worry me in the least, for it illustrates the honesty and sincerity of our policy, namely that those people are not parrots and slaves of this Government, but that it is possible for them to act on behalf of their people and to talk about such matters in public in their own right. It is their right to do so. The only difference is that they are now talking in their homelands, that they are now talking in their parliaments, whereas under the United Party’s policy they would be talking with us in the federal parliament itself. This is the difference that exists in that regard. They would use the same words and speak the same language they are using and speaking now.

Having made this tour, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned three essentials which, according to him, had to receive immediate attention. In the first instance, he said there had to be a material improvement in the standards of living of all our people. That is our policy. Our policy is the raising of the standards of living of everybody in South Africa. Our entire economic system is geared for improving standards of living, but I do not wish to discuss that aspect. In the second instance, he mentioned that the growth rate had to be raised. This is a technical field, and economic matters are not my particular province. Other hon. members on this side of the House will discuss that aspect. His third theme was the question of a common destiny for everybody in South Africa, with loyalty and allegiance to South Africa on the part of all our people. The fact of the matter is that in the whole approach of this party’s policy we are concerned with that very task every day. People differ from one another because there is diversity in the unity of God’s creation. These differences cannot be reasoned away; these differences cannot be thought away; these differences cannot be blown away. These are realities and truths which must be taken into account. These differences among people can assume various forms. They can assume the form they do in Ireland, where people speak one language, have one colour of skin, one loyalty to one Government, live in one country and in one State, but where there is one single point of difference, namely religion, Protestantism as against Catholicism. With the best will in the world a well established country such as Britain cannot keep this one point of difference in check, and this has led to bloodshed in a struggle that has already lasted three years. In Northern Ireland there is only one single point of difference among people who are one another’s equals in all other respects. This point of difference may also be a difference in language, such as one finds in Canada and in Belgium. The people there are equal in all other respects, but they have two languages, or three, as is the case of Switzerland. It is this point of difference which is a reality which one simply has to accept. If this is not handled with great strength and conviction, and also with great tact and wisdom, it may lead to conflict and revolution and a bloodbath. A few weeks ago the Government of Belgium fell because of language differences. This was caused by one single difference. This difference among people may also be a difference in colour. America is made up of White and Black Americans, people who have been living in America for more than 300 years and who are Black Americans for all practical purposes. They speak American and have completely severed all connections with Africa. They have completely lost all ties with Africa and form part of the American nation, but the only thing is that they have different colour. Because of this one single difference of colour in that country, these Black Americans and White Americans come into conflict time and again with their Little Rocks, with their ghettos and all the problems arising from these. All these things are happening as a result of just one single difference. This difference can also be one in respect of standards of living, such as one finds in India with its higher and low castes. If one does not handle that difference with great tact and wisdom, it may also lead to bloodshed and revolt, such as one often finds there, or one may have cultural differences, such as one finds in the African states. Here I am thinking, for instance, of Nigeria with Biafra, and everything connected with it and the whole struggle they had there; because of a cultural difference one tribe fought against another tribe. Each of these differences, as I have pointed them out here, has led to conflict, problems and in certain cases to bloodshed in each of those countries.

Here in South Africa, which this Government has been called upon to govern, all these differences which I have just mentioned are present simultaneously. We have religious differences in South Africa, differences ranging from the one extreme to the other. We have language differences, for instance between the most modem English with 750 000 words and, in contrast, the Bushman language, in which language one can only count up to three and has to use the word “many” for any number higher than that. We also have differences in South Africa as far as colour is concerned, in all the categories of it. We have differences in South Africa as far as standards of living are concerned. We also have differences as far as standard of civilization is concerned. We have differences as far as culture is concerned, and all these differences are present simultaneously. In spite of this potential of tremendous conflict and friction concentrated in South Africa and so ordained by the Creator, we have in South Africa peace and love and, as compared to all other countries, the smallest incidence of conflict. We boast of a record and an achievement of peace and calm. It is with conviction that I attribute this to the policy of separate development, which provides each of these groups with every opportunity in its own territory. That is what I attribute the success to. Name me one single place where federation has succeeded. Are we to take a look at the Central African Federation? This was held up to us as a fine achievement in the “winds of change” speech by Mr. MacMillan. What does it look like today?

This policy of separate development which the Government has been carrying through over the years, is a policy which allows every person in his own territory under his own circumstances the maximum of which he is capable, and that is why he does not consider it to be a policy of oppression from outside and does not continually look upon his neighbour as an enemy. That is also why he is prepared to develop and accept this policy. Now I want to say at once that we have not disposed of the problem yet. The foundations have been laid, but we still have to meet a tremendous challenge and several problems. The urban Bantu still present many problems which we have not solved in full and which we are at present solving step by step. The Coloured situation will in time to come present us with certain problems, and this also goes for the Indian position. However, basically we have already laid the foundations on which we are in a position here, with the development as it takes place and as we make progress with it step by step, to solve South Africa’s multi-national problems, should we be granted full opportunities for doing so, to the satisfaction of all concerned, i.e. to the satisfaction of these people and of the outside world. But our troubles are not over yet. I want to agree that we still have many problems and thorny questions, but following a solid course and policy, we are on our way to solving them. We do have problems. Let me say this at once: We are human and for that reason we made mistakes in the past. We shall make some more mistakes in the future because, as I have said, we are not perfect. Perfection is only attained beyond the grave, so we believe as Christians. On this side of the grave we are human and fallible and fraught with error. We shall therefore make some more mistakes; we shall take some more wrong decisions. But on the part of this side of the House there is no lack of integrity, of honest intentions and of dedication to meet this task and to solve these problems, and the whole outside world admits this.

Now one finds hon. members saying, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is one of them, that we must do away immediately with all the friction that goes hand in hand with the so-called “petty apartheid” measures, just to mention an example. How many times have we not tried to find out what their definition of the so-called “petty apartheid” is! Time and again we heard different standpoints, but I think the closest we have come to it has been the idea— and I think I am correct in interpreting it this way—that these are the measures by way of laws or regulations in terms of which a person’s human dignity is Affected. Let me therefore lead the Opposition to the full consequences of what they want to do away with. Let me ask this honestly and frankly: As far as our education is concerned, are the Opposition prepared to allow White and Black to share the same school desks at the same time? Are they prepared to carry this through to that extent? I want to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout with his “petty apartheid”: Is he prepared to have mixed primary and high schools in South Africa? If one tells a person that his children may not attend a specific school, then one affects his human dignity. Then the hon. member must carry it through right up to that logical conclusion. I want to ask another question: What about our transport, i.e. the fact that at the moment we have different coaches or compartments on our trains for different people travelling in the same direction at the same speed? When one tells the one person that he may travel in this compartment but not in another compartment, does one affect his human dignity? Do the hon. members mean to tell me that they are going to fight this?

But what about an aircraft?

I have never slept on an aircraft at night, but one does sometimes sleep on a train at night, as the hon. member knows. I want to carry this through even further: Do the hon. members want to carry through this “petty apartheid”, which supposedly affects the human dignity of people, to residential areas? Do the hon. members opposite want to tell me that if I say that a Black man may not own land in Cape Town, in the Gardens and in Sea Point, I am not affecting his human dignity? If I prohibit that person from owning land in a specific area, surely that amounts to affecting his human dignity. Does the Opposition want to carry it through to that standard? I ask this in all honesty. Let us now speak to one another without mincing matters if we want to meet the problems of South Africa. I say that these measures are measures which, in the interim stage in which we are present, are essential for eliminating racial friction in South Africa. These are essential, practical politics which have nothing to do with ideology. These are practical political measures. They have nothing to do with superiority or inferiority; they have to do with diversity and with the elimination of levels of friction so as to make it possible for people to live together in South Africa in peace and harmony. That is the position.

I want to concede at once that at this stage this policy of separate development does not have all the answers to all the questions, because we are still struggling with questions. I admit this openly. There are certain spheres in which we still have to make a great deal of progress; there are certain spheres in which we still have to find solutions and make adjustments in order to reach that stage. It is a process of development; it is a living organism from day to day.

Now, what does the Opposition put forward as against that policy? Today, just as was the case in the past, the Leader of the Opposition was vague once again, as value as he could possibly be on the details of the federal policy. Six months have now gone by since this policy was announced with a great deal of ostentation, and we are still waiting for details. In the no-confidence debate they did make a few fleeting comments on details, and we immediately exposed them to such an extent that this instruction was subsequently circulated: No further details, chaps; you talk about the broad principles, but not about detail; you may not talk about it; if you do, you are in trouble. What are the facts, Sir?

Has your policy been put down in writing?

You see our policy in practice every day. But your policy is on paper. I want to state this clearly: The United Party cannot spell out its federal policy in detail, because the moment it spells it out in its final details, it will lose one of its two wings—no matter in which direction it is spelt out. If it should spell out the policy finally and say that this White Parliament would under all circumstances retain the supreme authority in their federal system, it would retain its right wing and immediately lose its left wing, along with Mr. Japie Basson, to the Progressive Party. If it should spell out the policy down to its final form and say that the federal “assembly”—I do not want to call it a “parliament”—this umbrella body, would eventually acquire the political authority step by step, and would eventually have the control, the U.P. would lose its right wing and only be left with its left wing. Therefore it cannot spell out the policy in detail.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

No, I do not have time to reply to questions. I have only five minutes left.

Give us the detail of apartheid.

We are now engaged in a debate lasting two days. I now challenge the Opposition to spell out this policy in detail, down to the last letter. We have been waiting for that for a long time. The general public of South Africa is waiting for that. We want to know what the position is.

Where is your policy in writing?

It is possible for one to phrase something so vaguely in writing that it is meaningless.

Yours has not been put down in writing.

Our policy is being implemented in practice. One sees every day how our policy is developing.

Sir, I could continue on this basis, but I do not wish to do so. I want to use the last few minutes at my disposal for another purpose. Let us be honest and serious. The world in which we are living is a world growing more difficult every day, growing more difficult because of various people making contact with one another and because of modern means of transport and of communication, as a result of which the world is getting smaller and people have to deal with human situations from day to day, situations which were unimaginable 20 years ago. It js therefore growing increasingly more difficult to govern any country in the world. That problem is also present in South Africa, not only as far as the international world is concerned, but also as far as our internal position is concerned. We have to do with people and peoples who have awakened in the meantime. One has to deal from day to day with political and other situations which are creating bigger and bigger problems. Now, it is quite correct that there are people who are seeking our downfall, who, under the cloak of religion, are pouring in money for terrorist organizations. Terrorism on our borders is becoming an increasingly bigger threat. The question I want to ask myself is very clear, without any “buts” being attached to it: Where does every White inhabitant of South Africa stand in respect of this matter? Where does every non-White inhabitant stand? I am thinking of this splendid achievement: The other day the Leader of the South Sotho handed over R1 000 to the Commissioner-General to be used for combating terrorism on the borders of South Africa. We appreciate this gesture. But, Sir, I do not only want to ask where the people of South Africa stand; I want to ask where the Press of South Africa stands in respect of this imminent danger? Does the Press stand by South Africa and its people or does it stand with one hand and one foot here, and with the other foot more or less abroad in order to rouse sympathy there? Does it stand inexorably by South Africa with regard to its security position, or does it not? For what is at stake here is not the National Party,— nor is it the Government, what is at stake here is the continued existence of South Africa and the standards to which we are accustomed in South Africa. I want to know this, and I want to ask this very seriously. It is in these difficult circumstances and in this difficult world that we have to govern. It does not matter who is in power; that party will have to govern. Instant solutions and fine words and thoughts are no longer effective in this changed world. The Opposition will find this out yet. Instant solutions do not work in the world in which we are living today. Day after day one has to contend with realities and is often faced with a choice between two evils, and from day to day one has to choose in the interests of South Africa.

In conclusion I just want to say the following in regard to this whole matter: To us as the Government there are a number of tasks which are very clearly lying ahead of us. We must govern this country. I want to give hon. members the assurance that, whether or not this is popular with the outside world, the Opposition or whoever, we shall govern South Africa. By “govern” I mean carrying out our duties in regard to maintaining law and order, ensuring that things are going well for everybody here in so far as this is practicable, and ensuring that South Africa’s security is protected against whoever may be threatening it. In that process we do not ask who the offender is. We do not ask whether it is a student, a clergymen or whoever—when it comes to the security of South Africa and the maintenance of law and order, we shall act, irrespective of whether this is popular or not.

We shall, in the second place, have to strengthen our people inwardly. In the final analysis, the strength of a people does not lie in its numbers or in the extent of its territory or in the wealth of its mineral resources. The strength of a people ultimately lies in its inherent strength, its inner strength as a people and as a nation. Small peoples have ruled and dominated the world, and large, mighty countries have often exercised no influence. We must therefore strengthen our people inwardly, spiritually and character-wise; hence our legislation on drugs, permissiveness, pornography and other things. Such legislation seeks to strengthen our people inwardly and to protect them inwardly against the decay that comes from outside. Are we getting the support for these things in all respects? We did get it sometimes, and we hope to be getting it in the future as well.

Sir, now I just want to express a few final ideas. This Government is founded on four unshakable foundation-stones as far as its policy and as far as the future in this difficult world are concerned. In the first place, we are unshakably linked and bound to the concept that we shall protect at all costs the identity of the Whites as a separate nation; irrespective of by whom it may be assailed. In the second place, we shall ensure that justice is done to every inhabitant of this country, each in his own territory. There each of them will be able to avail himself of every opportunity, to the maximum of which he is capable with the talents and aptitudes granted to him by the Creator. To this maximum each of them will be able to realize himself in his own territory. He will be able to do so fully, and it is also our duty to ensure this. In the interim we are helping those people towards reaching that stage; we are guiding them towards that full development. In the third place, it is our task to eliminate and to reduce to the minimum, where this is practicable, levels of friction in this South Africa with its tremendously difficult composition of people. Irrespective of the way in which we shall have to do this, we shall do so because we believe this to be in the interests of South Africa. Finally, Sir, we believe—and here we differ fundamentally with the Opposition—that one cannot share one’s political control over White South Africa with anybody. This cannot take place under any circumstances. The Whites will govern their people and each of the other groups will govern itself. We do not believe in an umbrella body, i.e. a federal assembly or parliament, which will also have authority over us. The Whites will not share their political rights with anybody.

In conclusion, having done everything we must do, we as a Christian people believe that we must retain faith. Whereas we as a Christian nation bow our heads in faith in this Parliament every day, we believe that we must retain that faith, and in that strength this people will be unconquerable.

Mr. Speaker, it surprised me that the Minister, who is Minister of Information and who ought to know what is happening in the world, could have made a statement to the effect that federalism had not yet succeeded anywhere in the world. I am absolutely astounded that a person who holds the post which he holds can come to light with such a statement. And then, as the only proof of the “failure” of federalism, he mentioned the case of the old Central African Federation. Surely that is no proof. There have been democracies which also failed. There were democracies in Europe which failed, firstly in Germany and then in Italy. For a time it even failed in France. Must we now reject democracy in South Africa because it did not at some stage or another succeed in some other specific country? In the case of the Central African Federation it was Britain, as an outside power, which wanted to force this system on the three units. Two of those units, the old Nyasaland and the old Northern Rhodesia, rejected it from the start because they saw it, correctly or incorrectly, as a method by means of which Southern Rhodesia would dominate them. For that reason Messrs. Banda and Kaunda said from the start that they did not want that kind of federation. It then became a matter of prestige to them to demolish it; but that is no proof that an organic federation, which evolves out of a country itself and which is created from within, cannot succeed. I am astounded that a person in that position should present such an argument here. But, Mr. Speaker, I shall come back to this, and I shall also refer to certain questions which the hon. the Minister put in regard to petty apartheid and in regard to questions of law and justice.

Sir, on 26th May the party opposite had been in power for 25 years.

Hear, hear!

I have said it here before, and I want to say it again, that although this brought no joy to the country as a whole, it is nevertheless an achievement for any party to remain in power for so many years. But, Sir, it ends at that, for the achievements of the present Government have been mainly party-political achievements. That I concede; they have and are achieving much in the party-political sphere. But if one considers—and this is surely the criterion—the pass to which they had brought the country at the end of that 25 years, the most hard-baked Nationalist would have to admit that the Government had not succeeded in solving a single major problem, or even in proving that it had the right answers to the problems of South Africa. What is the position in which we find ourselves today? On our borders the storm-clouds are brewing; there is an increasing and dangerous predilection for the weapon. The South-West Africa issue is developing to a point where it could assume critical proportions. In the sphere of foreign relations we are experiencing one set-back after another, as has just happened again with the intensified opposition of a country like the Netherlands. The Government’s diplomacy is mainly of a defensive nature, and it is being conducted on a stop-gap basis. There is no overall method in the Government’s diplomacy. Let any member opposite rise and tell us what method there is for overcoming the problem of South Africa’s unhappy position in the international world.

We must kick you out.

Sir, the relations between Whites and Coloureds are causing nothing but concern. As to the future of the Coloureds, the Government has reached an impasse; it has nothing meaningful to offer for the future of the Coloureds.

And you?

All that it has been able to do was to give itself a year’s respite by appointing the commission under the leadership of Prof. Erica Theron. I can only hope that this commission will become the eyes which will cause the Government to see what it does not want to see now. Sir, as far as White/Black relations are concerned, is there an hon. member sitting on that side who would say that the position today is better? Sir, we are heading for a confrontation, a confrontation of a far more difficult nature than we have ever had in the past; for it is now no longer a case of one Luthuli who stood outside the framework of the Governments’ schemes and could be put away for life at Stranger. No, it is now a case of eight Luthulis who stand within the framework and who will have to be reckoned with to an ever-increasing extent. Let me make this clear, Sir, that I am not using the name “Luthuli” here in any unfavourable context or meaning, but in the sense of a national leader of stature. Sir, after 25 years in power the Government has given us nothing we can applaud; and it struck me that when their recent “festivities” were held to celebrate the 25th year of power, the enthusiasm was feeble and the applause weak. The fact of the matter is that among the young people of South Africa today, Afrikaans as well as English-speaking, the feeling is becoming more prevalent that the governing politicians are engaged in petty plans, and that they are out of step with the great needs of our time. And now the excuse which is offered time and again is that the Government cannot move any faster than the voters will allow it to do. Sir, that is an excuse which is not a valid one, certainly not in the times in which we are living. The present Government has strong means of communication, strong means of influence at its disposal, and in any case, everywhere in the world, voters react positively to strong and purposeful leadership. At one stage people in our country thought that the hon. the Prime Minister was going to come forward with a strong and dynamic outward policy, linked to a dynamic, internal “outward movement”, but what has become of the outward policy now? One has begun to wonder whether there ever was such a thing as an outward policy. We are still waiting for the hon. the Prime Minister to make a speech in which he himself uses the expression “outward policy”. It is of no avail the hon. the Prime Minister or the Minister of Foreign Affairs saying they are seeking friendship with other countries, particularly with other countries in Africa. That is the ordinary, every-day desire of any country. Every Government has what we term a foreign policy, and that foreign policy amounts to its wanting to be on friendly terms with its neighbours, to its wanting normal relations with other countries, to its wanting a respected place in the U.N. and wanting to be accepted, and, of course, its also wanting normal trade with other countries. This is the ordinary foreign policy, and in this way we, too, have a perfectly ordinary foreign policy. To make friends is simply ordinary foreign policy, but in contrast to that one finds in the world great initiatives, great international moves, international actions which lead to the solution of countries’ special problems.

We have recently had two very interesting examples of this. We had the President of America’s visit to Russia, and his daring visit to Red China. Sir, many of Mr. Nixon’s own people were bitterly opposed to his visit to Red China, but what was the result? He created normal relations between his country and both China and Russia, and put an end to the Vietnam War, which had had such a debilitating effect on America. But there was a far more dramatic example than that. There was the daring Ostpolitik of Willy Brandt of West Germany. Willy Brandt literally boarded an aircraft, taking his Minister of Foreign Affairs along, after he had also sent an invitation to his Opposition Leader to accompany them. He took the initiative in a series of moves which left one breathless at his daring. He visited Russia and Poland, and what was the result in the end? In the end an understanding was forged not only between the Poles and the Russians and himself, but also between East Germany and himself. But it was accompanied by great sacrifices. We read only this morning of the “Historic Agreement” (translation)—

This enables both countries to apply for admission to the U.N. this year. It was a dynamic outward movement to get his country out of certain difficulties. It is going to make a great difference to Europe and to life there, and it is this kind of action we need in South Africa. The outstanding feature of such an action is that the leader in question takes his political life in his hands, as it were, in the interests of his country, and sticks his neck a long way out, as Willy Brandt did, for his people were bitterly opposed to the idea of a recognition of East Germany, to the principle of the recognition of two Germanies. But he stuck his neck out and he took a daring risk at a stage when he had a small majority in a coalition government in his own country. I am mentioning this here because he did not sit down and complain that he could not move faster than his voters would allow, as we hear so frequently from that side of the House. As I said, he took his political life in his hands, and this is the kind of action we would like to have. We cannot allow, as things are developing, the terroristic onslaught which is occurring to escallate as dangerously as is the case at present. Listen, for example, to what the hon. the Minister of Police recently said in a speech made at the Goudstad College of Education in Johannesburg, a very serious speech. I just want to quote a few paragraphs because this is of the utmost importance. He said (Die Burger, 2-5-73) (translation)—

This is a serious warning to South Africa. He went on to say—

When I said this recently in this House, I was attacked for having dared to say such a thing. But that is the situation in which South Africa finds itself. The hon. the Minister then went further and supplied his own answers to the question of what should be done. He said—

He was right. If ever a person was right, then it was the hon. the Minister of Police. But what is the Government really doing to cultivate improved international relations, and to cultivate really improved human relations? Just listen to the way in which the hon. the Minister of Information spoke here today. What is he in fact doing in the form of a major diplomatic move to improve our position in the international world? I am not referring now to the ordinary diplomatic tea and coffee drinking, and the making of a few fine speeches at the U.N. The Government has, for example, succeeded in gaining time with the South-West Africa issue, but is it using that time properly? I have listened a few times during this session to my hon. friend, the Minister of Community Development, the leader of the National Party in South-West Africa. He is the person who ought to be preparing his people for what lies ahead for South-West Africa. I concede that he is not a man who is afraid; he is not a man who is afraid of his voters once he has adopted a certain line, but his difficulty is this. He is the leader of the National Party in South-West Africa, but he is still adhering rigidly to all the old obsolete apartheid concepts of 1948. My advice to my friend there is this. He should return to Windhoek and look the people there squarely in the eye and tell them: In this territory you must prepare yourselves, Whites and non-Whites, and learn to cooperate in all spheres, including the political; if you do not do so there is nothing but bereavement and sorrow awaiting the Whites, more so than the others. He should go and tell them that in that territory they will have to learn to co-operate with the non-Whites, even more rapidly than we here in the Republic. And it can be done. One can have co-operation without loss of identity. One can have cooperation on the basis of group identity, and taking into consideration the pluriformity of the community. This is in fact the whole essence of the federal idea. Wherever in the world federalism is being applied, whether it be as a result of a difference in language, or of a difference in culture, of ethnic or other differences, one finds the basic principle of self-government, on the basis of the retention of identity, but in co-operation, and without the one dominating the other. This is practical politics in so many countries. The Department of Information published a book in regard to the South-West Africa case, which the hon. the Minister could go and examine. That book dealt with the case which Ethiopia brought against South-West Africa, and in that book there appears a long list of the names of countries which were mentioned as examples of where different ethnic groups were co-operating on a federal basis without the one dominating the other. This old story of the loss of identity! My goodness me! Did the Afrikaner lose his identity vis-à-vis the English-speaking sector in the open White community? Did he require separating laws in order to retain his nationhood? Did the Malays lose their identity in the open Coloured community? No! If that hon. the Minister ever uttered one truth, it was that the preservation of a nation lay in its inner strength. It does not lie in the poor protection offered by laws, for laws can never give it that. A nation will ensure its survival and retain its identity as long as it has the will to do so. Once it loses that will to do so, no law on earth will help it. That is the heart of the matter. For that reason we reject these identity stories.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Since the hon. member is dealing with this question of federation, could he explain to us how he envisages the United Party’s policy of federation working without geographically identifiable areas for the different ethnic groups which will find themselves within that federal state?

The fact of the matter is that the federation which the United Party is proposing is predominantly geographic. Of course it is geographic, with the exception of the Coloureds and the Indians and the urban Bantu, for which there are two bodies according to the official policy. The rest have a geographic basis. What is the difficulty now?

May I ask the hon. member a question?

If there is any time left later on, the hon. member may put his question. I am now dealing with the South-West Africa case. I want to say further to my hon. friend, the Minister of Community Development, that the machinery for co-operation should be created now. He ought to inform his people that sooner or later a plebiscite will be held in South-West Africa in which everyone is going to participate. It is far better if the people vote for a system which they can see and of which they have experienced the benefits, and which South Africa has created on the principle of pluriformity. I say that it would be better if they could vote for something like that, than for something which could perhaps be established under pressure from outside and which did not recognize the principle of pluriformity. I hope the hon. the Minister of Community Development will one day, after he has done that, be able to return to the Republic and say to the hon. the Prime Minister that they have created the model in South-West Africa which we could emulate here in the Republic. That would be the best way in which South-West Africa could thank the Republic for the years of protection, assistance and development which it has been afforded.

The hon. the Minister of Police also went further and mentioned the question of improved human relations. Of course that is correct. There is only one way of effectively countering the threat of terrorism. That is to get the entire internal population so far as to form a common front against danger from abroad. I am asking the hon. the Minister of Information whether they are prepared to consult the Black leaders, the Coloured leaders and the Indian leaders, and to ask them directly what it is that is troubling them in their everyday interpersonal relationships, and is causing them to be hostile to the Whites. If he has any doubt about what the answer will be, I can indicate now that the answer has already been given clearly. It is the “baasskap” attitude which finds expression in petty apartheid—the “baasskap” signboards which one sees everywhere in the country. I hope that he if he wants better human relations, will help to eliminate what is humiliating people as quickly as possible. I have on numerous occasions replied to the hon. member there that everyone admits that there are situations for which one does not have immediate remedies. No one denies that, but is that a good reason why one should have unnecessarily humiliating measures, such as separate lifts and separate entrances? That solves nothing and serves no useful purpose. Is it necessary? Must one maintain the visible forms of humiliation? What does one achieve by that?

What about the schools?

The hon. member is talking about schools now. What is the position among the Whites? In Cape Town you have inter alia, an Afrikaans school, an English school, a German school, a Greek school and a Jewish school. What is wrong with that? He must remember that apartheid presupposes coercion by the State, but there is no coercion on the part of the State which states to the German people that they must establish a separate German school in Cape Town, or that a separate Catholic or Anglican school must be established. There is nothing wrong with people organizing themselves on an exclusive basis.

Is language the decisive factor?

Of course there is nothing wrong with that. If people want an Afrikaans school or a White school, it remains their right.

Do you want mixed schools?

Under this Government one already has mixed schools. Where are the Chinese attending school? Surely we know that one already has mixed schools.

Where are they?

Oh, please. I do not want to discuss agriculture now. [Interjections.] The concept that one has to do everything with the force of law, is what apartheid is all about. But surely we did not have this in the old days, and how did it come about that each retained his own identity? What we object to is the coercion which is imposed by the law. We must …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, my time is almost up.

What about the prohibition on property rights in Sea Point, which the hon. the Minister put to you?

I admit that it is one of the problems, but one cannot in any case continue on the present basis in terms of which the White man effects all the division unilaterally, and states that the non-Whites must go, and must live elsewhere. Where does Athlone come from? Before group areas were a law in South Africa, what did the United Party do? The United Party simply created a housing scheme, built a church, a school and a hall, and a community arose there of its own accord. The greatest Coloured city in Cape Town was created under the United Party, without the assistance of the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.] I want to mention another example. What did the Government do in Windhoek? Did they take the people of the old Native location by the scruff of the neck and throw them out? No, it took ten years, and it was the only sensible thing the Government has ever done. It took the Government ten years, but with the construction of houses, of cinemas, of halls and of amenities, the people were gradually drawn from the old locations to the new Katatura. That is why we say there are better methods … In any case, we have … [Interjections.]

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No. Unfortunately I cannot give up any more of my time. What is wrong, when everyone has helped to build a town or a city, like Johannesburg, is then to expel all the Indians from an area inhabited to the extent of 90% by Indians, and remove them to an area 20 miles outside Johannesburg.

That is not the method.

Those are the things we object to. If one had said to those Indians: “Let us sit down around a table and let us arrive at an arrangement together, in terms of which you will receive your share and I mine”, then there could have been no objection to that, and they would have co-operated. What we do object to, and what causes all the resentment and bitterness, is that the White man does it of his own accord, and frequently does it in a selfish way. Here in Cape Town all the best areas and all the high-lying areas are being set aside for the Whites. Take an area like District Six, which was traditionally a Coloured residential area. The Coloureds are being moved out to the Cape Flats, while we take everything for ourselves. That is the kind of action we reject. I want to inform the hon. the Minister that there are various ways in which one can come to an arrangement when one is dealing with difficult matters, but in general we ought to have an open community in which people can for all purposes organize their own private exclusiveness. Once we have done this, we would have a hope of achieving a safer position in South Africa.

You are therefore opposed to forced residential separation?

There should be no Government principle which discriminates unfairly, as is being done today, against another citizen. That story of “loss of identity” in an open community amounts to a motion of no-confidence in one’s own people. In Europe the people live in close proximity to one another, in open communities, but a nation does not lose its identity by doing so. [Interjections.] Personal relations are one level on which we will have to make a sacrifice, but we cannot continue on the basis which we have at the moment. It is true that a little progress is being made here and there. I think it can be said that apartheid is dying a little every day. It has no future, and the Chief Whip knows it. Colour apartheid has no future; we are wasting our time, and the young people are beginning to realize this today. Why not take a really great “outward step” …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I am sorry; my time is up now.

You are really making it very difficult for the United Party now.

If we want safety in this country, we will have to do something in this connection. There is no person who is not interested in the safety of his country. No matter what party is in power, if it does something wrong, everyone is going to suffer as a result of it.

This applies to us all, and for that reason we have just as much of an interest in the safety of the country. If we want safety, it does not begin with the weapon, but with sound human relations in South Africa and sound relations between South Africa and the rest of the world. One cannot have everyone as a friend. There is not a country in the world which has all the other countries in the world as its friend. We shall have our enemies as well, but one should at least manage matters in such a way that if one has enemies, one also has a few allies which will stand by one in difficult times. Where are the allies who will come forward and stand at South Africa’s side? The Government has failed completely in the diplomatic sphere, and also in the creation of proper human relations in South Africa. That is what we have from the Government on that side at the end of 25 years.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of his speech the hon. member for Bezuidenhout virtually tried to preach to the hon. the Minister of Community Development in regard to what he should do in South-West Africa. I want to tell the hon. member that I know the hon. the Minister just as well as he does. The hon. the Minister needs no sermon in regard to how he should handle the situation and the people in South-West Africa. The hon. the Minister will do his share as he has always done. But I want to tell the hon. member that when the Minister arrives in Windhoek, he will put his car in the garage that night and will not need to leave it outside so as to be able to leave in a hurry. The hon. member said that he does not know the hon. the Minister as a frightened man, and I am emphasizing this so as to bring something home to him.

While the hon. member was speaking, a question arose in my mind in regard to what went wrong with the hon. member. In the first instance, I came to the conclusion that he had lost all perspective in regard to history and in regard to the world situation as it is today. In the second instance, the hon. member shows a chronic unwillingness to think and to be positively South African. Previously, the hon. member was different. There were times in the hon. member’s youth when he recognized the essence of the matters that affect a nation, not only as far as the White South African nation was concerned but other nations as well. He gave it his attention and support at the time and he experienced difficulty with his own party precisely as a result of his positive attitude in this connection. But where does the hon. member stand today? He has completely lost it. The hon. member is virtually obsessed with the idea that this side of the House discriminates unjustly in South Africa …

Yes, that is correct.

An hon. member sitting at the back there says that that is correct. I am sure the hon. member has already taken the trouble to consider the policy of his party and everything else and to set himself the test as to whether there is going to be discrimination under the policy of his party if it has to be applied. There is a document issued by the hon. member—unfortunately I do not have it with me today—which will always count against him. The hon. member has accused this side of the House this afternoon of unjust discrimination and all the rest of it.

Unnecessary discrimination.

The hon. member accuses us of unnecessary discrimination, but at a by-election in Otjiwarongo in 1947, that hon. member himself issued a pamphlet under his name with the heading “White Supremacy Our Policy” (translation). He issued it as a member of the United Party.

That matter has also been dealt with here previously.

Yes, the hon. member might have dealt with it but I want to put this qeustion to him: Does he feel so ashamed of his past in this connection that he now has to go to these extremes? In view of what he said here this afternoon, I want to put him to this test: Do you not want there to be legislation to prevent a Bantu, a Coloured or an Indian from living in Sea Point? That is the impression I have gained from what the hon. member said here. The hon. member must tell us this afternoon whether it is a policy of his party to abolish residential segregation. The hon. member is going a little further than the hon. member for Wynberg went in the past. The hon. member or someone else on that side must now tell us, in view of what they have said here this afternoon, whether it is the policy of the United Party to abolish residential segregation. In view of that speech I want to appeal to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to clarify, during the course of this debate, what is happening in regard to what the hon. member said. I have said that the hon. member has lost his perspective in respect of the course of history and in respect of the world scene. The hon. member told us about the visit of Mr. Nixon and also of Willy Brandt to Moscow, as well as of President Nixon’s visit to Peking. The hon. member said the other day that we must get away from the idea of “Accept us as we are”. Does he think that when President Nixon visited Moscow and Peking, Moscow and Peking changed themselves in order to make themselves acceptable to Mr. Nixon? This is, after all, the reality of the world in which we live. We are different.

Of course they have changed their policy.

We are different nations with different directions and views in regard to policy, but we can find one another. The hon. member’s perspective is so wrong that he comes along here and says: Just look at the position we have here after 25 years; storm clouds are gathering on our borders; the South-West Africa situation is coming to a head; and we are experiencing one setback after the other abroad. Did we hear anything positive about this country. South Africa, this afternoon—apart from the Government— from the hon. member? I want to tell the hon. member that he has lost his perspective completely over the past few years. The hon. member is no longer able to look at his country in a positive light. If the hon. member wants to use as an example the fact that the Netherlands Government of Mr. Joop den Uyl has turned against South Africa, in view of certain steps that he has taken, and that this then is proof of the deterioration of our foreign relationships, then for every Joop den Uyl, I can mention other examples to the hon. member which count positively in favour of South Africa. Only last week the French Prime Minister and Minister of Defence said in the presence of a Black reporter from Africa that they would continue to help to strengthen South Africa to enable her to assist in the defence of the West. The hon. member overlooks this fact. In Cape Town during the past week there were two former Ministers of Finance of the economic giant in Western Europe, West-Germany. These gentlemen were in contact with the Government and probably also with the Opposition. The hon. member overlooks this fact. In their discussion with us, these people are full of courage and full of faith in this country of ours. They have far more faith in this country than the hon. member has shown here this afternoon.

Attack Lourens Muller.

The hon. member says that storm clouds are gathering on our borders because of terrorist threats. We do not deny it. But then I want to ask the hon. member whether this fact is to be laid at the door of the policies of this Government? What has become of the hon. member’s perspective? Just see what is going on. International communism, Yellow and Red communism, are playing a longterm game of chess and the desired project in their eyes is Southern Africa.

If then this Government are the offenders, what have Mr. Ian Smith and his people done in that the terrorist threat to them is worse than that to ourselves? If what the hon. member says is true, what then have the Portuguese in Moçambique and A ngola done? And what did the British do in Kenya in that they had to leave that country? And what did the Belgians do in the Congo? But our position is completely different to theirs. We are not here temporarily as they were there temporarily. We are not a colonial power; we are the Republic of South Africa, we have only a small population, but a population with a tremendous potential. This is a country with people who have the will to live, the majority of whom do not subscribe to the attitude of that hon. member. We are a small country, small in numbers, but with a White population that has determination, courage and faith. The hon. member spoke about the past 25 years. What are the reasons for the unique world achievement of 25 years of government by one party in the Western world? The reason is that this party has recognized, supported and promoted the essential things that accompany the growth of a young nation. It has done this over the years. The hon. member will be the first to agree with me in this regard. There must be a particular citizenship for a particular nation. We did not have that.

That side of the House opposed us bitterly, to the extent of night sessions, when we brought this about. Afterwards they accepted it. A particular nation must have self-respect, its own flag and its own national anthem. These things were provided by this side and, only afterwards, accepted by them as well. A nation with self-respect wants to govern itself and to be completely autonomous. That is what this side of the House did. It made our own courts our highest judicature. These steps were opposed by that side of the House which accepted them a decade or so afterwards. I can continue in this way to show that it was the fundamental South African thought of the National Party that made it strong, made it grow and gave it momentum. History relates that it did not have the support of that side of the House for these necessary things which a nation must have to be able to grow. But that is not all. Because this is the history of the National Party Government, and because it believes implicitly in those things that are necessary to stimulate the growth of a nation, it has always been its attitude that every other nation should not be denied these things and should be assisted in that process. That is why the policy of separate development came into being from our own South African thinking. This is not a policy that was thought out thousands of miles away in “colonial offices” or in similar departments of other countries. This is a policy that was thought out here and that came into being from our own experience. Now we come to the test.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout gave us to understand that the policies of this side of the House were jeopardizing the security of South Africa. If ever I have heard the most arrant nonsense, it is that which I have heard talked by those two gentlemen here this afternoon. The opportunity for nations to come into their own and to develop is the safeguard against rebellion. Let the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout look to their own policy. They talk about unnecessary and unjust discrimination. If they will only take the trouble to analyse their own policy, they will find that that recently announced policy of theirs is full of the elements of the friction, conflict, dissension and fire which these dangers can cause to break out beyond our borders. The hon. member for South Coast said, in a previous speech: “You will not get us talking about this policy.” We ask them: Let us analyse it and look at it.

Sir, I told the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that he had lost his perspective when it came to the consideration of this sort of situation. The hon. member mentioned minor incidents. Let us for a moment today look above the purely party political struggle. After all, there will always be incidents in any country of the world. Whether that party is in government or whether this party is in government, no matter which party rules, there will, after all, always be incidents. But surely it is our common task as South Africans, if we love our country, to eliminate and remove those things that worry us, not to inflate them and make a political football out of them. If we do this, we shall not in the first instance be being loyal to our own country.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout made a very large number of contentious remarks here this afternoon. I do not want to take it upon myself to deal with all of them. I merely want to make this appeal to the hon. member: In the interests of the circumstances prevailing throughout the world today, let us look again in sober perspective at the situation in our own country and to its place in the larger world situation. One cannot today argue about situations such as these, situations which this Government has to handle and which the government of any country in the free world has to deal with, by viewing them in narrow perspective. One has to view these situations in broad perspective.

The hon. member gave us to understand this afternoon, apart from the security situation, that nothing has become of our outward policy and that the hon. the Prime Minister has now come to a halt. I listened attentively to the hon. member and tried to ascertain whether he made any suggestions in regard to a method which the Prime Minister should follow other than that which he is following at the moment. But the hon. member did not get that far. He was purely negative. What the hon. member said in regard to our outward policy’s coming to a halt is not quite true. We differ, of course, in one respect. The hon. member says that a move must be made. We also believe that a move must be made but we must know in which direction we are moving. There may perhaps be a world of difference between the direction in which the hon. member wants to move, the direction in which the hon. member for Yeoville wants to move, and that in which we want to move. We also believe in movement…

Back to the krantzes.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is correct; he wants to move back to the krantzes. Sir, it depends on the direction in which one wants to move. I can understand this; perhaps the hon. member is annoyed with the Prime Minister because the Prime Minister does not want to move in the direction in which he wants to move, but surely that is no reason to say that there is no movement and that there is no progress? Let us look around us, at our relationships with other countries of the world, and let us merely consider the number of countries in the world today in which we are represented and how many of those countries are represented here in South Africa. There is, of course, one big change, and that is that a certain country which formerely was represented here and which was permitted to be here by that side of the House, namely Russia, is no longer represented here. That country’s representation was terminated by this Government. But we are expanding our diplomatic representation in the rest of the world.

What about Holland?

Sir, perhaps the hon. member was outside when I dealt with Mr. Joop den Uyl. If he wants to hold this up to me as proof that we are not making progress as far as our outward policy is concerned, then I want to tell him that he should think about it once again, to put it mildly.

When we consider the development of our sport policy and the progress South Africa has made in spite of calculated boycotts, in spite of hostile people who organize themselves against the will of their own local populations to try to make things difficult for us, then we realize that for every setback and for every tour cancellation—such as that to New Zealand, which was not our fault or the fault of the New Zealand rugby players but the fault of blackmailers—we make progress on two or three other levels as far as sport is concerned. Sir, the hon. member says there is no progress and movement. Look at the opportunities our own Black people, our own Brown people and the Indians have today to achieve something in the highest circles in the world in the sphere of sport. Opportunities are being created for them. The hon. member says there is no movement; he says there is no progress. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that things were going badly here. A few days ago, on 4th June, a report appeared in Die Burger under the heading “Black Africa’s Wages look bad against South Africa’s” (translation). Then follows a table which appeared in the Sunday Telegraph in London. This table indicates that the average wages for Bantu workers in this country are far better than those of all the other African States. But that will not be said here, Sir. This is progress that is being made and this progress goes even further. We think, for example, of the announcement in this year’s Budget in regard to the training of Bantu workers. Then it is said that there is no movement and that there is no progress! I have here before me a graph showing the approximate gross national product of the various countries of Africa. South Africa’s is in the region of 19 000 million American dollars. Let us see where countries like Zambia and those that are continually attacking us, stand. Their figure is barely 200 million dollars. That is the story of South Africa’s success. There is material progress because the Creator has endowed us with good things, with resources and with devoted people who wish to utilize those resources in the best interests of this country. But there is also the story of progress with more and more nations in the world in spite of the hostility that has been engendered. But I want to state particularly that the reason for the success of the past 25 years is the following: This side of the House has been blessed with leaders of particular quality. I want to state today that if the four Prime Ministers since 1948 had had the opportunity, which was there in earlier times, to participate in international deliberations—and some of them did do so; the late Dr. Malan did— each one of them in his time would not only have made his mark on those deliberations but would have stood out because they were all people of courage and determination and because they had the human characteristics that are necessary to govern a country in the world today. Those leaders of ours were not weaklings but people of courage and determination. This does not hold good for our Prime Ministers only, Sir. It holds good for other members of the Cabinet as well. We have there the hon. the Minister of Finance who is honoured in the world today and recognized as one of the forces in the world of finance and economics that is becoming increasingly more difficult. It is leadership material of this quality that has enabled this side not only to become strong politically but to make this country strong, as indicated by these figures. But, Sir, it was not only the leaders in person; it was also the fact that each of them was imbued with the idea, in the first place, of serving South Africa; because, since the establishment of the National Party, they have lived out the slogan “South Africa first”. Hon. members opposite may perhaps tell me: “Yes, but you have made mistakes”. Sir, I readily agree that this is true, and the hon. the Minister of Information also said so this afternoon. Any Government consists of people and is therefore fallible, but I want to make this irrefutable statement here this afternoon: Although mistakes may perhaps have been made over the past 25 years, on no occasion has any mistake been due to the fact that the motivation for a decision was anything but for the best interests of South Africa: and because it has been and was at all times the aim of this Government to seek South Africa’s best interests, the history book tells the story of things that this Government had to do in the face of strong opposition from that side of the House but which were accepted by that side after a decade or so. Sir, this proves the Government’s insight into and devotion to South Africa’s best interests; and because “South Africa first” remains the motivation of this Government, we will forge ahead under the guidance of the hon. the Prime Minister and the Cabinet team supporting him, and I want to predict, in spite of what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has said here this afternoon, that in the years to come, that side of the House or at least a part of that side, will gradually come to accept and support the good things that this side of the House has done more and more. And so Mr. Speaker, I believe that many, many golden years lie ahead for the National Party and its particular approach; I could almost say, with its particular calling and its devotion to South Africa.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch dealt in the early part of his speech with South Africa. He said we were a small country, but we had wonderful people; we had people of strength, of courage and of purpose, and this is true— very true indeed—but unfortunately it is not enough for a country to have strong people, people with courage. We have to have people who are properly led, people who will be brought from the past into this century in which we live by leaders who will understand that the problems of today cannot be solved by strength alone but by true leadership. This is what the hon. member for Stellenbosch has forgotten. You see, Sir, he attacked the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, but the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had the courage, when he saw that the country was being wrongly led, to leave the party of his choice at that time and to move over to the party whom he thought could lead South Africa to its real destiny. What is more, Mr. Speaker, there are many more members sitting on those benches who believe exactly the same as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and it will not be long before they come to us.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch then went on to talk about the growth rates of the different countries. I have here a document which I have used in this House before, dealing with gross national products per capita at market prices from 1960 to 1970 and the annual average growth rate, and during that period of time South Africa had an average growth rate of 3%. Let us bear that figure in mind.

What is the source of that document?

Let us look at some of the other countries in Africa: Tanzania, 3,6%; Kenya, 3,6%; Ivory Coast, 4,5%, and Zambia, 7,1%. Sir, I have always been of the opinion that it is a futile exercise to try to equate what happens in other countries with what happens in South Africa. I am concerned with South Africa. When I was in business and my employees used to tell me what was happening in other similar organizations, I used to say, “I am not interested, I have too much trouble looking after my own business.” Let us for heaven’s sake start looking after our own affairs in this country.

I want to go back to the last four months that we have spent in this Chamber, because important events have taken place in this period. I believe it is necessary that we should re-examine and reassess some of the views that we held when we first came to this House in February of this year. We should deal with some of the statements made from Government benches that we have as yet had no opportunity of debating. I believe that we should also examine some of the legislation we have passed and are going to pass this session, on subjects which have been discussed in this House with regularity year after year. We would also hope that the hon. the Minister of Finance will make some statement on the present international monetary position and perhaps tell us something about his views on the likely trends of gold and the price of gold. Let me say at once that this side of the House fully supports the hon. the Minister in the statement he made on Monday, calling for immediate action to restore monetary stability in the world. We believe with him entirely that great damage is going to be done to the entire economy of the world unless the monetary position is put right. The hon. the Minister can be assured that we fully support him in this connection.

The first matter I want to deal with is the statement by the hon. the Minister on the 16th May when he informed the House of the new provisions that would apply on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange for the better protection of the funds of the public. The hon. the Minister and the Committee of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange are to be commended for having found, somewhat belatedly, it is true, what on the face of it appears to be a satisfactory formula to provide proper protection for the public which invests its money on the Stock Exchange. This is particularly so in the case of those members of the public who have previously been left vulnerable by meeting their legal obligations in terms of section 13 of the Stock Exchanges Control Act. Some hard words have passed between the hon. the Minister and myself on this issue, because I have always felt deeply, as have my colleagues who served with me on the Select Committee and on the subsequent Commission, that when you force a person to make payment for securities of which he cannot get delivery against such payment, you have got to protect him absolutely and completely. There is a moral obligation to do so. I am happy to say that the position seems to have been achieved, but it took a great deal of plodding, of both the hon. the Minister and of the Stock Exchange, to get action, and a number of persons unfortunately have suffered in the process. Nevertheless, we are gratified that both the hon. the Minister of Finance and the Committee of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange have found that, given the will and the determination, the impossible can become possible; because what has now been achieved has always been said to have been impossible.

On the 10th May the hon. the Minister made a second statement, this time in connection with the overseas banks and insurance companies. We believe that the hon. the Minister went too far in his proposals and we hope he will have second thoughts on the subject. We accept as sound, Government control of banks to ensure the security of depositors’ funds, particularly in these days when banks are ranging fairly far afield in their outside investments, which in some cases are very far removed from banking practice. We also accept that substantial participation by South African interests in overseas-controlled banks operating in South Africa is not only reasonable but is also desirable. It is also true that it is not unreasonable for a Government to ensure that the operations of a foreign-controlled bank should at no time be such as to be able to embarrass the country in any shape or form. But conversely we cannot ignore the benefits that many a foreign-controlled bank offers to South Africa in association with it. For example, we have the benefits of a steady flow of capital funds to this country and we have the benefits of partnership over a wide international front, particularly at a moment such as this when we need friends. The Minister will be the first to admit that we have friends in the foreign banking sector. We need the benefit of a sounding board of what is going on in the world of finance. One has to weigh the pros and cons in this issue. To envisage a 90% South African holding of all shares of banks operating in South Africa, I believe is taking the matter too far. We go along with the hon. the Minister —50%, 51%, perhaps a little more—but I think that when we go to 90%, we are taking it too far. There are unfortunate repercussions to the hon. the Minister’s statement which was followed by the remarks of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs when he opened the SAFCOR refinery at Durban last week. Here we have an entirely new venture, but the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is already complaining that South Africa’s 24,3% participation in the refinery was too low and that they should come to talk to him so that South Africa could have a greater participation.

Do you disagree with me?

No, I do not disagree with you. What I say is that you must stop closing the stable door after the horse has gone. This is a new venture. If you wanted South Africa to have more than 24,3% in that venture, you should have said so before the venture had got off the ground. It was in your hands. When a company has spent its money and put up its refinery and if it looks as though it is going to be a good venture one should not then go to that company cap in hand to say that you want a greater share.

It is not altogether in our hands.

And then, in the same speech and breath, the hon. the Minister says that he wants people to invest in South Africa. “We welcome it.” No, this is nonsense. We must stop this sort of thing. We should make up our minds on what we want and we should do the job when it has to be done. If we wanted a 50% participation, we should have said to that consortium immediately that we wanted it. We should not have waited until they had put their plant up.

But then you would have said that we were interfering too much with private enterprise.

But you are interfering. [Interjections.]

It is a trite saying in politics that the function of the Opposition is to oppose. However, this is not its only function; it must also be constantly alert to the needs of the people. This is a vital function of the Opposition. I think this session has demonstrated magnificently the way in which this Opposition has attained this objective. What has happened this session?

First of all we had the tightening up of the Stock Exchange regulations, to which I have already referred. Then we had the taxation of the capital element of a purchased annuity removed—it became no longer taxable. Then we did away with the nonsense of the Post Office savings account system whereby, if you invested money after the second of the month, you received no interest for that month. It was also the practice that if you took out your money before the last two days of a month you received no interest at all for that month. The position was that if you invested your money on 3rd April and withdrew it on the 27th May, you received no interest at all. This year we did away with that and people will now receive interest on their daily balances. We have the provision in the Building Societies Act that limited companies can now invest their money in building societies subject to some very minor conditions. If such a business now has spare cash, it can put that money in a building society and that money can be used for the benefit of the would-be householders. We also have the position that bonds with building societies will now be able to be repaid over 20 years instead of over 15 years. This takes into account the realities of today’s situation. We have had the upper limits of the provisions of the home-ownership scheme raised to reasonable limits in all its facets. We also made provision that a physically disabled person can now enjoy a tax free allowance on expenditure necessarily incurred by him even if he does not carry on a trade or occupation. This is going to help a great number of people.

There are two things common to all these matters which I have mentioned. The first is that these changes will be of inestimable value to the public of South Africa. Secondly every single one of these changes has been initiated, suggested, motivated and pressed for over the years by the United Party. [Interjections.] Every one of these beneficial things that I have mentioned emanated from this side of the House. I am sure that my friend the hon. the Minister of Finance is big enough to admit it and that he will do it when he replies to the debate.

I want to speak of other events which have taken place over these four months. Our gold and foreign reserves, which stood at something of the order of R1 000 million at the beginning of the session, are now, if I remember correctly the figures the hon. the Minister has given, something of the order of R1 350 million. When we came here the free market price of gold was something of the order of $65 a fine ounce, but since then it has had a miraculous and unexpected rise and now stands at a price which is of the order of $120 to $125 a fine ounce. In March, after we had come back to Parliament, it became known that the low growth rate of 3,6% for 1971 had worsened in 1972 and that we ended 1972 with a completely unacceptable growth rate of 3,1%. This drop in the growth rate caused us concern, particularly because we had an economic development programme which envisaged an annual growth rate of 5¾%. I do not want anybody to tell me that this is an average, because it will only make the picture worse. If you start with the 3,1% and you work on an average you will have to get a very high growth rate in the other years to get any sort of average which is near the projected average. Anyway, this average is a far cry from 3,1%. In March this year the hon. the Minister of Finance introduced the Budget and said it could positively stimulate growth. It was an expansionary Budget but with deficit budgeting to the extent of nearly R600 million, it was also an inflationary Budget. At the same time it was a Budget where the Government accepted the need for the in-company training of urban Bantu and set up the interdepartmental committee under Mr. Van Zyl. It was at the end of January and during February that we had the strikes in Durban. They were quite illegal, as my hon. Leader has said, but fortunately no action was taken. We now have a Bill before the House which will make such strikes legal under certain conditions.

In these four months we have had the hon. the Minister expressing the hope that inflation might decline appreciably after a further upward pressure on prices. This upward pressure on prices has certainly come in no uncertain way. Today we are living from April to April, as my hon. Leader has said, with an inflationary rate of 10,2%, which is one of the highest in the world. My hon. Leader gave some figures, but I would like to mention that Britain, which has been the scapegoat for years, only had a rate of inflation of 8% in the financial year ended in March this year. Holland had a rate of inflation of 7,5% and the rate of inflation of France and Belgium has gone down to 6,5%. Japan, which has had a growth rate of anything from 8% to 13%, had a rate of inflation of 6%. whilst the USA brought their rate of inflation down to 4%. These countries are old and established countries and they are working from a higher base than we are working from. For that reason we should do much better, but we don’t shape too well by comparison, particularly when our growth rate is so low. If you take these two factors together, a low growth rate and a high rate of inflation, then you are really looking for trouble. Much has happened over these past four months that is of major significance. The question now arises how we should assess the present position and how we should correct the evils that are still besetting our country. The answer is not an easy one and I know that the hon. the Minister’s task is not an easy one. In some areas the position is highly satisfactorily, in other areas the position is not clear at all, while in some areas the situation is really frightening. Our balance of payments position remains satisfactory, and our gold and foreign exchange position is very strong indeed. From a tight market position in the third week of March, the money market has moved to a position of considerably lower rates with at the moment an excess availability of funds. Current surveys indicate a much more optimistic picture of greater growth for 1973, although the movement in many sectors is still very slow, whilst unfortunately there is no sign of any upward movement in other sectors. Investment in the manufacturing industry still remains hesitant. But overall, I think it is fair to say that there is an upturn in the economy from a low in 1972 of 3,1%.

The prime problem remains, i.e the excessively high rate of inflation, which is eating into the living standards of the people and which unfortunately at the moment shows no signs whatever of abating. It is common cause that inflation cannot be allowed to continue to increase at the present rate, because, if it does, the results for our country are going to be utterly disastrous.

I mentioned earlier that there was legislation before the House which could permit Bantu workers to strike under certain circumstances. We all welcome the principle of this legislation, but I think it must be made clear that a right to strike must never be interpreted as encouragement to strike. The right to strike is only a safety valve. With strikes by the Bantu now being permissible we have a duty to ensure that the working conditions of the Bantu are such that they will have no need to strike whatever. This is our task in the light of the legislation that is before the House. For our own security, for the security of everybody in South Africa, we have to provide the Bantu as well as all the other people in South Africa with a higher standard of living. In comparison with other Western countries this standard is moving upwards far too slowly. There is only one way we can do this, namely by a constant expansion of our economy.

Probably the most inhibiting factor to expansion is the high rate of inflation. When an upturn in the economy is taking place, it can be slowed down if inflation is not brought under control. The effects of a high rate of inflation upon the industrialist is terribly important. It makes him reluctant to commit himself to heavy expenditure when he does not know what his ultimate cost is going to be during a period of constantly rising prices. He knows he is going to have to continually increase his prices because of the constant rise in wages and in the cost of his raw materials. This is going to result in consumer resistance. Where we have a situation of heavy inflation he is afraid that the Government will once again put on the damping-down hand that we have had so often in the past.

Another factor that slows down growth in the economy, is the lack of demand. The Government has done its best to try to create more demand. They paid back the loan levies before they were due. They reduced the surcharge on personal income tax from 20% to 10%. and they tried various other methods. Theoretically the public should be spending more in a period of high inflation, because they know that goods are going to cost more. It does not always work out that way, because people normally buy on fairly long terms of credit and they are afraid to commit themselves for the future when they see prices rising all the time. The interesting thing is that surveys in the United States have shown that when you have a high rise in the price of foodstuffs then people stop spending. Our rises, as my hon. Leader told the House, have been 17½% in respect of foodstuffs up to March. If you add to this the consumer resistance to high prices, inflation is obviously No. 1 enemy to increasing consumer demand. In addition inflation remains the No. 1 enemy to the people because standards of living get eroded so quickly and people cannot bear the additional burden that is placed on them. The question is what to do about it. A great deal has been suggested, and some remedies have been mentioned by my hon. Leader. We have already had revaluation and we hope that will help in reducing the prices of imported capital goods and raw materials, which, after all, make up about 80% of our total imports. It will also help in containing the prices of consumer goods. Then we have to remove sales duties, or at least to reduce them drastically, even if we do it only as a temporary measure, on every single item in the sales duty schedule except for luxuries. That is the one way in which we can bring down prices and at the same time reduce the rate of inflation. It is one of the few aspects where the two things go hand in hand. We must do something about subsidies on bread, butter and things of that nature. It is going to cost money. As my hon. Leader has said, it has to come out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. This should not be a problem, however. While the price of gold is anywhere near where it is at the moment, the hon. the Minister is going to have a considerable amount of money, and he must use it to reduce inflation; this is the vital factor. These are the short-term approaches, and they will have a twofold effect if the hon. the Minister would do the things we have suggested; they will halt the rising prices and the serious drop in the standard of living, which is a social aspect, and, perhaps more important still, they will give a clear indication to the public at large and to the business man in particular that the Government is determined to bring to a halt the shattering upwards spiral of inflation. The psychological impact which this will produce is necessary for South Africa.

In the medium and long term the measures to combat inflation have been spelt out ad nauseum. I am going to repeat them for the record: We have got to accept that South Africa is a country consisting of 22 million people whose economic destinies are irretrievably linked. We must take our heads out of the sand and look at the facts; we have got to accept that the Coloureds, the Indians and the urban Bantu are a permanent part of our metropolitan population, that the education and training of non-White labour, especially Bantu labour, for use in the urban areas as well as in the border areas and the homelands, remain the key to the rapid and constant expansion of our economy, which is essential, too, for a steady rise in the standard of living. We also have to accept that only increased productivity can create a strong and stable economy, can allow and justify increased wages and provide the job opportunities that are absolutely essential for our security.

I want to make one thing very clear: When we talk about improving productivity, we are not only talking about cutting labour costs, but we also mean the constant improvement of managerial skills, the use of the most advanced technical knowledge, the constant improvement in and updating of plant, machinery and equipment so that the most modem techniques can be used. According to the economic bulletin of Nedbank Limited for 1973 the productivity of South Africa’s manufacturing industry during the period 1967 to 1971 increased by only 0,7% per annum. We cannot go on living like this, particularly when the productivity rare of the ELP target for the period 1972 to 1977 is 2%. We have got to do something and we must do it fast. The lessons of 1971 and 1972, the 3,6% and the 3,1%, must not be forgotten. We must not only meet the economic development programme, but must go beyond it if we want to provide employment for all our people. If we do not do so, we are going to jeopardize the entire peace and security of our country. But these things do not just happen. They will come about not merely when the Government makes pleas to the private sector. These things only take place when the right climate is created, when there is an instinctive optimism and a feel of good times ahead, when long-term opportunities can be seen by the entrepreneur and the man who has money to invest, when the incentive of adequate reward can be anticipated with reasonable certainty and people know that it is not going to be a matter of stop and go, go and stop. Today we make projections for 10, 15, 20 and 25 years. We must have long-term policies. We must have a clear road ahead and a positive approach by the Government. Nature has been very kind to South Africa in the bounty it has given us. The miracles that have saved us time and time again when our economy has been at its lowest, continue, thank goodness.

However, let us not tempt Providence too far. Let us without delay get down to the task of doing those things that require so urgently to be done so that we can ensure a buoyant economy, full employment, and opportunities for all those who are prepared to work hard to better themselves and their families and to strive for a prosperous South Africa. What we want in South Africa is a climate where the people of South Africa, whether they be White, Black or Brown, will be involved in South Africa, will feel they are part of South Africa, will feel that the prosperity of South Africa is for them too and will feel that what they are doing, will be for their own good and for the good of the country of which they are citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to come back to a few of the remarks made by the hon. member for Parktown. I refer to his remarks in connection with the new arrangement on the Stock Exchange. The hon. member for Parktown tends to ascribe the scandals we have had on the Stock Exchange in recent months to the controversial section 13 of the present Stock Exchange Act. It has been proved over and over again that those scandals had virtually nothing to do with section 13. There were other factors which gave rise to them.

Now I want to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for not having responded to requests which were made to tamper with the basic provision contained in section 13, which is that shares have to be paid within 7 days.

During my recent visit to the New York Stock Exchange, I once again gained the strong impression that this was one of the most important means of restricting unbalanced gambling on the Exchange. The New York Stock Exchange has already gone further than we have and has reduced that period to four days. Now payment must be effected within four days after a transaction.

Then, too, the hon. member again had quite a lot to say about inflation. I, too, shall have quite a lot to say about that. I want to point out, however, that the hon. member’s data in connection with the rate of inflation in the United States is somewhat out of date. The hon. member says that the rate of inflation in the United States is 4%. I want to quote to the hon. member from an American newspaper of 19th May. The article reads, inter alia, as follows—

I gave the figure for 12 months, from March to March.

That figure is already a year old. The latest available figure is very much higher than that.

*The hon. member went on to advocate that we should maintain a much higher growth rate. His hon. Leader stated the same standpoint and I want to agree with that. It must be our objective to maintain as high a growth Tate as possible. But then I want to add at once that this will never be based on excessive credit. A high growth rate is ideal. We strive for that, but it must never be a growth rate based on excessive credit. Sooner or later the day of reckoning arrives. In this article to which I have just referred, I also read the following—

Even America now realizes that it is unable to base that growth rate on excessive credit. It is true that we have to stimulate the demand and that is precisely what the hon. the Minister has done in his latest Budget. That is precisely what this Government has been doing since the beginning of this year. It has succeeded in stimulating the demand since the middle of last year by reducing the sales duty. Throughout the Western world it has been becoming progressively clearer that inflation has become enemy number one of the Western economy. It has become so bad that certain banks in the United States have started a scheme of giving medals to their clients bearing the motto, “Fight inflation; demand gold”. Then, too, there was a movement afoot in the American Senate and in their House of Representatives to give the American people the Tight to possess gold privately. The motion was passed by the Senate but it was rejected by the American Congress by a very small majority. To an ever increasing extent the powerful economists of the world are coming to the conclusion that one can combat inflation only by reinstating gold in its rightful place, in the monetary affairs of the world.

Here I want to pay tribute to the hon. the Minister of Finance who has sacrificed virtually the whole of his life to the matter of reinstating gold in its rightful place in the economy of the world. Gold is proving itself very rapidly and making itself the centre of the world economy once more. What I found particularly striking was that even the man in the street in America was at present talking gold. There were days when they thought and spoke about nothing but the mighty dollar. Today it is striking that the man in the street in America is talking gold once again.

The fact remains that inflation is enemy number one of the Western economy. A government can do a great deal to direct the economy of a country in a particular direction, but it is most certainly not the task of a government alone to combat inflation and direct the economy of a country in a particular direction. It is a simple fact that since the days when food for a whole people fell from the heavens in the form of manna, it has never again happened that a people could stand with cupped hands and expect food, money or whatever to fall into those cupped hands. A people must simply roll up its sleeves and work to provide that food. Since the days when the people of Israel received its food in the form of manna it has never again happened that money or food has fallen from the heavens. A people must simply work for it.

Now it is true, unfortunately, that there are always people in any nation who do not work, people who consequently expect to be provided with the necessities of life through the labours of other people. It is true that there are those unfortunates among any people who are unable to work. Here I have in mind such unfortunate people as the very seriously handicapped, the cerebral palsied and the mentally handicapped. The criterion by which the level of civilization of a people may be measured is the degree to which it cares for those people. In other words, the degree to which a people cares for its unfortunates who are unable to care for themselves, is to a large extent the criterion by which its level of civilization may be measured. But it is also true, unfortunately, that there are all too many people who are strong and healthy, who spend all their earnings and then, when they are old, expect the labours of others to pay their way for them. It is the task of all of us—not only that of the Government—to keep that section of the population who spend all their earnings and expect the labours of other people to provide for them when they grow old, as small as possible. We should try to keep that percentage of people as low as possible. I know that it is very easy to exploit this statement of mine. It can so easily be said— and it is still going to be said in this debate by hon. members opposite—that I am heartless towards our social pensioners. Mr. Speaker, it is when we display this kind of irresponsibility that we are unable to have the growth we would like to have, the growth to which the hon. member for Parktown and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred here this afternoon. If we are to spend our assets on those people who have not provided for their old age, surely, we shall not be able to grow as fast as we should like to. Therefore, Sir, I want to appeal to the Opposition to display that degree of responsibility which will prevent them from telling social pensioners at all times just to demand more and more. We should rather make an appeal to them and others to make ample provision for their old age as long as they are working so that it will not be necessary for them to live on the earnings of others in their old age. Sir, I want to repeat that this is a statement which is very open to exploitation, but if the Opposition still retains any vestige of political responsibility, then it should refrain from that.

Sir, I said at the start that I agreed with the hon. member for Parktown that inflation probably constituted the greatest problem of the Western democracies at the present time. Not only in South Africa, but throughout the world, inflation has become enemy number one. It has become the most pressing problem in our national economy. I have already quoted to you from this American newspaper that at present the rate of inflation in America is the highest it has been in 22 years. Here, too, our Western economic capitalistic system lends itself so easily to the fanning of the flames of inflation, and that is why it is so imperative that the Opposition should not fan these flames of inflation higher for the sake of making a little political capital. The hon. member for Parktown is so fond of making the statement he made in a previous debate and which he repeated here this afternoon; he predicted that the rate of inflation, instead of dropping, would rise, and in making that statement he likes to point out that from April last year to April this year the rate of inflation was 10,2%. Sir, rather than making the prediction that the rate of inflation is going to rise ever higher, why not join us in an attempt to reduce the rate of inflation? Because it is an economic principle, a principle which I could never emphasize enough, that every person whose wage or salary rises more rapidly than his production, is a direct cause of inflation. We so often find that the Opposition, and the hon. member for Parktown in particular, want to make the wage and salary earner believe that he is not receiving his rightful share, that this wage or salary is not high enough. Sir, I want to emphasize once more that it is an economic principle that every person whose wage or salary rises more rapidly than his production, is a cause of inflation, and that is why all of us, if we really want to contain inflation, must continually appeal to our people to ensure that their production rises more rapidly than their wage or salary. But, Sir, I want to add at once that it is not only wage and salary earners who push up the rate of inflation by means of wage and salary demands. Just as heavy an obligation rests on every other person, whether he be a professional man or an industrialist or a merchant, not to force up the rate of inflation by excessive charges, because if a professional man—whether he be a doctor, a specialist, an advocate, an attorney or an account-auditor—sees to it diligently that his fees are not increased more rapidly than the rise in his productivity, then he will not be contributing towards inflation, but if he yields to the temptation of pushing up his fees more rapidly than his productivity, then he, too, is decidedly a cause of inflation and not only the workers.

Sir, now I come to the industrialist and the merchant. It has become fashionable in our national economy for every entrepreneur to try to show as high a profit as possible for the benefit of his shareholders, and profits are therefore being pushed up to an ever-increasing extent. The alternative is of course, instead of pushing up profits excessively, to allow part of the higher productivity to flow back to the consumer by way of lower prices. If every industrialist and every merchant were to accept this responsibility of not only seeking higher profits at all times but also of lowering prices by means of higher productivity, we should be able to contain inflation. But if we continue to look up to the Government to curb inflation and if we do not see to these other factors, we shall never be able to contain inflation.

Sir, it is a fact that before the Second World War, periods of inflation and depression regularly succeeded each other until we had that terrible depression of the early thirties. That depression, with all the unemployment it caused and all the hardship caused by that unemployment, so frightened all the Western governments that they set themselves the object of never again allowing such a situation of depression and unemployment to arise. That is why they have all set themselves the ideal of full employment at all times; but it is true, unfortunately, that in times of full employment the worker holds the whip hand, and with the growth of the trade union movement into the mighty organization it is today, one unfortunately experiences price increases and inflation, even in a period when the unemployment rate is high and when one would have expected a big decrease in prices, and then one has what is commonly called stagflation. Sir, as long as this situation prevails, the Western world will not be able to get rid of this enemy No. 1, namely inflation, and that is why the Government, as well as the Opposition, have a very heavy obligation to bring home to our people in and out of season that the remedy for inflation lies in the hands of us all, and most definitely not in the hands of the Government alone. In the nature of things there is really very little a government can do to contain inflation. Similarly there is very little a government can do about the growth rate, but what it can do, this Government has done over the past months. The latest step taken by the hon. the Minister of Finance, namely to revalue the rand against the dollar by 5%, is itself an important step in our attempt to control the tremendous rise in prices and to stimulate the growth rate. What the hon. member for Parktown said is true, i.e. that the hon. the Minister still has in hand one other very important means of stimulating demand, and that is to reduce sales duty still further. France, for example, has abolished sales duty completely as a temporary measure aimed at stimulating demand. It is true that the hon. the Minister still has this means at his disposal and I believe that when the finances of the State justify his doing so, he will make use of this means too. But at the same time the Government has the responsibility of ensuring that its books balance, and that is why it must be very careful not to go ahead with so-called “deficit budgeting”. The hon. member for Parktown referred to the fact that in this Budget “deficit budgeting” amounted to an enormous sum. How much did he say it was?

R600 000.

I remember so well the days when the financial spokesman of the Opposition of that time, Dr. Frans Cronjé, year after year dictated to this Government that it should make use of “deficit budgeting” as the Americans were doing. But to what has this given rise in the mighty United States today? Recently I read a letter in which the author pointed out that the lack of courage on the part of the American Government to get to grips with “deficit budgeting” for once and for all had led to the mess in which the American economy had landed itself. We should therefore be very careful, and I believe that this Government will be careful enough, not to land ourselves in a similar mess. It is true that the demand does require a further injection at this stage and I believe that the hon. the Minister will watch the position very carefully and, if justifiable, will give it that injection. But at the same time we should be careful not to continue with this deficit budgeting. A deficit budget is, in the nature of things, a temporary aid which one applies to set the economy in motion once again but one cannot continue to employ it without heading for disaster. Let us now for once and for all display that degree of political responsibility on both sides of the House which will cause us to refrain from continually telling the people that it is not enjoying enough of the economic prosperity. Let us rather bring the message home to the people in and out of season that it is through hard work alone that we shall be able to contain inflation and maintain a high growth rate. Hon. members opposite are so fond of referring to Japan which has such a high growth rate. It is even higher than the hon. member for Parktown stated this afternoon. The latest figures reflect a growth rate of 17% in Japan. But what is the basic cause of that high growth rate? Japan does not have a five-day working week, but a seven-day working week. Now, I do not want to recommend that we, too, should have a seven-day working week, because we are a Christian people who believe that we should rest on the 7th day. But it is a fact that this five-day working week has done incalculable harm to the national economy of this people. Now I want to repeat that the statement I am making here is open to exploitation, it is a statement which could very easily be exploited economically and politically, namely that Japan has a high growth rate because it has a seven-day working week and its people simply work as much as people are able to work. But let us stop telling our people that they are poorly treated. Let us rather continue to tell them that we should all work much harder if we want a high growth rate. The days of manna from heaven are past. We shall have to earn it with these hands of ours.

In the short time I have left, I want to address myself once again to the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. In fact, I want to address myself to the whole Government in regard to the stimulation of the economy in the Western Cape. It is true, unfortunately, that in the Western Cape there are no sought-after raw materials. In fact, there are virtually no raw materials. The only raw materials we have here, are the initiative and the hard work of our people. That is why I want to express my very heartfelt thanks to the Government for having decided to allow Iscor to build that railway line from Sishen to Saldanha, which, in my opinion, will be a major injection for the economy of the Western Cape.

Since a debate is in progress at the present time as to where the next steel factory is to be erected, I want to put it clearly that the North-West probably has as valid a claim to that steel factory as the Western Cape. However, it is true that our gold mines are slowly being exhausted. The higher gold price will lengthen the life of the gold mines but eventually they will be exhausted and then we shall have to pay for the goods we import by means of the goods we export. It is true that for the manufacture of export goods, industries should be as close as possible to the coast. We have in our country this huge expanse of semi-desert lying between the north and the south and our railway tariffs are such that the tariffs on manufactured goods are higher than those on raw materials. For these two reasons we should have those export industries as close as possible to the coast. If the only consideration had been the manufacture of semi-processed steel products, the North-West would probably have had as valid a claim to the next steel factory as Saldanha. However, we believe that around this core, the base of a steel factory, a multitude of new industries will arise. These are industries which will have to help us to export more. That is why I believe that Saldanha will be the very best place for the establishment of the next steel factory because around that core, that base, a whole series of new industries will arise which will be of tremendous benefit to our export effort. Now I am not even referring to the tremendous benefit it would have for the Western Cape. It goes without saying that for the Western Cape, too, with its rapidly increasing Coloured population, it would be of tremendous value. However, I want to stress that it is particularly in view of our growing export effort that it would be in the interests of everyone for that steel factory to be built at the coast, and, to be specific, at Saldanha.

Mr. Speaker, there are one or two matters which the hon. member for Paarl spoke about that I would like to comment on. In the first place the hon. member accused the Opposition of irresponsibility in pleading for higher pensions for old-age pensioners. I would like to say that the State has a responsibility in regard to caring for people who are not able to care for themselves. I do not regard that responsibility as being carried out when the old-age pension is R45 per month whilst the poverty datum line is about R80 per month.

The second matter which the hon. member for Paarl raised which I would like to comment on is one that he spent a great deal of his speech in talking about namely inflation. I am also going to spend a great deal of my speech in talking about inflation. But I do not take the pessimistic view that there are no cures for inflation in this country which he appears to take. I believe that conditions in South Africa are such—and we are fortunate enough to have such conditions—that we can take steps to combat inflation. Those are matters which I shall deal with shortly.

I pointed out those steps.

The hon. member for Paarl referred to the revaluation of the rand which took place last Tuesday. I would like to say, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said, that we agree with this revaluation although we think in extent it could have been a bolder one. We would not like to see another revaluation too soon, because one of the factors upon which business confidence rests is knowing what your exchange rates are. We are therefore opposed to frequent revaluations or changes in the exchange rate of the rand, if that is possible. As far as the revaluation of the rand is concerned, the hon. the Minister of Finance’s action in controlling the value of the rand in terms of other currencies and in attaching it to other currencies which are effectively floating, reminds me of a small boy who has difficulty in keeping his trousers up so that they are continually sliding down his legs causing him to hitch them up. I hope that if the hon. the Minister of Finance has to hitch his trousers up again, he will hitch them up properly so that there will then be a little leeway for them to slide down without causing too much distress.

I would like to take up where the hon. member for Parktown left off in commenting., on some of the factors which have dominated the economic scene since the Minister delivered his Budget speech ten weeks ago. The first item we must discuss, one which has dominated the scene more than any other, is the fact that the inflationary situation has worsened. When the hon. the Minister delivered his Budget speech the latest figure of the rate of inflation that was available at that time was 8,9%. The latest figure available now indicates that the rate of inflation is 10,2%. Even after taking into account the minimal revaluation of the rand which took place earlier this week, I can find little support outside this House for the prediction which the hon. the Minister made and which was later supported by the hon. the Prime Minister. He made the point that the rate of inflation was likely to abate later this year. In fact, I would say that the consensus of opinion-amongst business men and amongst economists is quite the contrary. I think we have to face the fact that inflation is with us, that it is becoming an increasingly critical problem and that in fact it is the main economic problem which is facing the Government and the country. I shall have more to say about that later.

The second factor which has dominated the economic scene since the Minister’s Budget speech has been the fact that real growth which is so badly needed in the economy and to which the Government’s fiscal and monetary policies are aimed, has been making a very reluctant debut. The hesitancy of the economy to get moving at a time when many factors are present in it which favour expansion is something which causes concern. In fact, there are two or three factors present in the economy which are tremendously favourable to expansion. I refer to the effects of the higher gold price and the additional money being pumped into the economy as a result of the Government’s higher spending programme. Then there is also the fact that the salaries and wages particularly of civil servants and railway workers have gone up. But we still have this hesitancy and in my view that is a measure of the stagnation, the deep stagnation, into which the economy fell in the last two years. That it is now showing some signs of recovery and that some important economic indicators are pointing in the right direction, is something which we on this side of the House welcome very much. We as a nation cannot afford the slow growth rate which we had last year, the real growth rate of 3,1%. Particularly we cannot afford the slower per capita real growth rate that this country has experienced in the last few years. How can we possibly solve our racial, our social and political problems unless we get the better of poverty from which such a large part of our population suffers? How can we possibly have true national security which rests on a contented population and good race relations, unless we get the better of poverty? Are we going to get the better of poverty unless we have a higher per capita growth rate, a higher growth rate in the standard of living than we have been experiencing? The average real per capita growth rate over the last five years from 1968 to 1973, was 1,8%. In 1970-’71, two years ago, it had fallen from the average to 1,3% and last year, 1971-’72, it was only 0,5% which was virtually a negligible growth rate. These figures show that the rate of improvement in our standard of living is slowing down. That to my way of thinking is a very serious state of affairs.

I believe that the main single problem which is holding back growth in our economy is inflation and the damage which inflation is doing to the economy and to our peoples. In support of that I would like to quote a short passage out of the latest economic review of Union Acceptances, which I regard as one of the most authoritative reviews in this country, which reads:

The third factor which I think has dominated the economic scene since the budget speech is a favourable one, namely that there has been a continued improvement in our balance of payments position. To some extent this may have been as a result of speculative influences—in other words the leads and lags position in reverse—but the fact remains that our foreign exchange reserves are now in a very strong position and that we do not have to look over our shoulders at them before we make economic decisions.

The fourth and last factor I want to mention refers to external factors. It is the continued international currency instability which has intensified in the last few months and the last few weeks. This instability has led, on the one hand, to a further weakening of the rand in relation to other currencies due to the fact that the rand is tied and has been tied to the dollar, and this weakening has therefore caused an exacerbation of the inflationary trends on account of dearer imports; on the other hand, this instability in international currencies has led to the price of gold rising steeply and very substantially.

This last factor, the spurt in the price of gold, is yet another example of the incredible luck which successive Nationalist Party Ministers of Finance have enjoyed to help them out of their troubles. It would be a rash man who would try to estimate what benefits the higher price of gold is going to bring to South Africa; benefits by way of increased foreign exchange reserves, benefits by way of increased gold mining profits and benefits by way of increased taxation. The present high price of gold may be a bubble that will burst. On the other hand it may be a manifestation of a longer term phenomenon. It is also difficult to estimate what the gold mines are going to do in regard to mining lower grade ore and what effect that is going to have on the production of fine gold. I think that one thing is completely certain, namely that, compared with the estimates which he must have made prior to his Budget, the hon. the Minister of Finance is going to receive substantially more from the gold mines than he estimated at that time. The increase is probably measurable in hundreds of millions of rand rather than in smaller amounts.

What other Government in this world, which budgeted two months ago for a deficit on Revenue Account of R300 million, can suddenly look forward to a windfall from higher receipts from gold mining taxation which can be measured in hundreds of millions of rand? What other Government which is controlling an economy which is suffering from acute inflation, which has a slow growth rate and which has static productivity, can enjoy at the same time a healthy balance of payments position?

You sound disappointed.

These are the circumstances which usually cause a drain on our reserves. Let me say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that I rejoice in the fact that we in South Africa, on account of this golden windfall more than any other factor, are enjoying highly buoyant reserves. What other Government in the world is in a position to buy its way out of trouble on account of the golden windfall?

Only the Nats in South Africa.

What disturbs me, Sir, is the complete lack of evidence that the Government intends using this golden opportunity to help combat the most critical economic problems with which it is faced.

I said earlier, and the hon. member for Parktown also mentioned this, that inflation is the No. 1 enemy in the way of economic progress. It is inflation which is causing hardship amongst persons with static incomes; as a result of inflation their standards of living are going down. It is inflation which is causing hardship amongst the less privileged and the lower income groups. It is placing many of them in a desperate position. It is inflation which is distorting the pattern of spending because a larger part of income has to be spent on necessities while a smaller part is available for other things. It is inflation that is inhibiting the desire and the ability of people to save. It is inflation that is distorting the pattern of investment because investors are looking for capital appreciation rather than profitability and productivity in their investments. It is inflation that is lowering business confidence because decisions are taken in an atmosphere of uncertainty and artificiality rather than in an atmosphere of reality. I want to repeat that it is an absolute prerequisite for growth that inflation should be brought under control and reduced to reasonable levels. What I consider is needed at this time, and is needed quickly because the effects of inflation are growing more serious by the day, is a crash programme to combat inflation. We must not be shy of using our golden windfall to implement such a crash programme. In some quarters it has been recommended that our golden windfall should be used to increase and expand the development of the homelands. That is a thought with which we on this side of the House have considerable sympathy, because we would like to see the homelands economically developed. But I think that when a body suffering from a grave disease such as the cancer of inflation, the first priority is to eradicate that disease before you embark on a programme of body-building.

I think that a crash programme to fight inflation should contain the measures that have already been suggested by my hon. leader and the hon. member for Parktown. It should first of all contain a measure to increase subsidies on foodstuffs such as wheat, maize and dairy products, so that the retail prices of bread, maize products, milk and butter, cheese and so forth can be reduced. This I regard as absolutely necessary, firstly because it is foodstuffs that have been largely responsible for and the main culprit in the rise of the consumer price index. Secondly, it is the high price of food that is causing so much distress amongst the lower income groups.

Could I ask the hon. member a question? I should like to know from the hon. member whether he thinks we should increase the subsidy on bread which at the moment is R45 million and that of butter which stands at R9 million?

That is exactly what I said. The answer is yes.

Where do we find the money?

Whoever made that interjection. Sir, has not heard of the golden goose. There is still time in this session to legislate for higher subsidies on these items.

The second step should be to reduce substantially or abolish sales taxes on necessities which are consumed and form Dart of the cost of living. I am not asking for this to be done in respect of luxuries. What we need here is a bold step so that its effect on the cost of living may be felt. We on this side of the House have often pointed out to the Government the escalating effects of levying sales taxes at source because of the fact that prices increase to a greater extent than the amount of the tax. Of course, the converse is true when you reduce or abolish a sales tax. It then has a de-escalating effect. In other words, prices go down by a greater amount than the amount of the taxes abolished.

The third step I should like to advocate to the Government to combat inflation in a crash programme is to reduce the price of petrol. I believe that this is a perfectly feasible step to take. The recent revaluation of the rand will have offset the recent increase in the price of crude oil to a large extent. What is needed now is a reduction, first of all, in the excise duty on petrol, and secondly, a reduction in some of the rail rates and pipeline rates in respect of the conveyance of petrol to inland centres. I know the hon. the Minister of Transport will say he cannot afford such a reduction, but I believe that if we can make any impact on the rate of inflation, the Railways are going to benefit to such an extent that it is up to them now to make some gesture toward achieving that reduction in the rate of inflation. I believe that a reduction in the price of petrol would have a ripple throughout the economy effect because petrol is an item of cost in the running of every business, of every farm, of every factory, of every institution and of every home. It affects the cost of living not only of individuals who own cars, but also of everybody else.

There is one step, however, that I would not like to see the Government take, and that is to resort to a price and wage freeze, such as has happened in the United States and the United Kingdom. That step would really put the lid on enterprise. It would put the lid on productivity and it would put the lid on the desire to grow.

Mr. Speaker. I want to say that a crash programme for combating inflation, such as I have suggested, is no substitute for long-term measures to combat inflation. In fact, a crash programme of short-term measures such as I have suggested would be wasted unless it was also accompanied by the correct long-term measures. What we need are measures to increase productivity, and we are only going to increase productivity if we use our labour resources in this country to their full, if we implement as a matter of urgency measures to train our non-European labour and if we increase the mobility of that labour both horizontally and vertically, so that it can work where jobs are available for it to perform and so that it can do the jobs in industry that it is capable of doing.

May I ask the hon. member a question? What does he mean by horizontal and vertical mobility of labour?

By “horizontal mobility” I mean geographical mobility from place to place.

Complete mobility?

I said increased mobility. By “vertical mobility” I mean allowing people to take jobs within industry at a higher level than the level at which they are presently employed.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, a crash programme such as I have described is one which can be afforded. It can be afforded because we have got this golden windfall, and it will certainly help to break the vicious circle of inflation which is gripping the country, where increasing costs are putting up prices, where increasing prices are again pushing up costs, and so on and so on. That is a circle that must be broken before inflation can be overcome. The Government has a great opportunity to do this because we have the great good fortune of this golden windfall as the result of the higher price of gold. To me it is tragic that so far there are no signs that the Government intends to do anything in this regard.

Sir, when I was sitting here this afternoon listening to the debate, I thought to myself that if South Africa were to be ruled by the Opposition Party, we would need grace from Above. Sir, there we have a party that wants to rule South Africa, but it comes to the fore with so little; it is disconsolate and cannot state its policy. The challenge which came from the hon. the Minister of Information, they do not want to accept, and then the hon. members for Parktown and Constantia come here and all they do is to ask for tax relief. The hon. member for Parktown said that the sales duty should be drastically cut. He knows that only last year, in October, the hon. the Minister granted R20 million in that connection, and that this year, in this Budget, R13 million has been granted. On the one hand, they request that further concessions be made as far as sales duty is concerned, and on the other hand they request that much greater consumer subsidies be granted. I want to ask them where the money must come from. Sir, the hon. member for Constantia’s standpoint amazes one. While asking that subsidies be increased and that taxes be reduced, he throws up his arms and says that he is not satisfied with a pension of R45 per month for a social pensioner; that the pension must be R80 per month because that is the breadline figure. Sir, is it the United Party’s policy that every person in South Africa must get a pension equal to the breadline figure? Has the hon. member ever worked out what this would cost the State? The hon. member is a very practical person and he always makes good speeches in this House, but I think it is a complete blunder to come forward with such a statement. In a moment I shall come to the rest of the hon. member for Constantia’s speech and say a few words about his “crash programme”, but at this stage I want to tell him that making such a statement does not suit him. I am always keen to listen to his speeches, but that statement of his is unscientific and illogical and it makes no sense. The hon. member for Constantia also advocates that the petrol price should be drastically reduced. Once again, where must the money come from? Both he and the hon. member for Parktown ask that Bantu labour should be better utilized. The hon. member for Constantia says that we should in particular, develop the Bantu homelands further and make them economically strong. Sir, I want to put this question to the hon. member: Once we have made the Bantu homelands economically strong, and once they have reached the stage where they are producing a great deal, to what extent is this going to benefit and help White South African along. Has the hon. member thought what other implications and complications are involved? Sir, the homelands are being developed, but their development is seen against the background of our entire economy. [Interjection.] The hon. member would not understand that in any case. I do not want to elaborate any further on that hon. member’s speeches. In my own speech I shall still be referring to them on and off. You know, Sir, if South Africa has ever experienced a golden age, it is now, not only because the price of gold has increased to such an extent, but also because we have had a good as gold government in power. This afternoon I expected the hon. members of the Opposition to be courteous to the Government and to wish it luck on its 25 years of rule, but they neglected to do so. I think that in this respect I must quote what the Sunday Times of 27th May stated in its editorial. If the Opposition, then, does not want to acknowledge that South Africa has such a good government, then I want to refer them to this newspaper, which always gave them guidance but has now given up expecting that they could ever rule South Africa. And there the Sunday Times is fairly correct. I agree with them: They will never rule South Africa. The editorial states—

But then the hon. member and the hon. member for Parktown say we do not have such a terribly high standard of living. But along comes the Sunday Times, which has already botched up South African politics to a large extent in the past and which has never had a good word for the National Party, and they acknowledge that it does. I am glad to see that there is still something in life that they acknowledge. But they go further and state—

That is something which hon. members opposite say is absent, but here their own newspaper states that things are going so well. It goes further and states—

That is what the National Party has done, and they have to acknowledge it. Then I should like to quote the penultimate paragraph where the newspaper states—

Yesterday I sat thinking what the voters of South Africa think of these two parties, the National Party and the United Party. I find that Die Burger of 30th May had a large heading: “French Premier says South Africa will still get its arms”. I think that we are all glad and grateful today that the French Premier said that, because he sees that South Africa is a country that will pay for its purchases and that we are a party that is ruling the country well, a country which is economically strong. But just the day before there was also a large headline in Die Burger: “Terrorists promised Dutch help”. I do not believe this needs any further comment. I think it speaks for itself. But I want to say this, that the voters of South Africa see in the United Party what Dr. Joop Den Uyl of the Netherlands is said here to be doing for the terrorists and in the National Party what the Prime Minister of France said. That is the difference.

What do you mean by that?

I mean by that what I saw here this afternoon, that this Party is not prepared to be pro-South African. They do not support us. [Interjections.] In the past 25 years the National Party has rebuilt the economy and made it strong, as this hon. Minister’s Budget has also shown again. Amongst the greats, this Minister is one of the greatest South Africa has ever had and now he has delivered a Budget this year that has made it possible for us to grow, so that the hon. member for Constantia can now say: “Where in the world does one get another Government that is so lucky”. It is not merely attributable to luck; it is attributable to the fine policy and the far-sightedness of this government which has brought this about over the years. The hon. the Minister of Finance advocated to the world that there should be a better gold price, but this hon. Opposition, in the persons of the hon. members for Parktown and Pinetown, expressed criticism about that instead of expressing their thanks for what the hon. the Minister did. Today, now that there are prospects that we will, in fact, get it, they come along and ask that subsidies be paid and that there be a tax concession as the result of this great windfall. This windfall is necessary, not only to wipe out the deficit, but also to finance the economy in future and to carry out other large projects that I shall speak about in a moment. The Government is not here merely for the next five years. It is here for the next 50 years, and that is why it is planning for the future and not only making provision from year to year with a view to being able to win the next election.

These requests which have been made to us, have come chiefly from the Opposition, because they have asked for subsidies, tax concessions, etc. After all, their leader in the Transvaal says that next year the Government will call an election out of the blue, and now they want to go and state on the election platforms that they have asked for these concessions. However, this Government will not do anything that is not good for South Africa.

What has happened over the past 25 years in the financial sphere? In 1948, when we assumed power, this Opposition said, in the person of their then leader, General Smuts, that the banks would close down and that we were on the way to a wretched future. However, what happened? No, we grew. In 1953 this Opposition said that Nationalism should be exterminated. Just as Nationalist grew at the time, so will apartheid succeed in South Africa.

The hon. member over there asked me just now what I actually meant when I said that this Opposition sees the world in a bad light. In the years when we tackled Iscor and all these other large projects, when we established South Africa’s infrastructure so as to make the country economically strong, independent and sound, they opposed us. I am not going to tire the House with figures now, but I am thinking of the expansion of Iscor, of the postal and telecommunications systems that have come into being, of the water that has been made available to the country, of the housing projects, of the health services that were furnished and of the protection of the State. When I am thinking about this, I ask—in doing so I am linking up with the hon. the Minister of Information—what the Press and the Opposition have done for the protection of the State?

I am very glad the hon. member for Zululand is in the House at present. I want to give him an example of how matters have developed. After all, he is the hon. member who tried to put the police in a bad light in this House on 24th April, 1964. He tried to stir up the outside world against South Africa. What the hon. member said at the time, he may go and read about in Hansard, 1964, column 4880. The police were being discussed at the time, and I shall quote what the hon. member then said—

This is what he went on to say when we attacked him across the floor of the House for having made such a scandalous remark—

That is what this Opposition has done throughout the years when this National Party was trying to make South Africa economically strong.

However, let us return to the Budget. This Opposition now says that we are not doing enough. I just want to mention a few figures. In this Budget the hon. the Minister has made several concessions. As I have already mentioned, R33 million in revenue from sales duty has been relinquished; transfer duties have been decreased so that young couples can get cheaper houses. The concession amounts to R4 million. Contributions to the value of R2 million have been made to pension funds and retirement annuity funds. Relief to the tune of R3 million has been announced for gold mines and for other mines, and investment grants totalling R6 million have been made. A concession has been made for company tax in respect of dividend receipts, which means a concession of R3 million in respect of the loan levy. I am thinking, too, of income tax on individuals. The 20% surcharge has been reduced to 10%, a concession of about R60 million. All these concessions have been made, and there are still quite a few that I have not mentioned, but the concessions, in toto, amount to R108 million. On the loan levy a further concession of R10 million has also been made. Then I am also thinking of the loan levy repayments before the due date. However, all these concessions make no impression upon the Opposition. It is like the adage states: “Give a child sweets and he goes on asking for more”. I think that we have already given too much.

The hon. member for Constantia and the hon. member for Parktown, who apologized for the fact that he cannot be here because he had to leave early, spoke quite a bit about inflation. Since we are dealing with inflation, we must remember that inflation in South Africa does not originate merely because of what the Government does; there are also other contributory factors. We have had a devaluation, inter alia, but that has fortunately spent itself by now. There is also another factor in our cost structure and that is the increase in our railway rates. Those rates had to be increased so that we could pay higher salaries and wages to the Railway employees. We know that the hon. the Minister of Transport initially opposed any increase in salaries and wages in the Railways and told the Railway employees that they were not to come along with their wage demands at that stage. That led to arbitration, and the increases were granted to them. This Government will do nothing illegal. It is compelled by law to grant that increase, and that is what it consequently did. I now want to put a question to hon. members opposite, inter alia to the hon. member for Orange Grove: Should the Railway workers have obtained that 15% increase in their salaries? What is his answer? Yes, or no?

Yes, they should have obtained it.

The hon. member says they should have obtained it, but where was the money to come from if the Railway rates were not increased? According to the constitution the Railways must accept responsibility for its own expenditure. Consequently those rates had to be increased. We also take note of the fact that it is still going to take some time before these Railway increases are going to filter through. This applies also to the general wage increases of 15% that were granted. The hon. members on that side of the House are now saying that our people in South Africa are living below the breadline. However, these increases were essential. I do want to issue a warning to South Africa’s people today, and that is that we should not make wage demands arbitrarily. We must not arbitrarily come along with wage demands and requests for higher wages. We have already seen that certain employers did not increase the wages of Bantu and other employees on the basis of increased productivity, but merely as a result of the increased price index. One of the most dangerous things one can do is to increase wages just because the price index has increased without an accompanying increase in productivity. Now we have the phenomenon of employers beginning to get rid of their employees, with a smaller number of employees having to do the same amount of work for the same amount of money as was paid out in wages earlier. If that phenomenon begins to snowball we will get unemployment in South Africa in certain sectors. Unemployment is much worse than having people all working, even though they are doing so at a decreased level of remuneration. We shall have to beware of this phenomenon in South Africa.

I also want to make another point as far as inflation is concerned. We must remember that the first 1% of the inflation rate is not actually inflation. The benefits incorporated in one’s whole economic structure are responsible for that. When we speak of an inflation rate of 10% and 11% —we acknowledge that this is a high inflation rate—we must bear in mind that inflation is not responsible for the whole 10% or 11%.

Another point I want to mention, as far as inflation is concerned, is that our population refuses to accept a lower standard of living, while they are not prepared, either, to work for higher productivity.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned for dinner, I had the Opposition under fire, but I should now like to broach a few matters in conclusion. One of these concerns the E.E.C. countries.

These days the world trend is for countries to form economic blocs. Thus, we get the American bloc or community, the E.E.C. and, over and against that, Japan, Russia and the Far East which, in conjunction with China, one can regard as a unit. I do not think that our people perhaps realize today how important the E.E.C. is, not only for South Africa, but also for the rest of the world. In speaking about that, it is perhaps also just necessary for me to say that the present-day trend is for France to play a very big role in the E.E.C. As we know, France and Germany are competing to see who will actually be the leader of Europe. France does not only have influence in Europe, its influence reaches very far. France also has great influence in Africa. There is a larger portion of Africa where French is the colloquial and official language in comparison with the portion where English is spoken. There are thus 18 French speaking countries in Africa as against 15 English speaking countries. South Africa included. We know that this is a problem, that the Government is very mindful of that fact and that it is ensuring that our ties with the E.E.C. are consolidated and strengthened. I want to give to you, for your consideration, the fact that in spite of all that this entails and in spite of everything that is already being done, our Government will do much more along those lines than is apparent on the surface. In addition, since we now have this tremendous promotion of exports, etc., I want to ask that all the channels in South Africa, all the bodies and in particular, the Opposition, should do their best so that economically we can link up strongly with the E.E.C.

This now brings me to my final request. I want to request that we give consideration to a southern community. This includes South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and South America. [Interjections.] It looks to me as if the Opposition is now completely in a muddle. If we can develop those trade missions of the past, which Mr. Haak was still leader of at the time, it would be a very good thing for us in the future to link there countries together in the south—just as has been done with countries in the north—into a trade community so that the various communities will be able to trade with each other on a very good footing. I think that that is something for the future, and in that sphere we can do a great deal for South Africa. We can build on that so that it would be of benefit not only to South Africa and the rest of the southern community, but also to the rest of the world. There is only one point, i.e. that we must ensure that the countries of the world are strongly linked up with each other economically. We must ensure that there is stability in all respects; not only as far as financial matters are concerned, but also as far as trade and economy are concerned. Therefore I think it would be a very good thing if we could think along those lines.

Mr. Speaker, according to the hon. member for Sunnyside, who has just spoken, the Opposition is in a muddle. I want to tell him that I am very grateful for the fact that he stood up just in time to deliver the concluding portion of his speech. I think he should rather not speak too much about confusion. What is enlightening is the appeal which the hon. member made for economic strength and prosperity. It seems to me the hon. member has forgotten that the basis of his party’s economic philosophy is not one of prosperity, but one of “poor but White”. He has apparently forgotten about that. Yes, it is “rather poor but White”, but that is a point I shall come back to.

Surely you are being silly now.

No, I am not being silly. The hon. member, with his subtlety, is merely displaying his own political ignorance. He does not even know the policy of his own party. That is his trouble. Unless he goes and reads up his policy, he had better stop making interjections.

I should just like to return for a moment to the hon. the Minister of the Interior. He is not here this evening. At least, I do not see him here. I take it that his colleagues will, in the course of the debate be able to defend him if there is a point on which I may perhaps cross swords with him.

Why is he not here?

I shall not ask why he is not here. The hon. gentleman probably has reasons. The point I want to make is that this afternoon the hon. gentleman, to the great delight of his followers, tried to make fun of the United Party because we are supposedly not able and prepared to give particulars of our policy. That was a great delight to his followers. I now wonder, then, whether the hon. the Minister of the Interior has so short a memory. Has he then forgotten how the Nationalist Party came into power, not with the policy of particulars, but with one single word, i.e. “apartheid”? Has he forgotten about that?

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

Later, Mr. Speaker. That word “apartheid” was dragged ad nauseam, without particulars, from platform to platform, in fact to such an extent that the party eventually could not manage any more and had to appoint the Tomlinson Commission to work out a race recipe for them. They had to appoint a commission to give particulars about and content to that policy. Now the hon. the Minister of the Interior stands up and tries to provoke us because we are not giving the particulars of our policy. But, let us forget about the past, let us forget about 1948. Let us look at the present position. [Interjections.] Is it perhaps the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North who is being so verbose there? I now want to ask him —he can just speak after I have finished— what his party’s policy is for the Coloureds in South Africa, or is he also one of those people who would rather not stand up and speak?

Go and sit down so that I can reply to you. [Interjections.]

Sit down!

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

No. My hon. friend at the back here tells me we should rather ask big brother. I do not know who big brother is, but it does look to me as if there must be some connection between the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North and another hon. member in the House. If one heard this type of speech in which a back-bencher, an ordinary hon. member of the House, possibly delighted in something like this, one could understand it, but that a Minister of the Republic of South Africa can stand up and, while confronting the history of his party, come along to the House with this type of nonsense, is incomprehensible. Here sits a party which is asking for particulars. After 25 years this party appoints a commission— by the way, it is the third commission— to tell them what their policy must be with respect to the Coloureds of South Africa. Those are the people who are asking for particulars. No, really, I do not think it befits an hon. member opposite to point a finger of condemnation at this side of the House and to ask for particulars. If there has ever been a party which has for years led the people up the garden path with a few slogans and words devoid of particulars, it has specifically been that side of the House.

[Inaudible.]

Oh, you can only speak about finance.

The other point, which the hon. the Minister of the Interior made, was also a particularly interesting one. He said that nowhere in the world could various races —I do not want to interpret him incorrectly—continue to exist in one state. [Interjections.] No, “various peoples”, are the words he used.

In a federation.

No. He referred to America with its problems, to Ireland and numerous others. He said nowhere in the world could various people continue to exist in one state. You know, Sir, that leads me to believe, surely, that hon. member now still believes in total apartheid; because if his philosophy, his view, is correct, in order to give it any credibility, the Bantu must be completely removed from White South Africa. But it means more. The Coloureds will also have to be removed from South Africa. By the way, Sir, speaking about Coloureds, the hon. the Minister of the Interior is asking for particulars. He has clarity, of course, in his own mind as far as the Coloureds are concerned, because it has already been indicated that he is an advocate of a Coloured-stan. But where do his colleagues come in? Where are they with their particulars? No, Sir, the hon. the Minister of the Interior owes us two answers, and he will have to give them to us at some time or other.

But now I want to come to another matter. On various occasions this afternoon we have heard that the Nationalist Party —and we all know it—has already been ruling for 25 years.

Hear, hear!

They are exceptionally proud of the fact. They are continually saying “hear, hear”. But it is not merely a question of ruling for 25 years. I think I am historically correct when I say that they have been the strongest political force on the Government side which South Africa has ever had in power. For the major part of those 25 years that party has been so powerful in the House of Assembly, the highest authority in South Africa, that there was nothing they could not do if they wanted to. There was nothing to stop them. I cannot recall the Nationalist Party ever having taken the least notice of pleas addressed to the Government about a matter of principle. They simply ruled without any regard to the Opposition. They had the power. Each time they said: “We have the will of the people behind us.” They simply acted as they felt like acting.

Untrue.

They have never openly accepted any United Party point of policy in connection with any matter of principle. What has happened is that they have done so in a covert way. Then they have come along with another story. [Interjection.] Yes, let me just give a few examples. The hon. member must not be in a hurry. It seems to me as if the hon. gentleman is getting worried. I say that that has been done in a covet way. Every time they have been caught with their hands in the United Party’s political till, they have said: “No, the till belongs to us.” “The till belongs to us; that is why we have our hands in it.” Let us just mention a few examples. The most striking example, certainly as far as I am concerned, is the question of sport, a simple one. Everyone can understand it. We remember, after all, how the Nationalist Party’s sports policy was clearly set out in the well-known, or perhaps notorious, Loskop Dam speech. After all, we are familiar with that policy. Where does the Nationalist Party stand today? Much nearer to the United Party than in those days.

I want to mention another example. Up to just a year ago the Minister of Labour was saying that if the Whites wanted to preserve their security in South Africa, we dare not train the Bantu in the White areas. And now, Sir? This year the door has been opened a fraction.

Thus I could continue to mention one example after another, but the fact is that specifically in the sphere of race relations the Nationalist Party has stood firm as a rock, relentless. They never even took any notice of the United Party. People in their own ranks expressed criticism. That was the so-called intelligentsia. I remember that Prof. Moolman, the director of the Africa Institute, said the following only a few months ago (translation): “If you believe that the Bantu who works here must exercise his political rights in the Reserve, the homeland, then you are being just as unrealistic as when you believe that integration is an answer for South Africa.” But that party did not take any notice of that. And do you know, Sir, who the man was who stood like granite, who stood firm in this attitude, who was relentless and did not want to give in? It was specifically the hon. the Minister who now occupies the Bantu Administration and Development post. He never bowed. The critics in his own ranks he tolerated with fatherly patience. The United Party’s views he rejected with contempt. He never listened to us.

And neither is he doing so now.

Yes, that hon. member still rejects them now; that is what that hon. member believes. But on 18th May that same inexorable Minister of Bantu Administration came to this House and said: “I am asking for consensus. I am asking for White consensus about Bantu Affairs.” That is what he asked for. And do you know why he wants that consensus, Sir? He says he wants it so that the United Party cannot go on exploiting the Bantu situation for political gain. That was his motivation. Since when has the Nationalist Party suddenly become so piously concerned about the exploitation of this political situation? Since when has the hon. the Minister himself become so pontifically pious that he can say that we are exploiting the Bantu situation for political gain? Has he then forgotten about that Black manifesto, that bit of dirty history of the Nationalist Party? Has he then forgotten his own party’s past, Sir? But, Sir, the Minister did not stop at that. He went further. It was on 18th May that he came here and asked for consensus. It was a Friday. Over the week-end he probably gave it some more thought, and the following Monday he went further; he told us: “It is now a few minutes to twelve. Conditions are dangerous.” And now the question that crops up in my mind is: Why does this relentless man of a few months ago come here to advocate consensus? Why does he come here to tell us that it is a few minutes to twelve?

Sir, we must take note of the words. He says it is a few minutes to twelve, not midday, but midnight. And that after the Nationalist Party has been in power for 25 years. For 25 years they have had all the power in the world to do what they wanted to. Twenty-five years is what the people gave them to tackle this question and try to solve it. And then the hon. the Minister comes along and says we must cooperate. He has never concerned himself about the co-operation of the Opposition. Now suddenly he is worried. Now for the first time he speaks of a consensus. Why is he so worried?

Sir, nothing is such a condemnation of Government policy as specifically the utterance of that hon. Minister. Nothing is so indicative of the failure of that policy as specifically the utterance of that Minister. He says it is five minutes to midnight. After 25 years, Sir, we have the darkest hour of the night while the people, after all the years of Nationalist Government, could have expected the hon. the Minister to have had the answers and to have been able to bring us clear daylight, but we get nothing of that kind at all. If there has ever been a Minister who has condemned his own policy as a failure in a few words, it was the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. If there has ever been a government whose policy has been rejected in the words of a member of the Cabinet, it is the Nationalist Party Government.

Sir, the Nationalist Party is now free to go on boasting; the hon. the Minister of the Interior is free to boast of peace and prosperity. I am telling him that in the hearts of the people there is a deep feeling of unhappiness, a feeling that everything is not right, a feeling that our people are unsafe. Sir, a few months ago the word “stalemate” was used almost every week by the Press, particularly English-language Press, and it was interpreted as being a “stalemate” between the United Party and the Nationalist Party. I am telling you this evening, Sir, that that was wrong. There is a position of “stalemate”, yes, but it is a position reached by South Africa in the hands of this Government in its struggle against its problems and its struggle against the challenges of the future. That is where we have reached stalemate, Sir, not between the parties. It is not a question of whether the United Party is going to lift the Nationalist Party out of those cushions. South Africa’s problem is that the people are saying: “The Nationalist Party has been ruling for 25 years …”.

Too long.

And now, after 25 years, the Nationalist Party is requesting a consensus and the Minister of Bantu Administration tells us: “I need help; I cannot continue alone.” That is what he said, in so many words.

Do you believe what you are saying?

I believe that the hon. the Minister realizes that he is in trouble.

Sir, when I say that the Nationalist Party has failed on the race policy front, I am not speaking of only a single sphere. The race policy and philosophy of the Nationalist Party has penetrated to almost every facet of South Africa’s national life. One finds its stigma on foreign affairs; one finds its stigma on internal affairs; on sport, education, economy and labour; everywhere one finds the stigma of the Nationalist Party’s ideology.

Order! Hon. members must not talk so loudly; I cannot hear a word the hon. member for Maitland is saying.

Sir, I specifically want to make a point of the labour question. For years the policy of the Nationalist Party has been that the Whites must increasingly do their own work in White South Africa because it is politically dangerous to be dependent on foreign peoples for labour.

They were only here to wash cups.

That was their philosophy, and it is for that reason that we said that if one removed the Bantu from here, one would reach a stage of being poor yet hopeful of remaining White. But, Sir, there was immediately a clash with respect to the philosophy that the Whites must do their own work. The fact was that the Bantu streamed in by the tens of thousands, but the Nationalist Party tried to explain this away with those famous words of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development who referred to the Bantu as “temporary”, or “casual” workers. This evening I am telling the hon. the Minister that I do not mind what he calls the Bantu. He may refer to them as casual workers, but whatever name the Government may give the Bantu, this will not make the slightest impression upon the mental condition of the Bantu who are being drawn into the sphere of Western living as a result of the fact that their labour is necessary here. Sir, the fact that they are being drawn in here is making an indelible impression upon the Bantu here in the Western sphere of life, and that impression is that they must be placed in positions to be able to provide for the needs which that way of life demands, not in their homelands, but here where they are living. And it is specifically here where the Nationalist Party is being faced with problems. The Government calls the Bantu casual workers. No, Sir, they are here as people, and as people these things leave impressions upon them, and they will demand their rights as normal people whether one calls them casual workers or “los workers” or not.

Sir, on the labour front we can remember how the various departments came to this Parliament for years and all complained about a labour shortage. One department after another referred in its annual report to a shortage of trained labour. This ran like a refrain through the reports of the department. The Department of Agriculture complained about that, and so did virtually every other department. We remember how the hon. the Minister of Railways came along here year after year and said that the Railways’ problem was a shortage of trained workers, until the Minister of Railways took the Nationalist Party’s policy in his own hands, reformed it and appointed Bantu, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs subsequently following suit. We remember. Sir, how agriculture and the industrialists lodged pleas for trained labour. We remember how the United Party came to this House year after year and in what was like a refrain, lodged pleas for the training of Bantu. We remember how the hon. the Leader of the Opposition came along to this House a few years ago and said that a crash training programme was vital to the well-being of the economy. Can we forget, Sir, how the hon. the Minister of Labour stood up and, to the delight of his followers, tried to ridicule that appeal by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He roled the term “crash programme” like a pebble over his tongue and tried to ridicule it. Why, Sir? Not because we did not need the labour, but because the training of the Bantu clashed with the ideology of the Nationalist Party; that was the only reason. Today we find ourselves in this unenviable position that the hon. member for Sunnyside must stand up here and speak of economic prosperity while we know that one of the pillars of economic prosperity, trained labour forces, have shamefully been neglected throughout the years by the Nationalist Party.

Sir, we know that the Government now wants to open the door, but I want to tell them that the hour is late; it is also five minutes to twelve. I want to tell the Government that I am grateful that this is now taking place, but I am convinced of the fact that the generations to come will hold it against them for having refused to open the door through all those years. Those years will be regarded as the years devoured by the locusts, those years when we still had the time to make the necessary preparations. Today, after 25 years, we find that training facilities are minimal on the labour front; in fact, there are virtually no training facilities, while the labour front is launching pleas for more trained Bantu day after day. Sir, if we come along with a good case, we are told that we are just trying to plough the Whites under again. When we in the United Party advocate economic prosperity and well-being; we are not doing so because we want money in itself; we are lodging pleas for economic prosperity, for finance, because we want to purchase and get those things which the people need—all sections of the population. That is the United Party’s approach. It is not a materialistic approach; it is specifically idealistic. Because we know how much the people need.

Since when have you been idealists?

Sir, the Nationalist Party speaks of prosperity; they now want to fight inflation. With what do they want to fight inflation, Sir? Just the other day the hon. member for Randburg was saying here that the only answer to inflation is production. Sir, with what does one want to produce if one’s people are not properly trained? We speak readily here today of the narrowing of the gap between the wages of Whites and non-Whites. Sir, one cannot just pay people more; they must produce, and how must they produce if one has not trained them? On what grounds must we pay these people more? When the Black people look for trouble, when the clash comes, let us then remember that the years devoured by the locusts were those in which the Nationalist Party was asleep and did not do its work.

Sir, if we come to the conclusion that our economic position is bothering the security of the South African people, let us then remember that hon. members sitting on that side believe “rather poor but White”, while they know that the people say “No, we are White and we refuse to be poor”. That is the philosophy and the approach of the United Party. Sir, we shall not allow ourselves to be put off. My hon. friend here, the member for King William’s Town, described it correctly.

Order! The hon. member for Wakkerstroom asks whether he may ask a question.

No.

The hon. member for King William’s Town described it correctly the other day when he said that there has been a quarter of a century of Nationalist Party rule. I remember that there was a document in the history of South Africa that caused repercussions, i.e. “Die Eeu van Onreg” (The Century of Injustice). History may yet prove that the last quarter of a century will be known as the “Quarter of a Century of Injustice and Disservice to South Africa.”

I think that it is necessary for me to rectify one small matter at the outset. I think that it is necessary to remind the hon. member who has just spoken that when he participates in a debate as a responsible member, he should make sure of his facts before making statements which he expects people to accept. That is why I want to quote to him and to others what the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration said in regard to this minor matter, about which the newspapers, too, had something to say, namely the minor matter of consensus and of 12 o’clock. It is true that he did mention this and I want to quote what he said. The Minister said (Hansard, 1973, col. 7028)—

Exactly what I said.

No. The hon. member can correct me and he can quote from Hansard. I listened to the speech and subsequently I read it, because it is a speech which is worth the trouble to read. The hon. the Minister said that the time to arrive at a consensus had almost run out and he referred to various occasions on which invitations had been made with a view to arriving at this consensus. Sir, I join the Minister in saying this. The time for Whites to reach consensus on the matter of where they want to go, on that question, the hands of the clock have reached 12 o’clock. But the Minister never said, and this party will never say, that the hands of the clock had reached 12 o’clock as far as the finding of solutions is concerned.

I should like to ask what would happen if consensus had not been reached by 12 o’clock.

I shall come to that. [Interjections.] Oh really, the hon. members need not make interjections. Let us discuss like adults these matters which call for an earnest approach. I say that I agree with the hon. the Minister that the time for arriving at a consensus between Whites is nearly 12 o’clock. There have been many attempts. I know that mistakes have been made in the past. Let us make no bones about that. I am not going back into history. Perhaps they came from all sides, but the simple fact is that in the interests of our fatherland and for the sake of generations to come the time has arrived when consensus of opinion about essential matters will have to be achieved. [Interjections.]

But with the proviso of the four conditions …

I shall deal with those four provisions too. If hon. members will give me the time and not make interjections, I promise them that I shall try to deal with them in all honesty. I want to tell you that the hon. the Minister sounded this warning, and that he was not the first one to say this. A great deal has been said as though I, in my personal capacity as Deputy Minister, had propagated another kind of idea which differed from those of the Governments of the past and the Government of the day. I want to quote to you what Dr. Malan said on the evening when he announced his Government and when he as Prime Minister accepted his duty towards the Republic of South Africa, which at that time was still the Union of South Africa.

Twenty-five years ago.

Yes, 25 years ago he said this in regard to these people, these non-Whites whom we are discussing. And please note, this was not said at a meeting at which it was necessary for him to butter people up. He spoke straight from the heart. He spoke for the world to hear and to the world, and he made this promise (translation)—

That is what Dr. Malan said. So if it is true that there is a new sound, let me say that the sound of Nationalism is as old as the hills. Throughout the 25 years these things said on the evening of 4th June, 1948, have been echoed by our leaders time and again, over the ether and in the debating chambers, to friend and foe, to the outside world and the interior. It has been said that Dr. Verwoerd was a dogmatist. I want to quote to you what he said when the H. F. Verwoerd tunnels were opened in the Soutpansberg mountains in 1961. It was not a political meeting. He spoke about those mountains which were an obstacle between the north and the south and how attempts had been made over the years to penetrate those mountains by means of a mountain pass and later by means of a tunnel, and then he said the following (translation)—

He went on to say—

Mr. Speaker, allow me to say the following: The hon. member for Turffontein is a young man of Afrikaans origin and I am not asking him to listen to me. However, I want to tell this hon. young friend, who once said in this House that he belonged to an Afrikaans church and was an Afrikaner, that when idealism is being discussed and when the future of the people to which he belongs, as well as people speaking other languages, is being discussed in all seriousness, then—and I try to say this without any unpleasantness—it would be advisable for him, it should mean something to him, to try to display a little of the seriousness expected of each Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking South African. This frivolous laughing and giggling brings him nowhere and is worthless to our country.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I was talking to another hon. member about something completely different and I do not know what the hon. the Deputy Minister is trying to say now.

Mr. Speaker, on one occasion the hon. member admitted that he was an Afrikaner and I merely want to bring the idea home to him that there are times and occasions when we have to discuss these things with each other in all seriousness. It would do him good to learn a few things from what was said by an Afrikaner leader. This was his own Afrikaner leader even though he disagreed with him in the field of politics. On that occasion Dr. Verwoerd also spoke these words which I want to quote tonight, because I believe that every one of us could take them to heart (translation)—

The other day I spoke about the same kind of obstacle, but it was interpreted as a new sound going out into the world. It is no new sound. On that occasion Dr. Verwoerd said (translation)—

That was no new sound. That has been the language of Nationalist leaders over many years.

The hon. member for East London City asked me a reasonable question. He asked me a question arising from the four points put by the hon. the Minister. From this whole session I shall remember one thing as a tragedy. The hon. member for Houghton has her standpoint which radically differs from ours and I have no respect for her standpoint. However, I do have respect for someone who sticks to his standpoint. If there is one thing this session which I shall remember with sorrow in my heart, it is that there has been an invitation not only from the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development but also from the hon. the Prime Minister as well as the hon. the Minister of Defence, when he participated in the discussion of a private motion, not to differ with regard to certain basic, essential things about which we feel the same, with the possible exception of the Progressive Party …

Under what conditions?

I am coming to the conditions. The invitation was for us to co-operate on those matters.

But it was on wrong conditions. [Interjections.]

I shall read the conditions and if hon. members do not make a noise, they will hear them. These are the conditions which were set and the hon. members of the Opposition must tell me if they do not agree with them: “Are all the different Native nations and the White people not all members of different nations?” This question was posed by the hon. the Minister and it is a question which has also been asked by the English-language newspapers. Do we agree on that or do hon. members not agree? That was the first condition. I want to mention a second point and hon. members can go and look it up for themselves. I quote from Hansard (Hansard, 1973, column 7030)—

Do hon. members agree? [Interjections.] Inter-dependence was clearly underlined at every opportunity. The third principle stated by the hon. the Minister is—

Do you agree that basically our standpoints correspond, or do you not agree? If you do not agree, then tell the world so!

Then the hon. the Minister stated a fourth point and it was on this point that the basic difference arose. It was on that point that a tragedy occurred the next day in the newspaper. That someone for whom I have respect should tell the public Press that this invitation from the Minister came from a party that was a sinking ship! [Interjections.] I do not want to reply to that, but I just want to put a question to hon. members who can still be honest with themselves. Is the National Party, after all these years, and despite the fact that it has made mistakes, being forced into a coalition, or even into considering it? Is it a sinking ship? Or is it a party which is standing on the crest after 25 years of achievement and which will be in this role for another 25? Is there anyone in this country who is as stupid as to want to deny that? Ask any impartial judge or the hon. member for Houghton whether there is any possibility of the United Party assuming the reins of government at the next election or thereafter. This invitation made by the Prime Minister and by others, was an invitation made from strength. It was not made from weakness; it was made from strength so that we might arrive at a consensus. It was not done because the hands of the clock had reached 12 o’clock in the destiny of our people, but because 12 o’clock was drawing closer for us to arrive at a consensus mutually. Feeling against South Africa in the world is not directed against the National Party: it is directed against South Africa. Those hon. members who do not believe me, can go and read in the Hansard of 1946 what Gen. Smuts said in Parliament regarding the attitude of the world. It is directed against everyone in South Africa, against the Whites in particular. For that reason the hon. the Minister advocated that we should reach consensus on basic things in respect of which we could agree with each other and in respect of which we dared not allow ourselves to become estranged through words. I want to go even further than that.

Even though the Minister did not say so, I nevertheless believe that the time for action and for ever harder work has now arrived. I do not want to go into the past, but the past proves how that which we stood for, has been broken down. It has been broken down so that we may begin building anew. If the party on that side of the House do not take the hand extended to them with the request to lend a hand in this building work, we shall seek a helping hand among members of that party for whom my doors will remain open while we are working on this matter. My doors will stand open as the doors of all our Ministers have stood open. I as a junior Deputy Minister for whom it was difficult to attend discussions, was present when in the midst of a very heavy programme the hon. the Prime Minister had discussions with the Bantu leaders which lasted for many hours. He even had discussions with antagonistic Bantu leaders, but nevertheless he did so with courtesy and treated them as his fellow men. I have seen this on the part of the hon. the Minister too. On occasion I as Deputy Minister have felt small in the presence of great people who were able to speak with opponents in this way. If we were able to speak with them like that, then we can speak with the Opposition in the same way. I want to say, too, that if the hon. the Minister said that 12 o’clock was approaching in the matter of arriving at a consensus, I can only add that a hand has been extended to them on a number of occasions. We shall arrive at that consensus, we shall arrive at it within the councils, within municipalities and to an ever-increasing extent throughout the country, and we shall arrive at it so as to enable us to co-operate. We do not say this from a sinking ship, but from a ship which has journeyed safely for 25 years. When all the countries of the world, all the mighty countries of the world, left Africa, there was one small people, our small people, that said it would not leave.

It had no other home.

Yes, it had no other home. I want to tell the hon. member for East London City that we did not want any other home, either. If he wants another home, then he should go there. We, however, shall remain. I know that there are people in the world, even in our country, who think that 12 o’clock is upon us. Perhaps in respect of many of the things which we must do, in respect of our relations with the world and the attitude of the world towards us, 12 o’clock is probably near. I just want to say, and I do not say this defiantly, but as a small member of a small people, that it has occurred many times in the past that it has been almost 12 o’clock for us. However, we worked through 12 o’clock to the beginning of a new day. If the Opposition does not want to accompany us, even though 12 o’clock should strike and even though it is past 12 o’clock, the National Party and its followers will continue to work. Not only White South Africa will see this, but also Black South Africa will see the honesty of this Government, together with all the mistakes it has made and the things it has omitted to do. Whether the Opposition want to or not, we within the National Party will continue to work till past 12 o’clock, till the coming of the new day in which also those people who did not want to co-operate after a hand had been extended to them, will be able to share.

Mr. Speaker, today we have heard the hon. the Deputy Minister in quite a different vein than we heard him the other day. The other day we saw him as a Deputy Minister appealing for understanding, prepared to accept advice from every one and to do his best to bring about better relations. Tonight he has been asked to defend his Minister.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, that is not true. [Interjections.]

Order!

I fear that as far as we are concerned, he protesteth too much. We are not impressed by this emotional appeal he made at the end about the “Nasionaliste wat sal veg tot na 12-uur.”

*They had the opportunity to fight in 1939 when there was a real enemy, but where were they then? Did they fight then? They were running away then. Now they are prepared to fight. “We shall not compromise”, Dr. Malan said at that time. We also remember what Dr. Verwoerd said.

The did not want to have a “verbrokkeling” of South Africa, but it was forced upon him from outside. A man of granite!

*He had to compromise. He did compromise, and they are still compromising all the time. After his speech at the Loskop Dam the Prime Minister compromised. That hon. Minister of Sport is compromising all the time.

†I am very sorry to have heard the hon. the Deputy Minister tonight on the line he took here, because we thought he was the one tiny ray of sunshine we could see coming from the Government side. We have had 25 wasted years under this Nationalist Government. We are reaching the end of this session, and what has the public got from this Government? It is the same story every year. The public has had very little from the Government to lighten their burden, to ease their problems. The cost of living continues to rise and wage-earners and especially pensioners, old-age or otherwise, are worried about how to meet their expenses with the value of the rand depreciating by the day. However, the falling rand and the increasing prices are not the only nagging worry that they have.

Although economic security is of major concern to them they have other worries as well. I want to discuss the other security which they fear they are losing, namely their physical security. This is a matter of great concern. The ordinary man in the street reads and sees what is happening in the countries to the north of us. He sees that they are worried about their security and he wonders about his own. Unfortunately he reads warnings by Nationalist intellectuals, Nationalist economists and Nationalist thinkers and wonders more and more whether this Government is a good security risk. He wonders about this because he realizes more and more that his security depends largely on harmonious race relations. When he sees what is happening in this country, he certainly has some reason for disquiet. He hears more and more critical and unfriendly views being expressed by the leaders of the Bantu and Coloured people; he hears talk of bloodshed from two of the most important African leaders. He read just yesterday of a warning by another African leader that, if his tribe has to be moved from a certain area, they will be moved only by guns. This sort of talk was not heard three or four years ago. This is new, and the people read this and become worried. Then he hears from the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development that it is later than he thinks. What a frank admission of failure after 25 years! A whole generation has come and gone under this Government, despite what the hon. the Deputy Minister has had to say in trying to explain away what the hon. the Minister meant.

The young voters of today have grown up thinking that this is the Government that will give them protection; they have known no other Government. They have been told that this is the Government which will look after their interests, this is the Government that has the answer to the race problem. Now it is being brought home to them that, throughout their lives, this Government has been letting things slip and slide. Now it is almost too late to assure them of a peaceful existence. What a shock for them. It has come as a shock to the voting public, especially to the young people. Children who grew up in Britain and other parts of Europe during the six years of war had peace to look forward to when the war ended, but what has our youth to look forward to?—the possible collapse of their security on which they had been basing their future happiness. It is not something that has come about suddenly or was unavoidably like a declaration of war, but something that could have been avoided. Throughout their childrenhood and their school days when they were indoctrinated by the way history was taught, they regarded this Government as a protector. The hon. the Prime Minister was caricatured as a strong man: “Hy eet sy vyande voor brekfis”. So het hy ge-“brag”. What has happened since? The picture has changed overnight. Despite the bragging of the hon. the Minister of Defence, they read the warnings of the ex-Commandant-General. And then a Minister of their own Cabinet, Mr. Gerdener, had to resign from the Cabinet because he also believed that it was later than we thought. He feared that as a member of the Cabinet he could do nothing to prevent the danger he foresaw. He felt so strongly that something had to be done that he resigned from the Cabinet and started to work outside to try and bring about better race relations. But I fear he is fighting a losing battle while this Government is in office. It is no use appealing to outsiders and ordinary folk for a change of heart. Nothing can be done unless there is a change of heart in the members of this Cabinet. Unless they change their hearts and take a different line, Mr. Gerdener’s efforts will be lost. Surely, after 25 years of admitted failure, they must realize that they must change their ways or get out. If they cannot provide an alternative policy, they must accept ours.

Obviously, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development finds himself in a desperate position, because he has failed in carrying out the policy. I do not blame him for the policy. He is not the father of the policy. He is the unfortunate man—I was going to say “sucker”, but that would hardly be parliamentary—who has been landed with a suicidal policy forced on us by Dr. Verwoerd, who, as I said the other day, was not a traditional thinker. The biggest tragedy for South Africa was the day when Dr. Verwoerd came to this country. Now, Sir, it is almost 12 o’clock. The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development makes an appeal to the Whites to arrive at a consensus or agreement. The hon. the Deputy Minister says that the hon. the Minister did not mean that there was a crisis. All he said was that it was getting late and that the Whites should get together to come to some agreement. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister, why did he say it is almost too late? Why did he say that fatalists would say it is too late? Evidently he is not a fatalist, because he does not agree that it is too late. What was he talking about when he said that they said it was too late, something with which he did not agree? It is almost too late, he said. I cannot understand why there was this appeal. Why is it late?

Because it is still possible for you to come to your senses.

All right, and if we do not come to our senses, what will happen then?

Then we will have enough sense ourselves to carry on.

If they are, as powerful as the hon. the Deputy Minister says—he said that they are a powerful party and that they are not seeking assistance— why was the appeal made at all? I reminded the House recently that at least twice during the past 25 years United Party leaders had offered to throw in their lot with the Government and take racial affairs out of the political arena. They were scorned on both occasions. I do not blame this Minister for seeking an agreement now that he finds his Government bogged down in an ideological mess. He is a schoolmaster; he probably remembers his history. He will remember that another Nationalist Government 40 years ago found itself in a similar mess—not a racial mess, but a financial mess. It was an offer of assistance from the United Party under Gen. Smuts which saved Gen. Hertzog, his Nationalist Party and the country from ignominious collapse. When Gen. Smuts and Gen. Hertzog came together in the early ’thirties, there was no stipulation that the one had to surrender his principles to the other. Dr. Malan was prepared to accept our cooperation once before, but only on the condition that we accepted apartheid. Now the remarkable thing about Nationalist thinking is that they will not accept that their policy has failed. After 25 years of the application of apartheid the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration has had to admit that the fatalists think that it is already too late to save this country from race clashes, and although he says he is not a fatalist, he wants to warn that it is very late, that it is almost midnight, and he appeals for the agreement of the Whites.

Are you quoting now?

Yes, that is what he said.

No, you are not quoting.

Shall I read it to you? Sir, he said (Hansard, col. 7028— translation)—

Well, what did I say other than what I have just quoted? I was reading from Hansard. Instead of holding the book up high, I had it on my desk. What is the difference? This is just what I was saying. Then, Sir, he lays down conditions for the consensus. He expects us to accept those conditions, which amounts to accepting that the future of this country lies in separate nations in separate individual states. The fundamental difference between the parties is on this issue. How can he expect us to work together with him to find a solution if we must accept the principles on which we disagree so fundamentally, and in respect of which the Government has failed? Their whole policy has failed; how can he expect us to accept that principle? We believe that the different population groups have a common destiny and owe a common loyalty to South Africa, which is the opposite to his policy.

I am sorry the hon. the Deputy Minister is not here. He made the right noises the other night with a view to a possible breakthrough and a better understanding, as well as relations with the urban Bantu. He is beginning to see things our way. He is beginning to realize that the urban Bantu are the Achilles heel of the Government’s policy. That is where their policy fails them. The hon. the Deputy Minister indicated during the discussion on his Vote that he had a different outlook from his predecessor, Mr. Coetzee. He was not happy, he said, about the migrant labour. There were many other things with which he was not happy. He stated that he wanted to make living for the Bantu in these areas as pleasant as possible. Sir, I want to read what he had to say.

Come on, read to us again.

Yes, listen now. Here the hon. the Deputy Minister’s point of view is stated in simple terms; even you should therefore be able to understand.

†This is what the hon. the Deputy Minister had to say (Hansard, col. 6883—translation)—

Now, why did he say that, Sir?

Is that why Blaar went to Rome?

Yes, what was Blaar Coetzee’s attitude? Blaar Coetzee said in this House that you must not make it too pleasant for them, because if you make it pleasant for them, and you give them amenities they will not want to leave the urban areas and go back to the Reserves. That is in direct opposition to what the hon. the Deputy Minister says now. There is another difference, Sir. This Deputy Minister says that the Bantu are in the White areas “for their own benefit, also for the benefit of the Whites”. Sir, this is new thinking since Dr. Verwoerd’s day. What did Dr. Verwoerd say? Dr. Verwoerd regarded the Africans living in the urban areas as labour units, that is all. They were only here to serve the White man, and once they had served him, they had to return to the Reserves. He likened the Bantu labourer to an ox …

May I ask you a question?

Just let me finish my sentence. He likened the Bantu labourer to an ox.

Nonsense.

He said that the farmer used the ox on his farm to plough with, but that the ox was not integrated in the farmer’s economy. That is what he said, and he said the same thing as far as the Bantu labourer was concerned. He said that as far as the Bantu labourer was concerned, he was not integrated …

Where did he say that?

He said it here in this House.

Who did more for Bantu housing in this country than the late Dr. Verwoerd?

That is a fair question.

Well, why do you say that he considered the Bantu only as a labour unit?

Sir, I am surprised to hear a statement like this. If they were here to serve the White man and they were here as labour units, surely they had to be housed? You put a horse in a stable, do you not? Therefore they had to be housed. Mr. Speaker, I want to accuse this hon. Minister of having neglected the housing for the Africans. A lot was done for the housing of the Africans; I shall give that credit, as I have done in the past. The Nationalist Government did a lot to supply housing for the Africans. There is no doubt about it, but this hon. Minister, when he was Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, delayed the construction of houses by delaying the passing of plans.

That is an infamous lie! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it, but it is untrue. [Interjections.]

Sir, I do not worry about what he says any more. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, during his first appearance as Deputy Minister, replied to what I had said. He is now responsible for the urban African, and when I read out in this House what we were prepared to do in this respect, he said it was quite unnecessary for the United Party to promise to do that, because the Nationalist Party Government were going to do all that. When he spoke I asked him various questions. He said he would reply seriatim. During the discussion of the Vote he was given several opportunities to reply seriatim, but admittedly each speech had to be only ten minutes long and possibly, and maybe because he felt he could not deal with these questions in ten minutes, he did not deal with them. But he had half an hour tonight, and I thought he would deal with them then, because you see, Sir, when he had finished his first ten-minute speech the other day, I got up and asked him to go on and to explain his policy, but he did not do so. He spoke for ten minutes more, but he did not do so. He got up later again for another ten minutes, and said he would deal with it, but he did not do so. I am still waiting. I do not want to read through all these points now; I do not have the time to do so. As I read these points out then, he said “yes”, “yes”, “yes”. I want to ask him whether he will, now that he has become Deputy Minister, carry out these policies. You see, Sir, he has not had time to do anything yet; he has only been a Deputy Minister for something like six months. But by next session he will have been in this position for a year, and I want to ask him now if he is going to maintain influx control, but administer the system in a realistic way so as to meet the demand for labour in a humane manner, and obviate hardships and grievances, which is our policy. I want him to tell us how he is going to amend the present regulations and introduce a new system, because under the present system there are grievances and there are hardships. He will therefore have to make changes, and I would like to know what changes he is going to make.

While I am on the subject, I asked a question the other day about aid centres. I was told that 93 067 Bantu had been referred to aid centres during the year 1972, and that 9 539 went there voluntarily. That means that 102 606 Africans went to the aid centres. I then asked what had happened to them and how many of them had been charged before the court, and the reply was that the number referred to court was 39 984 and that the number disposed of by the aid centres was 62 622, but the following reply was that work had been found for only 889. Sir, there is one thing that I will say for the hon. the Minister of Sport. When he was Deputy Minister he did introduce the aid centre system and we expected a lot from it, but obviously the system is not working if 102 606 were referred to aid centres and nearly 40 000 had to be referred to court and work was only found for 889. I want to ask the present hon. the Deputy Minister if he will go into this question of aid centres to see what he can do to make the system work more efficiently.

Then we want to know from him—and we will want to know next year—what he is doing to ensure the enjoyment of undisturbed family life for the Bantu in the urban areas, because that is our policy and he says that that is also his policy. I want him to tell us how he is going to amend the laws; how he is going to amend the regulations to see that this is carried out. Then, Sir, we also want to know what he is going to do about raising their standard of living, their facilities for education and training, as well as the creation of opportunities for their productive and gainful employment. When I asked him this question originally, he said that he would reply in the debate on the Bantu Education Vote, but what he said amounted to this, that the municipalities must look after their education, and he said that he was assisting them to get loans to build more schools, but I want to know what he is going to do to train them in trade schools and technical colleges; what he is going to do to help them to improve their position in the townships, not in the Reserves. Then, Sir, I want to know whether he is going to give the urban Bantu councils the greatest possible measure of self-government over their own affairs. Is he going to introduce regulations to see that the urban Bantu councils control their own affairs? Is he going to make elementary education available to all Bantu children? Is he going to provide secondary and technical educational facilities for the urban Bantu in the White areas and assist the Bantu to gain admittance to universities by restoring their autonomy to these institutions?

As far as Bantu migratory workers are concerned, he said that he was worried about migratory labour and that he was prepared to accept advice. He said this in reply to the hon. member for Johannesburg North, who asked him if he would consider applying a charter, and in this connection referred to the European charter. Sir, the European charter insists that the migratory labourer must be treated as an ordinary citizen of the country; that he must have the same educational facilities, the same housing facilities and that sort of thing as the citizens of the country in which he comes to work. I want to ask him whether he will go into that and whether he will give the migratory labour a charter for a better life.

Sir, I asked him a question, too, about single Bantu women. Under our policy single Bantu women will be treated on the same basis as single men. Does he intend to carry that out? That is important, because if he does, he will have to change their policy completely because it is not the policy of the present Minister that single Bantu women should be treated on the same basis as men. Then I want to know, Sir, whether the wife of a Bantu worker will be permitted to join her husband in a Bantu urban area, provided that he is in permanent employment and he is in a position to support his family and suitable accommodation is available. Will he allow that?

Silence. No reply.

That is already being done.

Sir, I am surprised to hear that wives are allowed to join their husbands if the wife herself is not entitled to be in the area.

If she qualifies.

Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister will remember his calling before he became a member of Parliament; surely he must be interested in encouraging family life, and the biggest grouse that these people have is that they cannot enjoy normal family life. I want to know from him whether he is going to see to it that they are given an opportunity to enjoy family life. I see the hon. the Minister is looking rather worriedly at the hon. the Deputy Minister. He hopes he is not going to nod his head too often. Sir, we in the United Party say that we will restore the spirit of section 10 of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Act of 1945 and that we accept that Bantu who obtain permission to enter a prescribed area in terms of section 10(1)(d) of the Act may acquire rights of permanent residence as in the past. I do not want the hon. the Minister to look at the hon. the Deputy Minister and to give him an inkling as to what he is to say. Is the hon. the Deputy Minister going to carry this out? Is he going to abide by the spirit of this section?

Zip!

So I can go on but I will not say any more because this Minister has not had an opportunity to answer.

Sir, we look to him for a change in the policy of the Government because, as I say, the Achilles’ heel is the urban Bantu and unless an answer is found to the question of the urban Bantu you can never hope for racial peace and harmony in this country. The Minister of the Interior said no-one could give an example where peoples of different culture and races live in harmony in any country, but I would point out to him that until he gets rid of the urban Africans he is going to have people of different cultures and races living in the same country, and what is the Government going to do about it? How will they face up to this problem? I do not even want to worry the Minister about the Coloureds and the Indians. We know that the policy of the Minister of the Interior is, and his philosophy is, that the Coloureds should have a separate state of their own. And we also know that that is not the philosophy of the hon. the Prime Minister. How does the Minister of the Interior stay in this Cabinet if he differs on such a fundamental point? Because according to what he said tonight the Coloureds and the Indians cannot live with us in the same country. I wanted to deal with this earlier but did not have an opportunity because the Minister was not here: he has just come in. I wanted to deal with it earlier because it shows the inconsistency of his policy. [Time expired.]

This evening we listened once again to the hon. member for Transkei doing his utmost to discredit the National Party. We heard the same kind of speech from him the other day. I want to dwell for a while on a few points he mentioned this evening. The first point was that he claimed the National Party had for the past 25 years been making a mess of things in this country. He said it had been 25 wasted years. Sir, I want the hon. member for Transkei to listen. He said the past 25 years had been wasted years. He said that what concerned the man in the street most today was his security, and he said that during the 25 years the National Party had been in power the man in the street had not been assured of that security by the National Party. The man in the street despairs of that today, he said.

He said we were concerned about harmonious race relations in South Africa. I want to dwell on this, the creation of harmonious race relations in South Africa. I want to put an hypothesis to the hon. member for Transkei this evening, and in particular to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout who also spoke here this afternoon. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout made a speech here this afternoon in which he also made great play of how we were allegedly marring relations among the various races in South Africa. I want to ask those hon. members this evening what guarantee a United Party policy would contain for sound race relations in South Africa if they should ever come into power and were to apply their race federation policy. What guarantee does South Africa have that there would be sound race relations? We put a question to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout here this afternoon. The hon. member said here that their policy is based on a race federation.

I never said that.

You said you wanted a race federation. We put it to the hon. member that if they want a race federation in South Africa they should tell us whether one could have a federation in any country without a geographic context also being given to those ethnic groups living within that federation. The hon. member for Bezuidenhhout admitted by means of the reply which he gave to that question that when it comes to a federation a geographic context has to be given to those different ethnic groups living there. I regret that the hon. member now wishes to leave the Chamber.

No, I am not in the process of leaving the Chamber.

In a speech which the hon. member for Zululand made the other day he said, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said this afternoon, that the policy of the United Party was that the whole of South Africa belonged to the 22 million people living here in South Africa. He said that these 22 million people in South Africa had “a common destiny”. He also said that they had “a common loyalty”, and went on to say: “They are commonly bound to South Africa.” The inference we have to draw is that what the United Party’s policy amounts to, as it was stated today by its leader, is that the United Party will not tolerate any geographic division in this South Africa among the various ethnic groups living in South Africa.

Not as separate, independent states.

There will be no ethnic, geographic classification.

Not to exist as separate, independent states.

But does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout agree with the hon. member for Durban Point?

They are, after all, internal units.

Internal units! Let us get this very clear now. There must, therefore, be internal units. What this amounts to of course is that there should be an internal, geographic unit for the Zulu nation.

But it is already there.

There must also be internal, geographic units for each of the other eight ethnic Bantu peoples in South Africa, not so?

That is correct, for they are already there.

Does the hon. member for Durban Point also agree with that? Does he agree that there has to be different geographic units for the different ethnic units?

As part of South Africa.

As part of South Africa?

Yes.

We must therefore in South Africa have different ethnic, geographic units for all the Bantu people in South Africa.

They are also there now.

No, my question is whether they should be there. The point is, furthermore, that all the various Bantu peoples living in South Africa will be able to obtain their independence in their various ethnic, geographic areas. They will even be able to obtain it in terms of the policy of the United Party.

No.

Is it not so? I now want to know from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout whether he agrees with the hon. member for Durban Point who said: “No.”

I cannot make another speech.

No, I am asking the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, with reference to the fact that the hon. member for Durban Point has just said “No” and has intimated in that way that the various Bantu peoples living here will not have the right, ultimately, to become independent within their ethnic geographic areas …

[Inaudible.]

We see South Africa as a unit.

Let us hear what the hon. member for Zululand has to say.

How do you have independence and a federation at the same time?

A federation may consist of different peoples or ethnic groups. Let us agree. I think the hon. member for Zululand has a point when he says that one cannot have independent states within a federation.

That is precisely what I said.

One cannot have independent states, just as one cannot today have independent states in the United States of America. In other words, the United Party agrees that one can have different ethnically and geographically classified peoples in South Africa.

Yes.

They exist at present.

No, they do not exist at present. We are now creating those peoples. I now want to ask the United Party why they are then opposing the National Party although we have come forward with a consolidation plan for the various Bantu peoples. We want consolidation of these different ethnic units, and now I want to know from them why they are opposing us in this?

You are not really consolidating. It is merely a symbol.

Please wait; I am putting the question to the hon. member for Transkei. Why is the Opposition opposing it?

What you are proposing is not consolidation.

No. I am asking the hon. member why they are opposing the consolidation of the homelands.

I said that it was not consolidation. Zululand for example consists of 10 separate parts.

Let us now consider the United Party. They admitted today through the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that we can have different Bantu peoples in South Africa which have their own geographic units. Within those geographic units one can have nations which can eventually, if the peoples are not in agreement with the United Party’s policy of federation, become independent peoples.

Our policy is federation.

This means that they can eventually become independent peoples.

Our policy is federation!

Order! The hon. member for Durban Point cannot lie on his back and make a speech at the same time.

If we understand this policy of the United Party in this way, we want to know from them what they are going to do in future if they should come forward with this federation plan of theirs. When they come to the implementing of their policy, they will, before they establish a federation, first hold consultations with these various peoples who are joining them in this federation?

Of course.

Are you playing quiz kids?

Let me go further. Did the hon. members, before they drew up this policy of theirs and before they announced this policy of theirs, consult with these peoples?

Is your name Quiz Kid?

No, I am putting the question to the hon. member. We want a clear answer. If the hon. member wants me to be called “Quiz Kid”, I shall concede that I am one. I should like to say to the hon. member for Durban Point that he can rise to speak after me and tell us what their answers are. He can reply to the questions I have put to him. He is trying to be funny now; what he is saying is merely for effect. These questions are fundamental questions in regard to which the people of South Africa want clarity. In this United Party, as we have it today, there are people who are talking at cross-purposes in regard to this entire concept. I want to say that I think that the interpretation given by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to this policy and the interpretation of other members, in particular the hon. member for South Coast, are not quite the interpretation given to it by the hon. member for Durban Point. There are other hon. members who give other interpretations to this policy. I want to quote here from a speech made by the Leader of the United Party in the Transvaal. On 20th February, 1973, Mr. Harry Schwarz—and hon. members opposite who rise to speak after me must give me a reply to this—said the following in the Transvaal Provincial Council:

That is correct.

I am so pleased the hon. member for Durban Point has told me: “That is correct.” Now one has heard it here straight from the horse’s mouth. In other words, it means only one thing, viz. the total rejection in South Africa of White leadership.

No, I shall reply to you.

Surely that is correct. If we reject the domination of White over Black, it means only one thing, viz. that the people are all equal. To use the Latin expression, they are then all primus inter pares, all equals among equals. In other words, there is then no division of power in South Africa. He rejects Black domination to the same extent as which he rejects White domination. At the recent by-election held at Aliwal, Senator du Toit once again said that we would still have White leadership here for 300 years or more. That is what they said. Did they not say that? I am now putting this question to the hon. member for Durban Point. Did he not make statements of this kind at the by-election at Umhlatuzana?

I did not and I will not, but I believe the Whites will remain the leaders.

But why is the United Party then saying there will be no domination of non-White by White? [Interjection.] That is what Harry Schwarz said. He said: “We reject both Black and White domination.”

May I ask the hon. member a question? Will the hon. gentleman tell us, under Nationalist Party policy in respect of the Coloured people, whether there will be a sharing of power with the Coloured people or whether there will be domination for all time?

I shall give hon. members an answer straight from the shoulder. We said, through the Prime Minister, that as far as the Coloureds were concerned we did not have a complete reply to that question. We are being very honest in this regard, and are saying this for all the world to hear. We have now appointed a commission to go into the entire matter.

You do not have an answer.

That is my answer. The United Pary has no answer in respect of the Coloureds. What answer does this United Party have in respect of the Coloured problem in South Africa? They are cheating the Coloureds all along the line in South Africa. If you want me to withdraw that word, Sir, I withdraw it immediately. They are deceiving the Coloureds. What is the United Party doing with the Coloureds? I want to remind the House of the history of South Africa. These people fought us day in and day out in this House, into the late hours of the morning, when we wanted to remove the Coloureds from the common voters’ roll in South Africa. They made certain pledges, certain promises, to the Coloureds, viz. that they would, come what may, keep them on that voters’ roll. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Durban Point is turning his back on me so that I cannot hear what he is saying.

These people made a solemn promise to the Coloureds that, on the day on which they came into power again, they would restore the Coloureds to the common voters’ roll. The Opposition did this. But what did they do subsequently?

What did Gen. Hertzog say?

Gen. Hertzog was never the leader of the present National Party.

What did he say?

Do not try to set me off on a different tangent now. What did they do? They subsequently changed their policy and removed the Coloureds from the voter’s roll. We fought them in this House when we removed the Bantu from this House, and what did they do? They said that they would bring the Bantu back to this House. But what are they now doing with these people? They are giving them separate councils; they are now, in an underhand way, stealing something from the National Party; they are now creating a White Parliament here. If there is a party which is dishonest in its statements of policy in respect of the other race groups in South Africa, it is that party. If I were a member of another race group in South Africa, I would never believe them, so help me. I would never leave my future in their hands. In the same way I am also saying to the Whites of South Africa: When the United Party speaks of White leadership in South Africa, we must first see whether the sun rises tomorrow. Just as one cannot rely on the winds which are blowing today to blow in the same direction again tomorrow, so one cannot take the United Party at its word. For that reason I am saying that the Opposition must clear up these matters for us this evening. The hon. member for Randfontein, our leader in the Transvaal, said here today that this debate which was taking place here, was a historic debate. This is a debate which was taking place on the 25th birthday of the National Party. We have a record which indicates what we have done during those 25 years. We are now entering a new phase; we are entering the next 25 years.

As an Opposition!

I worked out here today that the next 25th birthday of the National Party will be celebrated in the year 1991, then we shall see what has become of these people. They will still be sitting where they are sitting this evening, and then we shall have implemented this policy of ours to the full. We expect nothing of the United Party. And it is not only the National Party which expects nothing of the United Party. It is no party. I want to quote to you, Sir, what an authority in the field of political institutions wrote. I am quoting here from the latest edition of New Nation, that of May 1973. The article was written by Mr. Dennis Worral. He is the editor. What does he have to say about the United Party? He had this to say—

Sir, let us accept that this United Party is not a party of principle. They have no principle. They have no policy. They are simply a party that always trims its sails to the wind.

They are opportunists.

They are absolutely an opportunistic party which is always geared to capitalizing on immediate events. He went on to say—

That is the United Party as we know it, an extremely opportunistic party, which is always seeking simply to sail with the wind. For that reason I say that we have no confidence in this party.

[Inaudible.]

I should like to hear what the hon. member for South Coast said.

I say, it is not opportunism; it is ingenious on the part of the United Party.

Sir, there you have it not only out of the suckling’s mouth, but out of the mouth of the elder, that it is in fact the opportunistic party we knew it to be. We expected to get a clearer policy statement from the United Party here this evening. But what did we get here? We got this kind of opportunistic attitude on the part of the hon. member for Transkei, which was neither here nor there.

Mr. Speaker, it has been my dubious privilege now on two occasions to follow the hon. member for Langlaagte. We have had the farce this evening of an hon. member talking here of principle and quoting to us out of a magazine an article written by a proclaimed Nationalist, accusing this party of oars of being a party of interest, but neglecting to say what that person said about the Nationalist Party being a sectional party for the Afrikaner and not continuing to say that the Progressive Party is a party for the rich English-speaking, and then pretending to accept as Gospel truth the judgment that this party of ours is a party of interest. Of course it is a party of interests. We represent the interests of many peoples, of all the groups of people throughout South Africa; we represent the interests of the farmers, of the townspeople, of the English-speaking and the Afrikaans-speaking. That is what we represent in this party of ours. Sir, here you have an hon. member who plays on words and pretends that there are no separate areas for Black people in South Africa. He pretends to be puzzled; he has a frown on his face; it looks as though it was put on with grease-paint three weeks ago. His attitude is: “We are in South Africa; do you really believe that when your federal policy is going to be carried out there are going to be separate areas for the Black people?”. Of course there are. They are there right now: they have always been there. The old South African Party established them in law in 1912, and the United Party in 1936 broadened those areas. They have always been there, and nothing that the Nationalist Party has done is going to take them away. Sir, what has happened in the 25 sad years during which the Nationalist Party has been in power? The people who lived in those areas which were established by the United Party have left them; they have moved into town. Sir, I have used a phrase here before which was used in East Germany when the people moved out of East Germany to the West; it was then said that they were voting with their feet. That is what the Black people have done in this country of ours. They have moved out of the areas in which they were originally established. They have voted with their feet; they have moved into town; they have become new people in Africa, people to whom this Nationalist Party pays no attention; of whom they take no cognizance and for whom they have no answer whatsoever in the thinking and the policy which they pretend to put across. The hon. member asks, “What about the sharing of power?”. Mr. Speaker, the Nationalist Party is sharing power now with the Black people in South Africa. They have people exercising power in Zululand, in the Transkei and all sorts of other areas. They have a Coloured Representative Council; they have an Indian Representative Council sharing power today in South Africa, and what is wrong with it? When we say that we want to extend that to give them more power, then suddenly this becomes something which is an “onding”; we are not allowed to say that this is something that is going to have some germ of a chance in it for the future; and then we get the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and other members coming along and holding out the hand of friendship and wanting a consensus. Mr. Speaker, we know jolly well that if we take that hand, we will have to go home and count our fingers. That is what would happen to us. They come here with sweet words and ask us whether we will agree with this and whether we will agree with that. Let me ask them: Will they accept the permanence of the Black people in the urban areas?

Yes.

Does the hon. the Minister of the Interior accept that the Black people are permanently in the urban areas?

Zip!

Sir, when was there last a Nationalist who debated the issue of the permanence of the Black people in the urban areas with the United Party? There is not one. Does the hon. member for Rissik agree that they are permanently in the urban areas? Does the hon. member for Langlaagte, the R60 million member, agree that they are permanently in the urban areas? We are told that we must have a consensus. We are given four sterile debating points and then we are expected to commit ourselves to the future of this party and to the future of South Africa when we stand before a party for whom 12 o’clock is approaching. Sir, this idea comes out of the mind of the high priest of their policy, the Hon. M. C. Botha, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, the heir to the mantle of Dr. Verwoerd. Here it is five minutes to 12, and he has to hold out his hand of friendship. “Hy roep uit aan die Verenigde Party om genade.” That is what is happening; he is looking for help; he wants a consensus because the darkness is approaching and the people are beginning to look at the Nationalist Party with eyes growing wider by the day knowing that that party has led them to a crisis where they, the Nationalist Party, have become a threat to the security of White South Africa, of Black South Africa, of English and Afrikaner, of all the people of South Africa, simply because the hon. member for Langlaagte, who spoke about principles …

May I ask a question?

No, sit down. He wants to know if this policy of ours is based on principle. What sort of principle is it, after 25 years, to promise the Black people of South Africa independence, a real separate independence, a real life apart from White South Africa, where they can live out their own destinies permanently? Where are they going to do it? On what are they going to live? What are the 7ulu people going to do with 10 separate areas of land inside the borders of the province of Natal, dependent for their daily bread upon the White man: dependent on the White people of South Africa for their education, for their housing, for their employment, for the very bread that they eat, for everything that they do?

Whose fault is that?

Sir, it is the fault of the Nationalist Party that they held out this lure, this will o’ the wisp, this living lie, before the eyes of the Zulu people and the other Black people of South Africa.

May I ask a question now?

No, the hon. member cannot. The fault lies with the people who held out this chimera that was going to lure the Black people away, to take them out of the life of White South Africa, and that was going to make them a separate nation and a separate people and give them a separate existence. Is that a principle? Sir, is it a party of principle that offers these people something which they know cannot be carried out, which cannot be made into a living reality? They say that we are a party which does not have any kind of principles on which to found a policy. The hon. member for Langlaagte asked what about White leadership. What is White leadership in South Africa? What do hon. members opposite understand by the term “White leadership”? What we are trying to do, what White South Africa is trying to do, hon. members over there and we over here—every single one of us—is to reach out for the minds of black South Africa. We are reaching out to capture the mind and the imagination of black South Africa, to make them realize that we have something which nobody else in the world can give them. That is the principle upon which the policy of this party is based, that if we can persuade them that we have something in common, something which nobody else can give them, then the future of White South Africa and of Black South Africa is assured. And if we cannot persuade them there is no future for either White South Africa or Black South Africa.

That is a policy of defeatism.

Is it a policy of defeatism to hope that we can grasp the mind of Black South Africa, to lead them to accept the values that we espouse, to lead them to support the things that we support, to lead them to accept the values of Western Christian civilization for which we stand? Is that a policy of defeatism? If there is any other policy which any other member opposite can tell me will work in South Africa I wish they would tell us. Are they going to throw the Black people away from White civilization and the things we brought with us? Are they going to refuse to accept the contribution they make every single day of their lives? Do they refuse to accept the fact that without Black South Africa not a wheel will turn in this country? But you get this type of stupid remarks, platitudes and the kind of veiled and tricky questions that the hon. member for Langlaagte has posed thinking he will make a lot of holes in the policy of this party.

Sir, we talk about security but what do we mean by security? What does security mean for the White man and what does it mean for the Black man? There are a few things which the White man, as far as security is concerned, wants to see: He wants to have his life and limb protected; he wants to know that terrorism will not be let loose on our borders; he wants his capital investment protected in South Africa, and he does not want his house, his factory or his money to be taken away from him by some Government body set up by some other race group. If we talk about security, surely that is what we mean. What else is security for White South Africa? What else is it than that our lives and our properties should be protected— in other words that the law which protects us now should continue to operate in the future as far as life will continue? If the law which protects our lives and properties today continues, in other words; if all the race groups in South Africa accept that law for themselves, then we have security. If they do not accept that law for themselves, we do not have security. How are we going to get them to accept that law unless we are prepared to share power with them? [Interjections.] Will the hon. members accept that we have to share power in order to get them to accept the law?

No!

Do the hon. members not accept that?

They want to enforce the law. [Interjections.]

The responsibility of enforcing the law …

May I ask the hon. member a question? Will the hon. member tell us where their idea of White leadership comes in if they are prepared to share leadership with these people? How are they going to succeed in this?

That is a very easy question. The whole idea of the leadership exercised by the White people in this country …

It is only the answer that is not easy.

Oh please, you are talking tripe.

† whole idea of White leadership— what we are doing now is leadership. We have taken the Black man with us. We have taken a man who was a tribesman, we have taken a man whose place, whose security was in a tribe out of that tribal system and we have put him in an urban area. We have made an individual out of him. We have changed permanently his old style of life.

You cannot; it is impossible!

We have changed them already and it is time that the absolute ignorance of the hon. member there who will not accept it should also be changed. This is the cross on which the Nationalist Party is crucified. They will not accept that Black South Africa has moved to town. That is what has happened. They are in town. They are not tribesmen. There is the biggest difference between a man from Nongoma and a man from Soweto; there is the greatest difference anywhere in Africa.

You want to make a black Englishman out of him.

Perhaps the hon. member thinks they are grazing their cattle in West Street. Perhaps he thinks they pay lobola or graze their cattle in Eloff Street. [Interjections.] How can the hon. member tell me that this is not a permanent change, that this is not a revolution in the lives of Black South Africa?

Where does White leadership come in?

White leadership is what we are doing now. We have taken these people, we have led them. Because we are here, we have given them a new life. We are leading them now. We have political power … [Interjections.]

Order!

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No. Mr. Speaker, we have a policy now. White South Africa is now leading the Black man into a future which is going to take him further and further away from the tribal system which he has known all his life. What is happening is that the White man has all the political power today, we have total political power, but this Nationalist Party has already started to devolve powers upon certain groups and certain units in South Africa.

But they do not want to share powers.

The Nationalists talk about nations and about the fact that these Bantu homelands may become independent. We know that they are not separate nations and that they are people of South Africa. They are part of the communal life which every single one of us enjoys in South Africa today. You can make them independent when you can get them to accept independence from you, when you can persuade them that they can make a better living by themselves than they can with us. When that happens, then the hon. members can talk to us about nations, but until that day comes there are peoples, different groups of people in South Africa, living in one country under the control of this Parliament. This Government, the Nationalist Party, has already started devolving power upon various constituent elements in the Republic of South Africa.

But that does not bring about any sharing of power.

Is that not sharing?

If that is not sharing power, what does it mean? The Nationalist Party is telling us that they are going to give all power to these Bantu groups. [Interjections.]

Order!

You cannot change them.

You cannot change them! There is the voice of the original “verkramptheid” inherent in the Afrikaner Nationalist …

Yes, an Ossewa policy!

… and accepted by the hon. member for Stilfontein. What we have to do is to create a unity of purpose out of the diversity of the peoples in South Africa. In the past we had a unitary system of government in South Africa. We had the Westminster system of government, and that is exemplified in this Parliament. In the course of time it has proved to be inadequate to meet the needs of a country like South Africa. Every single one of us in this Parliament today is participating in a new development in parliamentary history. We are participating in a new development in that we are seeking to find a formula which is going to allow parliamentary and democratic government as we know it to persist, to go on and to bind together the various interests of different peoples. It is the task of this party in this House, the United Party, to knit up again the fabric of the life of South Africa that the Nationalist Party has shredded to pieces in 25 years.

Words, words, words! That is all it is.

The hon. member says that it is merely “words, words, words”. What is “words” if it is not independence for the Black states, if it is not independence for Zululand? Is that not “words, words, words”?

No, it is not.

In Zululand we have ten separate pieces which are in no way connected at all, with no kind of infra-structure at all, with no roads going through them at all, with a totally inadequate educational system and with no industry at all, and totally dependent on the bounty of the White man living next door for their very lives and their very existence. Is that not “words, words, words”?

Hear, hear!

Surely it is more realistic to say that all the different peoples in South Africa have a common purpose. That is a fact; that is the reality of the matter. That is not words; it is reality! One of our problems in debating the matter with the Nationalist Party is that they will not face the reality. Not on any occasion have they ever got around to facing reality. When we say that it is a danger for our security …

You are not so bad, but your policy!

You are still living in the days of the Ossewa. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? I want to ask the hon. member what he thinks is the common ground on which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and Colin Eglin find themselves in this “verligte” approach. [Interjections.]

I understand that that hon. member has got a university degree. I wonder how he managed it when he asks such stupid questions.

He must have borrowed it.

Yes, I think so. I want to say that Victor Hugo once said … [Interjections.]

Order!

Victor Hugo once said: “There is no power in history like that of an idea whose time has come.” The time for the idea of federation has come in South Africa. The time is now!

Hear, hear!

We have groups of people with an existence which is identifiable, whose lives are going to be lived out in pursuit of a common interest in South Africa and it is necessary to find a way of giving some kind of communal representation for them. We have to find a way of creating a system of government which is going to meet the needs of a South Africa with different groups of people. Federation is the only way in which it can be done. The biggest problem in South Africa today is that we stand before a party whom the time has passed by. History has left the Nationalist Party behind. That is what has happened. The move of the Black man into town has left the Nationalist Party stranded high and dry on a point of ideology from which they can never come down. They are like the ark on Mount Ararat; the waters have gone away and have left them up there. Even the little animals are not allowed to come out two by two; they are still locked up inside. [Interjections.] The same dubious fate has befallen the Progressive Party. When they talk about a communal voters’ roll for everybody throughout the length and breadth of South Africa, groups of people who have interests of their own have emerged, and those interests can only be met by the federal principle of the United Party. There is no other answer that can meet the need of South Africa. If you have a party in power, in the words of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration, who can see it is five minutes to twelve …

Three hundred seconds.

Ten of those seconds have since passed. Why does he say it is five minutes to twelve? He says it has become five minutes to twelve because it has become apparent to the mind of every thinking person in South Africa that the policy that that party espouses cannot meet the need of South Africa, White and Black, today. It holds out a promise that cannot be fulfilled. It holds out a promise which may just meet the need of a quarter of the Black population. You have about a quarter of the Blacks rooted in the Bantu areas and the policy the Nationalist Party espouses may possibly meet the need of those people. You may be able to satisfy a quarter of the Bantu population with their independence theory. If you satisfy those people, that quarter, you will still not have satisfied the need of the rest of the Bantu population who live permanently in the White areas and on the White farms. I will give the Government one point of credit. Where there have been revolutions in the past the conservatism of the countryside has in many cases been brought to bear to suppress those revolutions. I call to mind immediately France in 1848 when the socialists started a revolution and where the country boys from Brittany were brought in to suppress that revolution in Paris. Then there was the commune in Paris in 1870. The German Army was camped at Versailles and the French Army was disarmed. A communist type Government wanted power in a Paris in revolution. The boys from the countryside, from Brittany, were given rifles that were borrowed from the German Army and were sent into Paris to suppress the revolution. You have a wealth and strength of conservatism in the countryside that may well be an important factor in the revolutionary changes that are going on today in South Africa. This I will grant the Government under the idea of homelands which they have and of developing a sort of government there whatever it may be. They may, of course, be inspanning a potent force which will act together with the White man in solving the revolutionary situation that we face. But I say again that the Black people in the towns want a share of what is going on. They want to see the doors and the corridors opening ahead of them. They have every right to want that. The only way in which they are going to be satisfied, these people who carry on their shoulders the whole of South Africa, on whose effort every wheel turns and who keep the wheels of our industry turning, is to give them more. We have already seen that this year in Durban. They want more and this Government to its credit, and it is not for me to give much credit to this Government, handled those strikes well. The police handled them exceptionally well. What happened was that White South Africa saw …

Order! The hon. member for Koedoespoort must please take away his hand from his mouth; he has been talking behind his hand all evening.

Mr. Speaker, I would rather like him to keep his hand before his mouth so that we cannot hear the nonsense that is coming out of it. Under the policy of the Nationalist Party, which does not recognize the permanent existence of Black people in the urban areas, the security of the White man is brought to a test which the Nationalist Party cannot meet.

If you are not going to provide housing, education and opportunity for work, greater freedom of movement, family life—the sort of thing my hon. Leader referred to—you are bringing about a confrontation with the demand Black South Africa legitimately has for a greater share of what they help to produce. I think that, if we are wise, we will listen to the voice of Black South Africa as was exemplified in Durban very recently. I think that, if the Government is wise, it will listen to the voice of the United Party. If the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is wise, he will seek a real consensus of opinion, in which the United Party can take a real part, because I agree with him that the hands of the clock are getting close to five minutes to twelve. That party has run out of time; history has passed it by. It is espousing a policy that cannot meet the needs of today. It has become a threat to the security of all people, the Whites and the Blacks in South Africa, because its policy can only build up to a confrontation. You, Mr. Speaker, spoke about the country of Iran this morning.

It was interesting.

Yes, a most interesting country. I had occasion the other day to read a few lines of the great poet, the hakim, Sa’adi of Shiraz, who wrote a book called The Gulistan which has been translated by Sir Richard Burton. The lines go approximately like this:

Mr. Speaker, it is always pleasant to listen to the hon. member for Mooi River. I must honestly say that in many respects he has a more balanced view of matters than other hon. members on his side of the House. I am saying this because he is prepared at least in respect of certain matters, to give the Government credit, as he consequently did towards the end of his speech, here. We appreciate that. We can give him a few marks for that, but I must be honest now and say that the hon. member’s speeches usually have more substance to them than the one he made this evening. I am honestly not trying to detract from his efforts. He said that this policy which we are following would not satisfy a quarter of the Bantu population in South Africa. On the other hand I would say that with what the United Party is presenting, perhaps only a hundredth part of the Bantu population would get satisfaction, although I am now, after having listened to him, not even prepared to say that even that small fraction of the Bantu population would be satisfied with their policy. With what does he want to give them satisfaction? He wants to give them satisfaction with the magical word “leadership”. He says: “With this leadership we want to grip their imaginations. We want to convince them that there is a future for both of us in this country if they would also realize that there are things which we can share with one another.” What are these things which we can share with one another? He says they are the benefits which Christian Western civilization have brought us. We do not differ on that score. As far as that is concerned we have already transmitted many of the benefits of that civilization to the Bantu peoples. But that is not the only point at issue here. What does leadership really involve, and what is leadership in essence? You can remain leader only as long as the followers recognize you as leader. When the followers no longer recognize you as leader, your leadership is at stake. In what way has the hon. member already indicated this evening that the leadership is going to be at stake? He did this by indicating that he was going to share the control with those people. In other words, you are immediately living up your leadership by sharing authority with them, for if you share you are giving part of what you own away. If you share leadership you are giving away part of your leadership. You do not retain full control. If I may associate myself with this, I should like to say something with reference to what the hon. member for Maitland said this evening. According to the hon. member we say the Bantu is here as a casual worker, but he says the Bantu is not here as a casual worker—he is here as an ordinary person and will demand his rights as an ordinary person. Then we ask, when the matter of rights is mentioned: “Does it involve only the economic benefits which they can enjoy in the White area, or does it ultimately involve political rights?” Surely that is also a demand which he will make. But, Sir, even before he makes that demand, those hon. members say: “You need not make any demands, we shall share leadership, administration, authority with you.” If they do that, surely they must recognize them as full partners. But I want to say to the United Party this evening: They have used the word “federation” umpteen times already, but I shall give them a summary of that concept. It makes of the Bantu, in whatever form of group context the United Party wants to lump them together, pseudo-partners. They give the Bantu a say in a pseudo parliament; they do not even want to use the word “Parliament”. They come forward with pseudo qualifications and that is all the Bantu will have to be satisfied with in terms of their policy; for if the United Party does not want to allow them to share in full and in equal measure with them, they will ultimately abandon them in a land of make believe. If they should then demand rights, they will in the long run not be satisfied with those pseudo rights. One can only retain that leadership to which those hon. members referred if one demands it for oneself in its entirety, for if one allows someone else to share it, one is no longer the leader.

In the few minutes left of this evening’s debate, I want to go on to state that in the debate so far reference has been made to the past 25 years. You will allow me, as well, Sir, to refer in passing to a few facts relating to these 25 years. This Government has been in power now for 25 years—an achievement to be proud of for any party in the Western world. I am just making this point. After 25 years the National Party this evening is just as equal to its task as when it took over the reins of government in 1948. Those hon. gentlemen would like to have us believe that the National Party is in the circumstances not only in South Africa but also in the world context today, an obsolete party. Sir, in this year as well, in respect of internal matters and our liaison with overseas countries, the National Party is completely equal to the task which lies ahead of it, not only in the seventies, but also in the decades to come. We admit that the work which lies ahead for us is not easy; we have many problems, and for many problems we do not have instant solutions. But in getting down to those problems we are prepared to accept the consequences of our policy and to apply the principles of the policy in their fundamental form, throughout. That we are prepared to do. For 25 years, up to this day, there is honestly very little we have learnt from the United Party. I also want to say that if their attitude is as reflected by what that hon. member said, we will from today onwards have equally less to fear from them. We have little to fear from them, if it is not nothing at all, and I trust that I shall subsequently be afforded an opportunity to substantiate what I have now said to you here.

In accordance with Standing Order No. 23, proceedings interrupted.