Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I move—

For several months now there has been grave uncertainty in the country, there has been distress in economic circles and there has been administrative confusion, all caused by the belief that an early election is pending, and lack of knowledge as to the reasons for calling it. The Prime Minister has however remained strangely reticent on this subject. He has remained strangely reticent on this subject despite the fact that a flood of rumour and speculation was caused when his new Transvaal chairman, the Minister of the Interior—some people say he jumped the gun—called for nominations for candidates in the Transvaal more than three months ago. One can, of course, understand the Prime Minister’s reluctance to take the country into his confidence. If you remember, Sir, last time he gave us six months’ notice of an election and he lost eight seats. Four months later in the provincial elections, he lost a further five or six seats. I think, Sir, that the hon. the Prime Minister has come to the conclusion that long notice is not a good thing for him or his party. He has good reason to be worried, and by many problems. There is the ever-increasing cost of living and inflation, and he knows that the position is going to get much worse. He is going to have to face increased wage and salary demands from workers throughout the country. He must be concerned about the balance of payments position. He must be anxious to get the election behind him before taking the risk of introducing petrol rationing because I believe that it would highlight the administrative incompetence of his Government in no uncertain manner. The dilemma he faces, therefore, is a demand for increased wages and salaries, accelerating inflation, the possibility of labour unrest and the prospect of serious deterioration in the economic situation of our country.

The fact that his long delay—over three months now—has caused administrative uncertainty and inconvenience to countless public servants and a sense of uncertainty and unreality in the business world, has highlighted again what we on this side of the House have known to be the position over the past 25 years, and that is that this Government consists of wily politicians fighting for every possible electoral advantage for themselves regardless of the effect of this upon the country. Clearly the hon. Prime Minister has been in a quandary. He has been unsure and he has been uncertain of what to do. His problem is that he cannot read the economy—he cannot read it with any confidence; that he cannot read the political situation. [Interjections.] He will discover before the afternoon is out how terribly mistaken he is. He has also grown fearful of what he sees developing in the field of race relations.

Mr. Speaker, he has been hoping against hope that the domestic troubles in the United Party, real or imaginary, could provide him with the necessary encouragement to go to the country. Let me tell him now, Sir, that my Party and my caucus stand firmly committed to the decisions taken at the National Congress in Bloemfontein and, what is more, they unanimously support the decisions which I have taken since then. What is of importance to the public now is not what has been going on in the Opposition ranks, but this Government’s record and what it is going to do about the problems with which we are faced. The public, Sir, is interested in the state of the nation. It wants to know what is going on, because it is beginning to feel very uncertain about its own security.

One of the things that is worrying the public most is the uncertainty of the hon. the Prime Minister himself. Everyone knows that a Government confident of its position will serve out its full period of office. Everywhere people are asking themselves why is there this hurry for an early election; why is the Government not waiting until October …

Are you afraid?

… or until March next year when its period of office expires? Do you remember what he said last year about the Government serving out its full term? Is there something the Prime Minister is hiding, something he has not told us, something that he is afraid to tell us? Has his Economic Advisory Council given him warnings which have alarmed him? Is he beginning to realize that at last he is friendless in a dangerous world, a world growing far more dangerous day by day? Is he becoming frustrated by the growing rejection of his own policies by virtually all the homeland leaders, leaders who are the products of his own political system? Sir, whatever the immediate causes for whatever decision the Prime Minister has made, a decision which I hope he will communicate to us today because he owes it to the people, he must be concerned when he thinks back over the bleak record of his Government. He cannot be happy about South Africa’s loss of prestige in the international field and the decline of our influence in the Western world. Surely, Sir, no Prime Minister could reconcile himself to a situation of complete international isolation in the light of the growing dangers with which we are beset internationally. He must be deeply concerned about the failure of the living standards of even our White population to keep pace with the improvements in living standards in the Western world—a situation which has led to a decline in immigration despite the troubles with which the Western world itself is faced. Surely he cannot be indifferent to the erosion of personal freedoms in South Africa, which has done so much to make us unacceptable to the outside world. Surely he must have some idea of the opportunities which have been lost in the last quarter of a century because of the narrow, bigoted ideologies which have dictated his actions and those of his Party.

You know, Mr. Speaker, nowadays everybody talks about change in the modern world, very often without having any clear idea of what they mean by such change. But one thing is very certain and that is that recent developments nationally and internationally are making greater demands upon Governments everywhere than ever before. We are approaching a stage in world history where there is virtually universal involvement with major happenings, and no place or manner to hide from them at all.

Not even Blombos.

Whether it is economics, race relations, moral standards, technology or even fashion, as the Minister of Sport and Recreation would probably know, no one is left untouched by what is happening elsewhere in the world. Of course, Sir, there is much against which one would like to insulate oneself, with good grounds for trying to isolate oneself, but often isolation tends to have worse side effects than being exposed to those influences.

Sir, look what has been happening. The year 1973 was characterized by a marked upsurge of violence, of terrorism, of hijackings, kidnappings and broken agreements and the ruthless exploitation of power and authority. It seemed as though there was a flight from sanity, from predictable and rational behaviour, and a breakdown of constructive co-operation in the solution of international problems. Few people have any confidence that in the coming year there will be a restoration of international law and order or respect for the obligations of international contract and moral commitments and the creation of that atmosphere of constructive co-operation between nations and peoples that is essential to a solution of mankind’s dilemmas.

But, Sir, while on the one hand there are the forces of destruction and conflict, on the other hand you have the forces of reconstruction and renewal. What we have to ask ourselves this afternoon is on which side the policies and conduct of this Government have placed South Africa. That is what we want to know. No one can claim that we are able today to make a contribution to an improvement of the world situation. This Government has so estranged us from the forces working in that direction that our influence has become absolutely negligible, as the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs knows. We have the potential. In the days of a man like Gen. Smuts, we played an important part, but where do we stand today? We negotiate by back doors; the nations who negotiate with us throw up smokescreens; nations are at pains to conceal trade or any other agreements with us if they can. Are Government policies and the Government’s day-to-day conduct of affairs adequate to protect the security of the country and its people during this difficult period? I think I can give you the answer, Mr. Speaker. The policies of this Government at this difficult time cannot safeguard the country’s true interest. In fact, they add up to a grave security risk which will jeopardize our future. Sir, look what is happening. In the field of foreign affairs we have reached a state of virtual bankruptcy. Even the speech of the Minister of Foreign Affairs during his Vote in the last session of Parliament—a speech which, I think, concealed more than it disclosed—was nothing but a Jeremiad of the first order. Of course, Sir, it is true that developments on this continent and in other parts of the world have created real difficulties which we, in our particular situation, are not going to find it easy to resolve, but it is equally true that there was never a time when constructive diplomacy and dynamic initiatives in our foreign relations were more urgently needed than at the present time. But what is the Government doing? We heard on Friday in the State President’s speech that—

To me, Sir, that reference to “certain limiting factors” is so astonishing an understatement that one can only conclude that the Government is either deluding the public or recklessly deluding itself, or both. The claim that the Government has expanded our relations and contacts with the outside world obviously flies in the face of the unhappy facts known to everyone who does not rely for his knowledge of foreign affairs solely on those fatuously plausible SABC reviews on current affairs.

In fact, the only evidence the Government can bring in respect of this remarkable claim is that additional diplomatic missions have been or are being opened, and that more ministerial and other Government visitors come to the Republic every year. Sir, there was never a time when strong reliable alliances and the respect and confidence of the Western world would have been of greater value to us than at the present time. There was never a time when the false security of isolation, reinforced only by relatively small reserves of technical weapons, was more brutally demonstrated than in the wars of the past decade. You see, Sir, those wars produced no defeats or victories. All they produced was wanton destruction and limitless human misery. I think events in the Middle East have demonstrated once again that the tactical gains of such wars are vain and ineffective. They are vain and ineffective against the greater tide and the greater pressures of outside forces. Security today has to be found within a wider strategic concept, within the broad alliances which alone can withstand the historic forces and pressures of our time. Yet it is precisely in this situation that this Government has persisted with conduct and policies which place us outside the mainstream of the Western world. We have been exposed by them, vulnerable and without recourse to a single ally, to the winds of violence and irrational hatreds from other parts of the world. It is not its failure to open consular offices or to observe the solemn ritual of diplomatic protocol or the niceties of international conduct which have brought us to this pass, but it is the Government’s dogged and dogmatic persistence in racial policies that have affronted and alienated the whole of the Western world. Many governments are reasonable and responsible enough to recognize the special problems of our heterogeneous society and the uneven development of its population groups, but they cannot accept or condone the perpetuation of a philosophy which has racism as its driving force. Proofs, Sir, are legion. I am going to mention only a few. I think they will make my point.

The Prime Minister rightly claims responsibility for the maintenance of law and order and of democratic political freedoms in South-West Africa while that territory advances towards self-determination. Does he realize what impact it had on the outside world when the savage beatings of opposition members and leaders took place in Owambo? Surely, Sir, he must have some conception of the damage that was done to the conduct of negotiations and to that thin basis of confidence on which they depended. He appears to be entirely unaware that his public attitude of indifference did us the most incalculable harm. Let me come nearer home, Sir, How, in the context of the modern world as we know it today, cap the Government perpetuate its racial bias in such laws as those that prohibit a man from owning a roof over his head even in an area set aside for his exclusive occupation, merely because he is Black? How can he explain subjecting all men and women irrespective of social or economic status to possible humiliation for a pass offence, with no exemptions of any kind?

Go to Natal … [Interjections.]

No, Sir, as we say in Afrikaans, “Sy pinkie is stomp”. It seems to me that the hon. gentleman’s sense of humour has come to be twisted. How can he explain denying a man or a woman the right to use their ability to the best advantage? How can they explain overseas that they have enshrined in the Statute Book of the land absurd regulations such as those that prohibit a Black man from drinking a beer in the home of a White friend he is visiting? It is this sort of thing that will be paid for and is being paid for today in prestige and alliances, in armaments and oil, in world hostility and international repudiation. That is the Government’s typical contribution to South Africa’s security in a dangerous world. I know they will deny it and they will go on denying it. Let them ask any international councillor who knows his business, any honest broker, and what will they hear? They will hear that it is this deadly flaw, this fatal rift in their own political philosophy that has led to the steady erosion of foreign support for and confidence in South Africa. It is this above all that has led to our virtual exclusion from all but the most formal international relationships. It is this, fundamentally, that has caused the breakdown of dialogue in Africa, and the hon. the Foreign Minister knows it, Sir, It is this and not the problem of finding acceptable forms of words that has led to the failure of the S.W.A. negotiations and the new threats that are consequent upon it. Mr. Speaker, my charge is that this Government endangers the security of South Africa in a dangerous world because it has brought us to a state of diplomatic bankruptcy.

Closely related to our international isolation is the Government’s defence policy. There is no doubt about the loyalty and the quality of our young men. This was proved in the First World War, it was proved in the Second World War, it was proved in Korea, it is being proved on the borders at the present time and it will be proved again if, God forbid, there should ever be a greater challenge. But I wonder, Sir, whether the Prime Minister and his advisers have considered the full implications of the recent “Yom Kippur” war in the Middle East. Do you realize, Sir, that within a week the opposing armies, trained and equipped with the most sophisticated weapons the armaments manufacturers of the world can provide, had ground themselves to a standstill? The accumulated military resources provided by years of preparation and economic sacrifice had cancelled each other out in a few days of fighting and desperate calls had to go out to powerful friends for new supplies to be airlifted in. Have you ever thought, Sir, what would have happened if recourse to further supplies had been available to only one side? We have no evidence that the Prime Minister has grasped the fact that in modern warfare the tactical use of available weapons now hardly extends beyond the preliminary skirmish. The cost to keep abreast of the times in the field of modern weaponry is enormous. Our own defence budget must be rapidly soaring towards R1 000 million. I would say that in ten years it will probably be double that. That may be inevitable. We on this side of the House would be the first to agree that South Africa must be well-defended, but I wonder whether the Government appreciates that this costly commitment is but our first tactical line of protection.

The secret of success in modern warfare is that the strategic defences of a country must extend far deeper and far wider. There must be firm alliances with great powers to ensure further sources of supply and the lines of supply themselves must be secure. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, where would Israel have been had it not been for the firm alliances she had, the flood of supplies that came from the U.S.A. and the security of those supply lines? What the people of South Africa want to know today is how we would be placed if we were in a similar difficulty. That is the question they are asking. On not one of these aspects can South Africa under this present Government be assured of its security. It has no firm alliances. It has no assured sources of supply. No one is prepared to commit themselves in our interest, because of the pressures that can be put upon them in the modern world by forces that are hostile to the policies of this Government, and they know it.

Let us look at another aspect of this matter. It must be wholly clear to anyone who has studied the question, and Gen. de Arriaga quickly came to terms with the reality of it in Moçambique, that it is just as important to have and retain the loyalty and confidence of your own indigenous people as it is to defend your territory against incursions and terrorism. If you do not succeed in this you run a deficit budget, in the sense that your own people yield or defect to the enemy faster than you can destroy terrorists that come across the boundaries to attack you. The only answer is to give your own people such a stake in the future of the country that they will be ready to give their lives to defend it. What is the position in South Africa? Is there confidence within the ranks of that Government that the people of South Africa, all its peoples, have a common loyalty to South Africa and that they will give their lives to defend it? If so, why does the Government then hesitate to let these people help us to defend our own fatherland? They use fully armed Black people for police duties. They are using fully armed Black men on our borders and these men are conducting themselves in a most meritorious manner. There is nothing new in having armed Black men. Why then are we not able to use them in one form or another in our Defence Force?

The Government fears to train them for military service. Does it propose to send the White managers and technicians into battle while the Black people direct the economy at home? Is that what is going to happen? Already the Government is making exceptions in respect of the Coloureds in both the Navy and the Army, and making exceptions despite the fact that it has told the Coloureds that their future lines of development lie further away from those of the Whites—not closer together, but further away. How long must we wait in respect of the Blacks? I can understand the Government’s fears, I understand them very well. They have been teaching these people for years now that their loyalties should be to future independent homelands and not to South Africa as we know it today. [Interjections.] We on this side of the House have no such problems. We have ample faith and ample proof, not least from the Black leaders themselves, that there is a common desire to share a common loyalty to South Africa and to defend its common boundaries. I want to say here that it is the very essence of our federal philosophy that the defence of this part of Southern Africa will never be fragmented. Surely this will mean far greater security than can ever be found from a series of defence forces controlled by independent Black states free to seek alliances or to refuse them where they will and with whom they wish. I have made the point that the defences of the country depend on very much more than the mere availability of sophisticated modern weapons. In addition to the availability and security of further sources of supply, the ability to rely on the common loyalty of all our people and the ultimate support we must seek in firm alliances, it is vital that our will to resist should be underpinned by a healthy and vigorous economy. In the last resort our security depends on our economic strength. But in this field also a situation is developing here which can have the most serious consequences for our country. Although much is being done in the economic field at present, especially by private enterprise, my charge is that, owing to Government interference, we are not achieving anything like the full potential of our rich human and natural resources in South Africa. I believe the Government has no idea of the enormous task that lies ahead of us in South Africa. May I put it this way: I wonder if they realize the enormous task that lies ahead of us in transforming this country into a country in which all its peoples are not only buoyed up by the hope of economic justice, but may look forward to economic justice in their lifetime. During the period of 30 years that lies ahead our population is going to double to something like 50 million people. That means that our gross national product must also double simply in order that those people may all be housed, fed and clothed at their present level. But, Sir, if provision is also to be made for obsolescence and replacement, we cannot do with less than a growth rate of 4% net, after inflation has been accounted for. But we have to do far more than this. The vast majority of the people in this country will not be content to continue to live at their present level, and neither can we be content that they should remain so. In order that their rising expectations be met, in order that the tremendous arrears in their education, in their employment opportunities, in their standard of living and matters of that kind, should be made good, I believe our growth rate must rise to double the basic 4% of which I spoke. I am fully conscious of the fact that that is an immense task, that it will be futile to talk about it except in a country with an abundance of natural resources and vast reserves of undeveloped human skills, as South Africa is at the present time. But it is something which has to be done. My trouble is that I cannot conceive of its being done by this Government, whose growth rate for the last four or five years varied between 3,3% and 5% (expected for last year), a Government which has so little control over inflation that even its low anticipated growth rates are unlikely to be achieved. Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, instead of growing faster than the countries of the Western world, as we should be, we are lagging far behind, so far behind that the real income of the average South African up to five years ago, had for some time been growing at just over half the rate of people living in the Common Market countries? So poor has our performance been that today there are many classes of workers in countries like Holland, Germany and France, that are better off than their White colleagues in South Africa. Yet 25 years ago when this Government came into power, Whites in South Africa enjoyed far higher living standards than their counterparts in western Europe. If this Government stays in power for any longer and there are no dramatic and purposeful changes, White South Africans will be well on the way to becoming the poor Whites of the Western world. Already it is becoming difficult to attract immigrants from overseas as figures over the last few years indicate and as was indicated in the State President’s speech in respect of last year.

But the problem goes much deeper. The results of a study by Prof. J. L. Sadie of the University of Stellenbosch has made it clear that we have a much bigger problem. He confirms that by the year 2000 there will be 50 million people in South Africa, which is in 30 years’ time. That means we will be able to have 28 cities with a population of over a million each. That means a tremendous increase in population. Can we bluff ourselves for a moment that the additional people can be absorbed as peasant farmers in the homelands? The increase in the Bantu population is going to be 22 million and not even the most fanatical protagonist of separate development will pretend that there is the remotest relation between this figure and the rate of the development of the homelands. The report goes on to do something else. It emphasizes that the White and Indian population groups which provide the main managerial base, are dropping percentagewise. They are dropping to such an extent that by the year 2000 they will form only 13% of the population. This could mean a relative impoverishment of the Bantu and the Coloureds who rely on those managerial and entrepreneurial skills and capital in order to be able to sell their labour.

Let me put the matter in another way. Provided we have a net gain of 30 000 immigrants annually, the White population of South Africa will reach 7 million by the year 2000. If two million of those and that is a high percentage, are active in the professional, managerial and highly-skilled categories, there is going to be a need for a further four million people to do jobs of that kind and these will have to be drawn from the ranks of the Coloureds, the Indians and the Bantu if we would like to see a proper development in a South Africa with a population of 50 million people. If that does not happen, there is going to be widespread poverty and insecurity in South Africa. It will simply mean that our economy is not keeping pace with the essential needs of 50 million people. If it does happen, the social, the economic and the political structure of this country will undergo changes that will clash head-on with this Government’s policies.

These are not idle predictions, but projections based on solid facts. I believe there is still time to adjust, to adapt and to plan, but that time is barely enough. This is the challenge we are facing. Any political party that conceals these realities, any political party that tries to lull themselves to sleep with ideological tranquillizers is endangering the security of South Africa at the present time. Those challenges demand rapid economic growth—by “growth” I mean “real growth”—a growth in the accumulation of more of the good things of life in our country for all our people, everyone of them, and not just for certain sections of our people. I cannot stress too strongly that we on this side of the House believe in dynamic economic growth not as an end in itself, but as a means first and foremost to securing the peace and harmony of future race relations in this country. In doing so it will secure the physical safety and well-being of every citizen in South Africa. I have said this time and again in this House.

We could have some real hope for the future of this country if this Government proved itself capable of dealing with its immediate priorities which are the problems of the present. However, its record in dealing with its immediate priorities has been so deplorable that it engenders no confidence for the future at all. Hon. members will remember that when this country was ravaged by a series of strikes last year, strikes on an unprecedented scale, I warned that alongside the terrorists on our borders we had a far more insidious guerrilla fighter, not on our borders, but in our midst. The name of this guerrilla fighter is “poverty” and its weapon is the strike. That was the one I warned against.

What did we find at the end of last year? The most comprehensive and possibly the most important survey of attitudes and forces operating in Johannesburg’s Black twin city, Soweto, was undertaken by Market Research Africa. What did they report? The survey revealed that poverty, debt and low wages are regarded by the majority of Sowetans as eight times more critical to their happiness than any other factor. If poverty and debt are the problems of people living in Soweto, where the Blacks are probably better paid than many other Blacks in South Africa, how much more appalling must the conditions be under which millions and millions of Blacks are living inside and outside the homelands?

That is why we have no option but to aim for a fast-growing economy, an economy that can afford through rapid real growth to pay better wages, provide better jobs and give a higher standard of living not just to a few hundred thousand people but to millions and millions of people in South Africa, both Black and White. But see what is happening at the present time: On 21 January this year it was reported in the daily Press that price increases of up to 48% affecting more than 1 100 supermarket items had been announced. This is only one of the more recent cost-of-living shocks. There is scarcely a product that has not risen in price, and risen dramatically over the last year. It is certainly not only the Blacks, but every man and woman in South Africa at the present time that is staggering under the cost-of-living burden. Can you believe it possible, Sir, that the cost of building an average home is rising, according to building contractors, at the rate of about R150 per month? And that is not the end; the end is not in sight. Rising costs, drastic shortages of essential materials and labour bottlenecks guarantee that the rate of inflation will not only rise but will explode during 1974. Some people already talk of a 15% rate of inflation in 1974. It is not only the consumer who suffers—he is only the final link in the economic process—but it is the whole economic system that is affected. Galloping inflation is well on its way to grinding economic growth to a halt in South Africa at the present time.

What happens when inflation goes on the rampage? When that happens, forward planning is made well-nigh impossible because the businessman cannot guess what his costs are going to be a few months ahead; and nor can the industrialists. Savings patterns are disrupted and the entire economic system is overshadowed by the fear of what drastic new measures the Government will think up next to try to save itself from disaster. Under these circumstances South Africa never needed efficiency and a willingness to cut costs more urgently than at present.

On Saturday we heard that the price of petrol is up 12 cents per gallon. I wonder if there is anyone in this House who does not shudder to think of what the further consequences of this are going to be. I am afraid that there are such people in the House. It is not upsetting the Government because, if it did, they would have done more to lighten the blows as they know they could have. The hon. the Minister of Transport is still pocketing millions of rand in profits on that pipeline of his; the hon. the Minister of Finance is charging heaven knows what in excise. These are the people that talk about saving money and of sacrificing for the South African economy, who are complaining about other peoples profiteering while they use their monopoly position to grab every penny they can in excise duty and pipeline profits, but they do not think of what the results may be for the people of South Africa.

I know South Africa is in the fortunate position that its dependence on oil supplies is largely confined to the transport sector of our economy. Our large supplies of cheaply-produced coal saved us for many years from being seduced by the greater convenience of oil as an electricity-generating and an industrial fuel; but, whereas in 1940 oil was responsible for only 10% of our fuel economy, it will be moving in the direction of 30% by 1980. Thus we must accept the increased price of oil is not only going to do damage to our balance of payments, and hence to our financial reserves, but far more seriously in our present situation is it going to act as a catalyst in further accelerating the rise in the cost of living.

We have indicated already that rising costs of living and inflation are making serious inroads on our standards of living and on our whole economic structure and on our investment for future growth. Its speed of increase has reached a stage which can no longer be tolerated. It is one of the highest in the Western world. Through our transport sector in particular rising oil prices are going to cause a further rise in costs of nearly all goods and services.

What I want to know this afternoon is whether the Government proposed to acquiesce in this on the usual grounds that inflation is a world phenomenon beyond its control or does it recognize that the South African situation is a special one requiring special treatment? This is the no-confidence debate and we want a reply from the hon. the Prime Minister.

The threat to our oil supplies is serious enough in itself, but we now have to contemplate the further implication and that is the fact that the Arabs have demonstrated that a boycott weapon of this nature can be used successfully to achieve a wide range of objectives. World opinion is already directing its thoughts to the possibility of similar pressures on the great industrial nations in respect of other strategic commodities. Already the crisis has caused new and painful strains in the Western alliance. It has disrupted the progress of an East-West entente. No Government anywhere in the world can feel sanguine about world news, but few have reason to feel as apprehensive as the Government of one particular country and that is our country, South Africa. That is the position.

Fourteen West-African states have recently been urged to follow the Arab example and to use the threat of their control over certain raw materials and primary agricultural products as a negotiating lever. There are many other strategic and essential materials which can only be economically produced in certain areas of the world and which therefore could be used to bring economic or political pressure to bear on industrial countries which have grown dependent on those supplies.

There is something else. There is a further danger of concerted action by such countries. We have to take note of the fact that this oil crisis has forged a new link between Arab countries and the Organization for African Unity. The repercussions have already reached our neighbouring Black states. Botswana, for instance, has received visits from Arab representatives to negotiate ways and means of bypassing South Africa in the provision of petrol supplies. We do not know whether there will be reciprocal arrangements in respect of Botswana’s nickel and copper deposits.

We have one lesson that we have to learn above all others and that is that there are new weapons of international pressure and that these have been successfully used. Furthermore we have to learn that South Africa is more dangerously exposed to the economic and political onslaughts of our enemies than was ever previously realized. I ask again what is the reason for our special vulnerability. It is not the product of an aggressive role in international affairs, for on this score there is little with which we can be reproached. The real cause of our vulnerability and of our deep concern for the future are the doings of this very Government: its domestic policies, its policies which have made us enemies all round the world and which have now weakened the economic base which we must then use to defend ourselves. What happened? First of all they make enemies and then they weaken our ability to resist. What are they offering us in the face of all these threats? It is an economic policy crippled by the illogical restraints of the Governments’s race obsession. That is with what we are faced at the present time.

This brings me to the most crucial aspect of our future security problems, namely the failure of the Government to propose a realistic solution to the dynamic demands of changing race patterns in South Africa. We realize that despite all the propaganda of the Nationalist Party, despite all the propaganda of this Government, more than half of the Black population, who constitute more than two-thirds of the economically active Black population, live and work outside the homelands. We realize that new African work-seekers coming forward every year exceed in numbers all the employment opportunities offered in the homelands together during the last ten years. What are the conclusions? The conclusions are obvious. They have to move out or they are going to starve. Any attempt to stop them can only delay and impede economic development and endanger our race relations.

I want to say that we on this side of the House should also like to see the homelands prosper. We do not share the hon. the Prime Minister’s views about their political future, but we do believe that effective decentralization to these undeveloped and underdeveloped areas can do much to relieve the pressures on our cities. We believe too, within our federal concept, in the decentralization of political authority to local communities. Our difficulty is that investors and developers and industrialists are not prepared to give such support while the Government persists in its intention at some unspecified time of alienating these areas as independent foreign states with unpredictable political systems and economic climates. If only the hon. the Prime Minister would accept the inevitable, namely that these regions, however autonomous they become in their local affairs, should remain within the greater political, economic and strategic complex of South Africa, then I believe we could establish a real basis of greater economic progress in South Africa. [Interjections.]

I have outlined a number of reasons why I believe this Government is a security risk to South Africa in the international sphere, in the field of defence, in the management of our economy, in the field of race relations and many of them spring from the Government’s obdurate refusal to consider any form of federation as a possible constitutional framework for South Africa. What is worse, is that even if certain homelands do one day get independence, we in the White homeland will still be living in daily and close contact with many millions of Coloureds, Indians and Bantu, and what does that mean, Mr. Speaker? It means that the threats to our security arising from the Government’s mishandling of race relations over the rest of South Africa are going to be perpetuated in the so-called White homeland and will continue to have disastrous effects upon our future.

As you know, Sir, interdependence of the races in South Africa economically is an accepted fact. It is also a fact as far as security is concerned. Even in the intellectual ranks of the National Party and in many organs of its Press urgent appeals are now being made to the Government to recognize the realities of interdependence and the urgent need to create constitutional machinery for intercommunity consultation and co-operation. This is obviously not something that my Party can do while in opposition. I want to say to the Prime Minister that if he will pay heed to the rising tide of demand from men of goodwill on all sides, he will find us on this side very willing to assist. The creation of such constitutional forms is the declared policy of my Party, representing as it does some 40% of the electorate, and we are already building firm bridges of trust and understanding with the leaders of other communities.

Why, then, did you quarrel about it?

This concept of creating machinery for inter-community consultation seems to me to have the support of somebody as interesting as Mr. Dawid de Villiers, chairman of the Nasionale Pers. It seemed to me that the hon. the Prime Minister was making small beginnings in South-West Africa with his consultative committee. It is quite clear, Sir, that it has the support of both Mr. Schwarz and Chief Buthelezi in a declaration which they made. That declaration was in turn supported—in that regard entirely—by several of the most important homeland leaders in South Africa, like Chief Mangope, Mr. Phatudi, Prof. Ntsanwisi and Lennox Sebe, representing Bophuthaswana, Lebowa, Gazankulu and the Ciskei. With that amount of support, surely it is time for the hon. the Prime Minister to give this matter some consideration. It was urged upon him once before after he had created the consultative committee in South-West Africa, and we believe that this principle should now be developed and extended to the Republic. If that is done we on this side of the House are more than willing to play our part. We believe it could become a powerful factor in the sane conduct of our race relations in South Africa. Of course, if we are to get down to the bare bones of security in this country, security for South Africa in a dangerous world, then we must start by rejecting the policy of separate development and separate nationhoods and accepting as an agreed objective the setting up of a federation. That is what we in the United Party want. It is what many of the Blacks want, as we have determined by patient, confidential consultation through the medium of our constitutional committee and other representative bodies over a long period. It is what the Whites in South Africa want in rapidly increasing numbers. It is a concept which is rapidly gaining acceptance, at least in broad outline, throughout the country. It is an initial basis for agreement which has not been imposed on the other communities but one which many of their leaders are already prepared to negotiate as a political contract which will provide justice and security for all. From that base of agreement we can start working towards a new South Africa, a South Africa in which racial differences and the desire of groups to retain their racial identity, can be handled in a constructive, positive fashion as opposed to the blind-alley, negative approach of this Government. It is only on the basis of a federation, which this Government rejects, that we can constructively work to remove the indignities of apartheid in a manner that meets the wishes of all our people and will remove forever the ghastly racist stigma that attaches to the name of South Africa. It is only through federation that we can solve the vexing problems of the equitable sharing of resources and develop the economic potential of South Africa to its maximum capacity. It is the only way in which justice may be done not only to the African homeland communities but to the greater number of expatriate Africans in their own future autonomous cities and districts, and what is more, to the Coloured and Indian communities as well. It is only through federation that we can secure the political stability of Southern Africa and ensure the advancement of all races at a rate that keeps pace with their capacity to shoulder increasing responsibility. It is the only way, Sir, to preserve the full territorial, strategic and economic unity of South Africa while yet guaranteeing to the various peoples and regions their right to manage and promote their own interests and identities. It is only through federation that we can hope to have a positive answer to that question: “If an enemy comes, will all the people be behind us?”. In a federation such as we in the United Party are fighting to achieve, every South African, Black, White, Coloured and Indian, will not only have something to defend, but a way of life that could be the envy of this troubled world.

Mr. Speaker, I have had many differences with this Government in the past. I have not dealt with more than but a few today. I have no doubt I shall have many more with them in the future. I think it would be not unfair to sum up those I have touched on today by saying that where we seek a federal system to enable all our people to co-operate in harmony in one state, they have so little faith that they seek to fragment us into separate states because for them the stars foretell only friction and confrontation. Where we seek a common allegiance to one South Africa they seek separate allegiances to different states. Where we respect the freedom and dignity of every individual, because we believe the state exists to serve the individual and not the individual to serve the state, they believe the individual exists for the state and invade his freedom and dignity far too lightly. Thereby they damage our international prestige and undermine friendships necessary to ensure our security. Where we seek social justice for all our peoples in a compassionate society, they invade family life for ideological reasons and are parsimonious to the aged, the sick and the infirm. Where we seek dynamic economic growth as a priority in the interests of better living standards in a free enterprise economy, in the interests of real influence in international affairs and in the interests of the security of our country, they sacrifice economic growth for ideological reasons, undermine living standards and place the country’s security at risk.

All these differences would individually be grounds for no confidence in this Government. Collectively I believe they found a case which the public will accept as unanswerable.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has moved a motion of no confidence in the Government. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has therefore followed the most drastic procedure that can be followed by a leader of an opposition in terms of the parliamentary system. Now, it was interesting not only to watch the newspapers of the past few days, but also to listen to the comments made by all people taking an interest in public life in South Africa, and I must very honestly admit that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is apparently the only person who felt that a motion of no confidence in the Government had to be moved. Never before prior to any session of parliament, and most definitely never before prior to any session of parliament when an election was in the air, has so little been written and said about this motion of no confidence. In fact, most people think that the hon. the Leader is being rather silly. One need merely take a look at today’s Cape Argus, in which a good political observer, Mr. D’Oliveira, concluded his article by saying that a leader of an opposition or his lieutenants had rarely if ever had as difficult a task as that of moving a motion of no confidence in the Government.

We shall see what you look like on Friday. [Interjections.]

My hon. friend says to me he will see what I look like on Friday. I can give him this assurance: I shall look much better than he did after those five days of caucusing. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, it is easy to understand that it is a very difficult task for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to move a motion of no confidence in the Government under these circumstances.

It is not difficult at all; it is very easy.

Let us now refer to a few of his motivations in this regard. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition glibly referred to the fact that his party had never stood behind him as united as was the case at present. Surely that is something that happens most frequently. Not a single year goes by without their standing behind him as united as has never been the case before, and having said that, they fight for all they are worth! On 11 November 1973 the following report appeared in the Press—

We know that my hon. friend had hardly finished speaking when certain things happened. I can understand this. After all, I have been in public life long enough to know and I have been sitting opposite the hon. member long enough to appreciate, with sympathetic understanding, that if one has to make an appearance here for the first time without one’s right and one’s left hand … [Interjections.] There is truth in the saying used by our old people, namely “To know all is to forgive all.” But how do matters stand—and not last week, but last Saturday—with this party which is standing so “unanimous” behind the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? On Saturday evening, 2 February. I read, inter alia, the following in The Cape Argus—

[Interjections.]

What party is that?

I do not know what party it is. I know that reference is being made to the United Party and I know that it was written by a senior member of the United Party, Mrs. Catherine Taylor, who stands squarely behind the Leader of the Opposition. [Interjections.] I know it is an hon. member who is sitting with him here in the House today and who listens to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when he says how he speaks on behalf of all of his people and glowingly sets out all the things which his party stands for and will do. And then the hon. member said it was a worthless party to be a member of; the Progressive Party was a better party—without the present circumstances being taken into consideration by her. [Interjections.] If the hon. member wants to quarrel about this statement, she should not do so with me, but with the hon. member who is looking over his shoulder and sitting diagonally behind him, the hon. member for Wynberg. It is with her that he should settle the matter.

But when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition rises here, moves a motion of no confidence in the Government and asks the hon. House to reject me and this Government, this is, by implication, what he asks at the same time: “Put me and my people in the place of that Government.” In other words, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition levelled an accusation of incompetence against me together with the members of my Government, inferring that we were not to be trusted with the future and the fortunes of South Africa. We are now to take him and his people. At the same time the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made certain statements. To some of them I shall refer in my main argument …

Main argument?

What does the hon. member say? [Interjections.] To some of them I shall refer in my main argument, but to others I have to refer immediately. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has now blamed us for there being an anti-South African climate in the world and charged this Government with allegedly being responsible for it. I did refer to this matter on a previous occasion and I am not going to repeat it today, except to mention in passing that it was nobody else but Gen. Smuts who stated in this Parliament of South Africa that during those years when he was riding the crest of the wave he had felt the sjambok on his back and that he had stood alone. The people were so anti-South Africa that they did not even want to give him a fair hearing but simply shouted him down in an emotional manner. Because I know that this will also be the theme of the hon. the Leader in the time ahead, I should like to mention a few other examples to him, and I want to ask him what he and his people have contributed in that regard. Here it is a case where every person would be well advised to search his own heart.

But why do you not listen?

No, Sir, it is the hon. member who has to listen. I should be very grateful if he would do so now, for I want to speak to him about it. Now I purposely want to quote a newspaper which is in high favour with the Opposition at the moment. Heaven knows, there are not many of them, but the Sunday Express is in high favour with it. On 21 July 1946 the Sunday Express wrote the following …

That was before the rinderpest of 1948.

The hon. the Leader referred to that period. Whenever the hon. the Leader lands in difficulties, when nobody wants to believe or accept him or stand by him any more, he says, “Look at Gen. Smuts and the days when he governed South Africa,” because he now wants to stand before the electorate in the reflected glory of Gen. Smuts. Sir, what was the position in those days? I quote—

This is what his newspaper had to say—

You have done nothing to remedy that.

We are coming to that. I quote further—

*The Sunday Times of 1946 tells the same story and relates how the Ballingers and the Basners were making South Africa’s task impossible abroad. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that those who are standing by him as well as those who are standing by me should listen to the following words that were spoken by Maj. Piet van der Byl. I quote from The Star of 13 November 1946—

The hon. the Leader and his people, who find it so easy to make us on this side of the House seem suspicious in the eyes of the outside world, once again charged us this afternoon, by implication, with acting cruelly and depriving people of their legitimate aspirations. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must listen to what I am going to quote here—

And this is a motion which was adopted at the time at the United Party Congress in Bloemfontein and which was published on 1 November 1946—

Let me go further. What was the reputation South Africa had at the time when the hon. members opposite were governing? According to The Star of 11 December 1947 no less a person than Gen. Smuts said—

You have done nothing in 26 years …

No, the hon. member is of course talking absolute rubbish when he says that we have done nothing in the past years. Year after year an account was given here of what we had done in that regard. However, our task was complicated specifically by remarks made by people here in South Africa and by writings which originated here in South Africa. Let me give you another example in that regard. While the position was the way I have outlined it to you, Sir, we find that just after the National Party had come into power in 1948, before it had even had a chance to do something, this was the sort of thing that was sent out into the world and created this climate towards South Africa, and I quote from the Natal Mercury of 18 September 1950—

This is the kind of argument we heard. Just after the National Party had come into power, and in spite of the fact that The Star and other newspapers were writing about the era of Gen. Smuts in the way they were in fact doing, they wrote this in all piety, and I quote from The Star of 21 September 1950—

Imagine!—

And so I could go on giving you one example after the other, Sir.

Is this some sort of history lesson?

When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his people talk about race relations in South Africa, I should be grateful if they would bear this in mind.

There was another reproach that was levelled by the hon. member, namely that this Government’s administration was to blame for South Africa’s becoming a risk, as it were. Let us see: Who shares this argument with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Who agrees with him in this regard? In the United States there is a Business Environment Risk Index which is held in very high esteem. It is under the direction of Prof. Haner, and as regards countries and their stability—in other words, whether or not it is a risk to invest in those countries—it is accepted as being authoritative by the largest business concerns in America. According to the latest issue of this index, which appeared in November last year, what do we find? We find that an index figure of more than 80 out of a possible 100 is given to only two countries in the world. One is, from the nature of the case, the United States of America itself; the other one is Switzerland. Some countries are assessed at as low a figure as 33, 32 and 44, but only 8 countries are assessed at figures higher than the one for South Africa. This highly esteemed, authoritative world organization assesses South Africa, in respect of the political risk it offers, at a figure of 77,8 as against Switzerland’s 82, West Germany’s 79, Denmark’s 79, Australia’s 78 and Canada’s 78, where a country such as Britain is assessed at a figure of 74,5. In respect of the operational and financial risks offered by it, South Africa is assessed at 75,9 and 75,7, whereas Britain is assessed as 73 and 70 in respect of these two categories. How does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition therefore arrive at this argument? Who are his authorities to whom he refers himself when he says that South Africa is a risk in that regard? [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition troubled himself a great deal about the military position. It is a fact, Sir, that all of us should trouble ourselves about it, but I want to tell him that it is in very good hands, in the best hands, in South Africa. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not want to take my word for it, then he may consult that side’s defence group in this regard, and they will tell him that one cannot place this in better hands than in those of my colleague here. I want to go further by saying that this very year I spent a great deal of time with my colleague and other colleagues in order to acquaint ourselves with the military position of South Africa. Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has now used this debate to frighten people. He dragged in this argument in order to frighten people. Surely he did not feel this way last year. Last year he said that we had to use up our strategic supplies as there would be no war. Last year he said—I have it here and I shall give to him at a convenient time—that we had to use up our strategic fuel supplies as there would, after all, be no war.

Vause, where are your strategic reserves located?

I say that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition committed this error of judgment last year. What confidence can we now have in his judgment in this regard? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, to tell the truth, made a fool of himself. He need not take my word for that; why should he? After all, I have enough witnesses that I can call from his own fold. On 7 December 1973 The Pretoria News wrote the following in a leading article—and one can appreciate how they were forced to write this—

Sir, if De Grendel is so far removed, then Heaven only knows how far Blombos is removed. Sir. The Pretoria News, of all newspapers, had this to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—

Which view is that?

It comes from the editor of The Pretoria News …

What do they say about you?

It comes from a newspaper that does not support this Government; it comes from a newspaper that supports hon. members opposite. Do hon. members on that side want to say that they do not want its support, or do hon. members wish to suggest in that way that this editor was writing nonsense when he wrote this article? Sir, this is the position here in South Africa.

Quote what my leader said.

Which leader?

The hon. member’s leader said this and he echoed these sentiments, just as the hon. member for Hillbrow did. He tried to make political propaganda out of it, but it fell as flat as a pancake, and he knows it. He did not get any support from anybody in that regard. His leader said that we had to use our strategic supplies. To his credit we must say that he apologized later on for having been so stupid. That was published in Die Burger, and it was never contradicted by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. And this was not only published in Die Burger; it was published in all the papers: “Use the reserves, says Sir De Villiers Graaff.” And then this report goes on to say—

Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition went on to say—

And only a few days later we have this again in The Cape Times, and they quoted the hon. member as follows—

And every person who knows this situation—and surely the hon. member does—knows that this is absurd. But then the hon. member went on to say—

This is the person who now wants to dictate to us in that regard. If a leader of an opposition wants to go so far as to move a motion of no confidence in a government, then it goes without saying that he must state, as he did here today, that the policy is bad, that the Government is not to be trusted and that in his opinion there are far more voters outside who support the Opposition than there are supporters of the Government. If this is not done, it is absurd to come forward with such a motion.

When do we have the election?

Don’t be in such a hurry. The hiding is in the offing. Then, in the second instance, one should at least put it to the voters that one has a better policy than the one the Government has been following up to that stage, and then one should give the voters the impression that not only one oneself, but also one’s part inspires more confidence than do the Government members on this side. In other words, one must state that one has the policy and one must state that that policy is being carried out unitedly and unanimously by all the members in one’s party, that it is clear and that it is being understood by both leaders and followers; and it should be possible for one to appeal to the voters and say that as a leader one is acceptable in general and to one’s own people, but, what is more important, that one can be entrusted with the highest interests of South Africa and that the people must have confidence in the decisions taken by one in that regard. Sir, I have referred to what the Opposition looks like on the eve of the session. [Laughter.] I do not blame them, Sir, for laughing at this. I do not blame them for laughing at this, for they strike a most pathetic figure. And I am not the only person who says this. The hon. member for Wynberg has been feeling so strongly about the matter that she wrote this in last Saturday’s Argus. Perhaps hon. members were so glad to see Mr. Schwarz that they kept him in their midst for days. Is that the reason why they met behind closed doors, to cry on one another’s shoulders out of sheer unanimity? What position does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition occupy and how do people see him, not only in South Africa, but also in that outside world where he is so keen to gain acceptance and in regard to which he accuses us of not having an entrée. How do they see him; how do they see his party? An authoritative publication, and I suppose the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will grant me this, is the Financial Times. The Financial Times of 22 January 1974 …

Of London?

Yes, London. [Interjections.] I must say that if the one from which I am now going to quote writes like this, Heaven only knows what the other one would write. Sir, what does this newspaper write, for we are now dealing here with the outside world on which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says he wants to make an impression, he and his party as they are sitting here, from the hon. member for Newton Park to the hon. member for Orange Grove—we do not know yet whether or not the latter has been nominated. [Interjections.] The Financial Times writes as follows—

They have now reviled us for all they are worth; we are no good; our policy is wrong, and now they are analysing the alternatives. Now they come to the first alternative, namely the hon. the Leader and his party.

Is that their qualification, that they berate you?

No, Sir. That merely shows the spirit with which they are inspired towards all of us. That is the spirit which, according to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, prevails towards us alone, and which will undergo a complete change when he is in power in South Africa. I quote—

[Interjections.] But, unfortunately for the hon. member, he is not mentioned alone in this regard—

Because the hon. member for Zululand is sitting there. I congratulate him on sitting where he does. He deserves it—

Who wrote that? Who is the reporter?

This is the leading article of that publication. The hon. member has now asked me by whom it was written and I shall tell him that I do not know, but if he had asked me by whom it was inspired, then he and I would have the same idea. [Interjections.] Sir, that is how they see the hon. member in that regard. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has been telling us that his party stands united behind him. If that is the case, why does he have to warn people not to encroach on his province? If that is the case, why then is one of his chief lieutenants saying something else, according to a report in the Rand Daily Mail? I do not know whether this is correct, but if it is not the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should tell us so, for to my knowledge this has not yet been denied. We know, according to the Rand Daily Mail, that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said behind closed doors that he was standing 100% behind Mr. Schwarz. To me this is not important at all. What is important to me, and even more important to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, is to what extent, expressed as a percentage, he is standing by him.

Ask him.

I shall do so with pleasure, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should have asked him this before now. The hon. member may as well state now, on the instructions of his leader, to what extent, expressed as a percentage, he is standing by his leader.

I am going to speak and will then reply to questions.

The hon. member says he will speak, but he will not say. This is the present state of affairs in the United Party, a party of which the hon. member is boasting, which is to take over South Africa and which is standing so united behind him. I am asking him a simple question, namely to what extent, expressed as a percentage, do these people stand by him, these people who are standing so unanimous behind him and who adopt a motion of confidence in him every month? He tells me to ask the man in question, but when I ask that man he does not want to say.

That was an incomplete quotation in any event.

The hon. member can explain it, but let us now forget about that quotation, at least for the time being: does the hon. member stand 100% by his leader?

Yes.

The hon. member says that he is standing 100% behind his leader, but now the hon. member has not yet told us who his leader is. That is an open question. [Interjections.]

To a person as confused as you (jy).

I think the hon. member may as well use the polite form of “you” in Afrikaans, i.e. “u”; I shall accept it that way. There is no need to be rude when we debate across the floor of the House in this regard. Since the hon. member is so quick to take offence, I want to refer to this quotation once again. I assume that it comes from his verligte friends, because they are quoting him between inverted commas. This was with reference to the grand deed, i.e. the signing of the declaration of faith by Mr. Harry Schwarz, to which we shall come back later on if time permits. The hon. the Leader must take note of this, because he is after all boasting of the fact that he should be put in my place and lead South Africa. What does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout say is the record of that side? He says—

For the first time the United Party has done something which has made it worth while to defend South Africa. In other words, in all the years during which the United Party have been sitting in the Opposition benches, they did nothing that was any consolation to that hon. member.

That is an incomplete quotation. Nobody from the Press was present there.

The hon. member should not quarrel with me about that, but with his verligte friends who exploit every possible meeting, once they have left it—for there is no longer any confidentiality nor any loyalty left in that party—by running to the newspapers and telling them what happened at that meeting. This is always being done in order to benefit themselves in that regard.

Don’t talk nonsense.

That is the situation within that party.

[Inaudible.]

Order! I want to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to restrain himself. The hon. the Prime Minister may proceed.

If it is one’s boast that a Government is no good, one should at least ask oneself what appearance one presents oneself. And again it is no concern of mine now how the hon. the Leader appears to me. The question is, how does the hon. the Leader appear to those people from whom he has to receive support if he and his party want to make any progress in politics? Then I refer him to this leading article in The Star—

This is amazing; the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who now states that he is the alternative Government and who wants to be the Government tomorrow or the day after, does not say a single word about these two burning issues which are causing such a stir among his people and to which the newspapers are devoting column after column. He does not say a single word because he himself does not know, and because he is afraid that if he does say anything, the fight within his party will start up again. To allay the fighting in his party he has to remain silent on these matters. I shall venture to predict that, throughout this session, he will say nothing whatsoever about these issues. But then the report concludes with a matter which, to my mind, is a very serious one—

Sir, I regret that I have to say this to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now, but his credibility is now at stake. It was not I who put his credibility at stake. I have never done that, nor shall I do so in future. It is his lieutenant, Mr. Harry Schwarz, who put his credibility at stake. There is no doubt about that, for if we have to judge from the newspaper reports—they are all I have on which to base an opinion, and if I am wrong the hon. member opposite should rise and present the matter in its correct perspective; for this is how it has been bruited abroad—people are saying derogatory things about the hon. member. They are saying, quite simply, “Either Mr. Harry Schwarz is telling the truth, or Sir De Villiers Graaff is telling the truth; but both cannot be telling the truth.” The story which was bruited abroad on the basis of the report in the Rand Daily Mail on the closed meeting which was addressed by Mr. Schwarz, was this: Firstly, before he went to speak to Chief Buthelezi he had had the consent of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and the Leader of the Opposition had agreed to his doing so. But that was not all—the five points on which he was to have negotiated with Chief Buthelezi had been brought to the attention of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and he had approved them. What he had done, he had done with the full approval of the Leader of the Opposition. That is not consistent with your statement. Consequently—and I shall simply leave it at that—this is something which we as parliamentarians find irksome; it is something we do not like, for whether we differ or do not differ with one another, when a person is Leader of the Opposition or when a person occupies my position, one would really like to place him on a pedestal slightly higher than the normal one. One would like to be able to say that although one differs with that person, one can rely on his word. Mr. Schwarz, to put it very mildly, has done that concept harm. He said just enough to cast suspicion on the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as leader. I want to say in all humility to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he owes it to himself, to his party, to Parliament and to public life to rectify this matter so that no problems can in future arise in regard to it.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition should at least, on this occasion, have spelled out to us what his and his party’s standpoint is in respect of White leadership, which has been the keystone of their policy all along. He should do so now, for when will he have another opportunity during this session? When he speaks of “shared power” he should tell us precisely what the power is that he wishes to share.

Should I let the hon. the Prime Minister have this pamphlet?

I am not interested in what is stated in that booklet of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I want to hear it from the lips of the hon. the Leader in this debate. He must tell us what he wants to “share”, for what did he want to “share” the last time we discussed this matter across the floor of the House? The hon. the Leader will recall that I asked him what powers were going to be transferred to the federal parliament. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition recall that his ideas at the time extended only as far as tourism? [Interjections.] It is recorded in Hansard that the ideas of the hon. the Leader extended only as far as tourism. I want the hon. the Leader to inform me whether he has decided to go further, and if there are other powers, what other powers are going to be given to the federal parliament. That is what our people would like to know. That is of cardinal importance to our people. We do not want words and more words. Our people do not want explanations only; they want to know precisely what powers are going to be transferred to the federal parliament. I could put it to the hon. the Leader in this way: Have you made up your mind about this matter, or are you still thinking about it?

You shall have the answers. [Interjections.]

Surely this is not a matter concerning which one need go into a trance before one can reply. One can simply say that one has made up one’s mind about it and that one has decided what powers are going to be transferred. It all goes to show how ill-considered the whole business is. That is my entire object in standing here. I discuss matters with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and if I did not do so this entire motion would be so ridiculous that I would not even have paid any heed to it.

Reply to what has already been said.

I thought that even the hon. member for Pinelands understood. If he did not understand, I shall grant him a private audience later on and enlighten him in this regard.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has implicated my person, my leadership of this party and this Government. With reference to what happened in recent weeks, and particularly during the past two weeks here in Cape Town, I want in all earnestness, as one individual to another, to put a question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Do you still have a function to fulfil in public life?

That is what you said before the last election.

It is a matter to which you could give serious consideration, for you have shown yourself to be a powerless leader. In recent times the hon. the Leader has shown himself to be an irresolute leader, a leader who has to be led. Nevertheless, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has taken it upon himself on this occasion to move a motion of no confidence in another leader.

And you have not contradicted him with a single word.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned the economic position in South Africa. He put many questions in that regard. In particular he deplored the fate of our ordinary people. None of us would for a moment deny, or have ever tried to deny, that inflation affects us all, some countries more than others. Let us consider the position in South Africa. It is true that there is inflation in South Africa. But—and the ordinary voter in South Africa today realizes this only too well, and that is why one has such a calm and peaceful situation here in South Africa—as far as the ordinary man is concerned, his wage and his salary have more than kept pace with the increase in the cost of living which has occurred. On the contrary, it is an accepted fact, and not one of the hon. members opposite can deny it, that the cost of living has shown a downward trend since the third quarter of last year. It has shown a downward trend owing to the improved agricultural prospects in South Africa, for which all of us are very deeply grateful to Providence, which made this possible. Everyone agrees, as the figures also show, that the ordinary salary and wage earner is 1,5% better off in real terms after all the factors mentioned by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition have been taken into account. That is what the figures show. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is aware that our growth rate last year was 4%, in spite of the fact that our agricultural growth was absolutely zero and was unable to make any contribution. He is aware that the growth rate this year will be 6%. He is aware that we do have inflation, but that we have a situation here which does not exist in other countries. Other countries complain of the fact that they have an almost total absence of growth. We do in fact have inflation, but we have growth with which we are able to temper it. There are few countries in the world that can boast of this. One can notice among the people with whom one comes into contact that there are few countries that have the economic stability which South Africa enjoys; that there are few monetary units which are as strong as the rand; that there are few countries that offer the investment possibilities that South Africa offers; and that there are few countries that are in the privileged position South Africa is in, where we have to raise our oil prices as a result of increased purchases, but where, with the exception of the United States of America, South Africa’s oil prices are still the lowest in the world in spite of that increase. Surely that goes to show that this Government has done everything which was necessary in this connection. Surely that goes to show that there should be special appreciation in this regard, as even its opponents have to admit in leading articles.

I feel myself called upon to say a few words about the federation idea in general and particularly with reference to the speeches made recently by the Chief of the Zulus and the declaration which Mr. Schwarz says he signed with the full approval of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. As far as Chief Buthelezi is concerned, I want to say at once that he is only one of eight chiefs. I regret the fact, because it could easily be misunderstood in the outside world, that some people and some newspapers adopt the attitude that he is the only Bantu leader in South Africa. As far as I am concerned, I want to make it very clear that I have respect for him in his capacity as leader of the Zulus. However, I have as much respect for the other leaders of the other Bantu peoples in South Africa. I want to go further—I am not doing him any injustice when I say this—by pointing out that some of the other Bantu leaders probably have more experience of public life than Chief Buthelezi has. Furthermore, I think that some of them are probably more careful when making statements.

This federation idea which emanated from the Chief and which caused so much excitement in the Press of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and even other Press groups, came from speeches which the Chief made in Cape Town and East London. For the sake of the record, I am compelled to rectify immediately here certain statements made by the Chief. On page two of the speech which he made in Cape Town, he stated—

I find it a pity that the Chief has distorted historical facts to such an extent and has presented this distorted image to the outside world. It was not even necessary to do so for the sake of his arguments. Why he did so, only he would know.

In addition, the standpoint adopted by the Chief was that of federation. He spelled it out far more clearly in East London than he did in Cape Town. The people who are so infatuated with this idea of federation would do well to take some cognizance of the Chief’s standpoint on this matter. He states—

The matter which people are so infatuated with here, which now has to serve as a basis for consultation, is that one should, to mention one example—I am also going to mention other examples—adopt the Swiss system and that a final decision is then taken by a majority of the voters and a majority of the cantons. If one then gives further consideration to what was visualized by the Chief, one finds that it is a serious matter. One should note further—and I give the Chief credit for his honesty in this regard—that he suggested a solution but that he made no secret of the fact that that solution was merely a temporary one. He stated it very clearly—

On another occasion he went on to point out again how this was merely temporary for a few generations. But then he stated what he really wanted to see in South Africa—

He then went on to state what in his opinion the extent of the Transkei should be; he covered a wide area right down to the Fish River and other rivers. He then came to Natal and, as far as Natal was concerned, he stated: The entire present-day Natal, and if that could not happen, the Natal of 1874, but preferably the entire Natal of today. Again I want to make my standpoint very clear: How far are hon. members on that side, who are so precipitately adopting a course leading to federation, prepared to go in this regard? What powers do they wish to subordinate to such a federal unit? I am stating my standpoint very clearly. I am not in favour of such a federation. I am not in favour of such constitutional proposals as are being made here. On the contrary, when federation is discussed, it is very clear that there are many leaders who talk about federation but who do not in any way touch upon the essence of federation or really mean it that way. For Chief Mangope is far closer to the mark and adopts a far better approach when he sees the matter this way; he also spoke here in Cape Town at the same time, and said—

And then he went on to say—

Sir, you see in that that the approach adopted by Chief Mangope is not in any way that of a political federation. I want to make a very serious appeal to South Africa and its people now to reject once and for all this idea of a political federation as the most pernicious idea there could be for South Africa. If one toys with the idea of a political federation in South Africa, one must bear one’s history in mind. There have been many great moments in our political history, but I think that if a person were to ask you today to mention to him the three great moments in the political history of South Africa, the first would be the standpoint adopted by Gen. Hertzog of “South Africa first”; the second great moment would be the standpoint of Dr. Malan and the National Party that there should be republican independence in South Africa; and the third is the standpoint of the National Party that independent Black states should be established. There should be no doubt for South Africa and its people—no matter to what extent the hon. members frighten people—that this is and remains the policy of South Africa; it is the only valid policy which there is for South Africa to build on.

Why do I say that it is the only policy which can be adopted in South Africa? Let us now consider the future. If the standpoint one adopts is that of federation, as the hon. the Leader is now doing, and if one is honest, it goes without saying that every nation and every state that wishes to join that federation will have to give up a certain, defined portion of its sovereignty. If one does not give up any sovereignty, then there cannot of course be any question of federation, and then we are not talking about the same thing. I now want the hon. the Leader to answer the following question—for I want to proceed on the assumption that he is honest when he says that he wants to join such a federation—in respect of the Whites of South Africa: What portion of their sovereignty over themselves is he prepared to give up in the federation? What interests of mine and of my people and of his and his people is he going to subordinate to that federal government? For, Sir, if one is not honest, one would of course be creating the utmost friction; one would be creating the greatest discord ever experienced in the politics of South Africa. To tell the truth, I do not think there will be any person who will be able to keep in check what will result from that if one is not honest with that policy. Therefore, when hon. members adopt that approach, I want to ask them in all earnestness not to toy with this idea simply for the sake of political gain. If they come forward with this idea they should be in earnest about it, and then they should tell the people of South Africa precisely what they would be letting themselves in for if they supported them at the next election. Then they should tell them precisely what obligations would be imposed on them. Then they should tell them precisely what their rights in that connection would be. I, on my part, have made it very clear that I reject federation because I am not prepared, in respect of the Whites, of whom the hon. member and I are the leaders, to subordinate any part of their sovereignty to any other people or nation.

“Baasskap”!

It has nothing to do with “baasskap”; it has to do only with self-respect in the sense that I alone want to govern my own people, and I am not prepared to share my sovereignty with any other people, White or Black, friendly or hostile. Do we understand one another now? In that regard I am in no way prepared to share my sovereignty over my people in any respect. It has nothing to do with enmity; it has nothing to do with “baasskap”; it has nothing to do with anything of that nature. It is the right which Britain has; it is the right which any independent country in the world has. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, if all hon. members speak this way, i.e. without speaking up so that I can hear, surely they cannot expect me to reply to them. If one considers South Africa and rejects the federal idea, as I categorically do, it is very clear to one that, geographically, South Africa and other countries are so situated that they lend themselves to the inevitable establishment of a bloc, a power bloc, and, what is more, that this would be in the interests of all these countries. But, Sir, it would be a bloc of independent states; not only would it be a bloc of independent states, but politically and constitutionally no one state would in any respect be subordinate to another. It would be a bloc of states in which it would not be possible to dictate to any state what it should do domestically, and in which no state could be swallowed up or dominated. Only in respect of such a block am I in favour, and that is what I shall endeavour to accomplish.

But, Sir, a condition for the establishment of such a bloc has to be that there should be independent states which have to enter into that agreement, and they have to do so on the strength of their independence, on the strength of their sovereignty. In other words, I foresee—and Chief Lucas Mangope and I share this standpoint—that an economic power bloc will be established, and in principle we already have it in Southern Africa today. I believe that a power bloc will have to be established against communism. I believe that a power bloc of freely associated states will have to be established in which each nation will be able to realize its aspirations in its own state.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. the Prime Minister would allow me to put a question to him? Where is the place in the bloc for the Indians and the Coloured people?

That is a good question the hon. member has put to me. The place which the Indians and the Coloureds will occupy, is precisely the same—because you copied it from us—as the place you now say the Indians and the Coloureds will occupy in your federation plan. The only difference is that it was this side of the House that visualized that kind of state when you ridiculed it. Take a look at your own literature and you will see that you are now writing as if it were your discovery, in exactly the same way as you are now writing as if it were your discovery that there should be dialogue in South Africa, whereas it is the National Party which, over the years, has been conducting the necessary dialogue with all the Bantu leaders and governments in South Africa. Politically not one of them may be subordinate to another. There will in fact be economic interdependence, and this will exist at all times; this will be the most powerful tie binding those states. I want to make it very clear that it would be foolish to try to finalize this matter now. The simple reason for this is that the climate at present is not such that it would be possible to do this. I cannot imagine a successful power bloc in this context in which Rhodesia does not play its part. I cannot imagine a power bloc in which Malawi, Botswana, Swaziland, and so on, do not play a part. What is more, other states around us which have to play a part in that bloc, have not yet become independent. While areas such as Bophuthatswana, KwaZulu, the Transkei, the Ciskei and all the others are not yet independent, it goes without saying that such a power bloc cannot be established. That is the standpoint of the National Party in that connection.

Finally, this motion of no confidence and the South Africa of today should be seen against the background of the world in which we are living today. One is very grateful, because the position in the world is so fluid, that one has the knowledge—I do not claim the credit for this for the Government—that South Africa is in a far better position than many other countries to face this uncertain future. In the times which lie ahead a country which is able to feed its people from its own resources will have a very great advantage. We are in that position today and I believe will continue to be so in the foreseeable future. We are in the fortunate position that we have the coal which makes us only 20% dependent on oil as a source of energy, in contrast with many other countries which are up to 80% dependent on it. We are in this favourable position that we have gold. Everyone is aware of the standpoint the South African Government has adopted over the years. I want to pay tribute to the Government and to my colleague for what has been accomplished in this regard. We are in the favourable position of being able to supply the necessary ore to developed countries in the years which lie ahead. It is with great piety and gratitude that I say that we are in the fortunate position that moral standards still have some meaning in this country. For that reason one is grateful that one can think of South Africa as economically strong, that one can rejoice in the fine agricultural year which is imminent for South Africa, that it is with pride that one can tell the world at large about the political stability which exists in South Africa, and that one can refer to the political and constitutional tranquillity which is to be found here in South Africa. But if one considers the world at large, it is a fact that the position is very fluid. A very influential person, a person who has occupied a position in public life for 31 years, told me the other day that never during that whole period of 31 years had he seen the world in such a fluid position. Everyone of us sitting here knows that one cannot say today what is going to happen tomorrow. One need not argue about that. One is not only aware of the fluid position which exists in the world, but as far as South Africa is concerned, one is also aware of the perilous situation which could arise for South Africa, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also referred to that this afternoon. I need not argue the fact with hon. members this afternoon that the ultimate aim of the communist and leftist powers is not Rhodesia, Mozambique or Angola—their ultimate aim is South Africa The ultimate aim is what can be taken from South African soil. But what is perhaps even more important to them is the control over the Cape sea-route in the event of another conventional war. They have made no secret of the fact, whether in their majority in the U.N. or at other meetings or conferences they held on this matter, that South Africa has to be brought to its knees and that a take-over has to take place. Indeed, Sir, it is with that object that terrorists are being sent in against our neighbouring states, with the object of eventually reaching South Africa through those neighbouring states. We do not dispute this point with one another, for all of us know that it is quite true.

But not only are we faced with this perilous world in so far as this onslaught is concerned; we are also faced with a fluidity in the international, economic and monetary front which is disquieting, to say the least, a fluidity which is so extreme that from time to time the world’s best financial experts meet, only to inform us when the meeting is over that they were unable to find any solution to the pressing economic problems of inflation, and so on. That is the state of the world in which we are living.

But as far as South Africa is concerned—you and I both have to take cognizance of this, Sir—there are forces within and outside South Africa that want to force changes on South Africa by means of extra-parliamentary actions, forces which out of frustration, because there are things which in their view cannot be done in the parliamentary sphere, want to do things which neither the Opposition nor the Government ever intend doing and never will do, and there are more and more organizations abroad that are gaining acceptance with organizations and people in South Africa that adopt the attitude that, if changes cannot be effected across the floor of this House, they should be forced on Parliament from outside. One is aware of all these things. No person occupying the position I do can fail to take into account the fact that the picture one has before one every day is a deteriorating picture as far as the international position is concerned. There are few, if any, leaders who have spoken recently and held out the prospect of an improvement in international affairs, in spite of peace that is concluded here and agreements which are entered into there. In spite of the spirit of détente abroad in the world today, everyone agrees that the world position in future is going to become more and more difficult. Because this is so I find that it goes without saying—I have experience of this because I have occupied this position for the past seven years—that the person on whom the responsibility rests, and the Government that has to bear that responsibility and has to undertake the day to day administration of the country, must in future, in this dangerous world, keep an eye on the facts as they visualize them. I am convinced that the next three to five years, if not the next two to five years, will be of decisive importance to the continued existence of South Africa and its people. Because this is so and because it is necessary for a government to know not only that it enjoys the confidence of its people, but also that its hands are free for any eventually which may crop up in any sphere tomorrow or the day after, I have taken upon myself the responsibility—because it is my prerogative —feeling free to ask the voters of South Africa whether they want my friend opposite to lead South Africa during that phase, or whether they want to entrust the government of South Africa to me, the National Party and my colleagues on this side. Under those circumstances and in the light of the fluidity of the position, I feel myself at liberty to go to the country, and therefore a proclamation will be issued on 28 February calling an election on 24 April.

I shall put my side of the case to the electorate, and in particular I shall say to them that I shall endeavour anew to maintain peace and order in South Africa, as we have been doing for the past 26 years. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he can do everything in his power to gull the voters into believing that the security of the State cannot be entrusted to us. The hon. the Leader will achieve nothing in that regard, for when the record of this side of the House is compared with that of the Opposition, it speaks too loudly for any person to ignore. I shall say to the electorate of South Africa that the policy of my party, in contrast to the policy of the hon. members on the opposite side of the House, gives them the guarantee that they will be able to retain their identity at all times. That applies to every nation in South Africa. I have no doubt at all that I can say to the electorate that my policy of co-operation in general, with all the nations in the outside world and here in South Africa, will be continued, for we have, in past years, been implementing it, and it has already produced results. But most important of all to my way of thinking is that I will be at liberty to say to the voters of South Africa that the National Party guarantees them sovereignty over their own country and their own people regardless of what may happen in future, regardless of what problems we may find confronting us in future, and regardless of the disputes to which this may give rise. Sovereignty over their own country and their own people will not be shared by anyone, but will be exercised by the people who are represented in this Parliament, and this will be done in so far as their own people are concerned. I grant the same right, namely to exercise sovereignty over their own people, to every other nation, because it is their right.

Mr. Speaker. I should like to begin by saying how glad I am that there was a momentary pause in the proceedings before I began my speech, and what a great pleasure it is for me to rise on behalf of my party in a new place in this House. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you, after your election as Deputy Speaker earlier today, seated in the Chair of this House. May I wish you, Sir, on my own behalf and on behalf of this party every success and enjoyment in the office which you now occupy. May I also say to the hon. the Prime Minister how much I appreciate the sentiments he expressed in regard to my assuming a seat in the front benches. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that you will no doubt have noticed that I now sit much closer to your chair than I did in the past. My friends will no doubt say that this is in order to enable me with greater efficiency to assist you in maintaining the decorum of this House, but I fear my enemies might say that I have been moved closer to your chair in order that you may have better surveillance of what I do and say!

I have a collection of political cartoons of which I am very proud. One of my favourites is a cartoon which was sketched after this debate last year. During that debate, you will recall, I compared the hon. the Prime Minister to a cabaret star, and the cartoon depicts the hon. Leader of the Opposition and myself sitting at a table in a restaurant while there appears on the small stage in the restaurant a young lady …

Glenda.

Not Glenda, but a young lady complete with false eyelashes and other false appurtenances appropriate to young ladies of that kind. This star is doing a turn which is labelled “Johanna’s Cabaret Turn”. This year, one could say, we have had another such turn from the hon. gentleman, save that the tickets have been more expensive and the performance less impressive. If one reads the English-language Press, or some of it, and indeed the Government Press, and if one believes what one reads, one would have come to this Chamber imagining that never would the Leader of the Opposition have had a more difficult task to present a case and never would the hon. the Prime Minister have had more ammunition and have been better placed to slaughter the Leader of the Opposition. We have all sat here for many years and many of those elsewhere in this Chamber have sat here for many years. When, with all that ammunition available—if it is available—has there been a less impressive performance by the hon. the Prime Minister? When has there been a case put with greater force, clarity and gravity—the word I would like to stress is “gravity”—than was the case put by the hon. Leader of the Opposition today?

I believe that the most momentous statement of this debate so far was the statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister towards the end of his speech when he said in answer to my friend, the hon. member for South Coast, that the policy of the National Party in relation to the Indians and the Coloured people was the same as the policy of the United Party in its federal principle. This is a remarkable admission.

It is the policy which you took over from us. [Interjections.]

Who took it over from whom is entirely irrelevant. As a matter of interest, if you go back in history you will find that our policy in that regard was laid down in 1961 at the congress. However, the question of who took it over from whom is quite unimportant. The important point is that there is now no doubt whatever that the policy of the National Party in respect of the Indians and the Coloureds is the same as that of the United Party under the federal principle. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister said it loudly and clearly. What does that mean? It means firstly that they are accepted as part of the South African state and the South African community, unequivocably and for all time. The hon. the Prime Minister dealt with this in relation to the question of sovereignty, upon which he laid the greatest emphasis. He said he was going to the country on the question of the sovereignty of the South African nation to maintain its identity and to run this country alone. The words which he used in the original statement in which this appeared were these—

The interesting part is that this has been interpreted by Rapport, a Government supporting newspaper, as relating to the White people of South Africa and not merely to the Afrikaans-speaking section. The hon. the Prime Minister is a great one for putting questions and he spent most of his speech putting questions. I am sure that he believes that it is a desirable way to conduct this debate and I am going to put a question or two to the hon. the Prime Minister on what he regards is the key of the forthcoming election. Are the Coloured people and the Indians in his view part of the sovereignty to which he refers or are they not?

I told you that time and again. [Interjections.]

I invite the hon. gentleman to tell us now.

I have told you time and again that they do not have a homeland and that there will be a link between their parliament and this Parliament and that that will decide the issue.

That is not the question. The hon. gentleman is a lawyer and he knows the term “sovereignty” very well. He has used it as the most dramatic part of his speech. He pins his faith on this in a challenge to us in the forthcoming election.

I told you exactly what the position is.

Are they part of the sovereignty in the term in which you used it?

In that sense, yes.

And the Indian people are as well?

The answer is “yes”.

We have cleared that and it had to come because of his earlier statement that our policy was the same as his in this regard. He has rejected utterly the concept of “baasskap” not ten minutes ago. My next question to the hon. gentleman is: Accepting them as part of the South African people in the broad sense, accepting them as part of the South African sovereignty in that sense, will he say whether they are to be denied for all time any say in the sovereign authority in that state?

In this Parliament, yes.

In the sovereign authority in that state?

The reply is “yes”.

“Baasskap!”

How can there be the slightest credibility? The hon. gentleman had the temerity to impeach the credibility of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

I did not impeach it.

I beg your pardon—to criticize it, to bring it into play.

And I will be pleased if you will reply to it.

Here, Sir, we have the Prime Minister of South Africa on the cardinal issue of policy and credibility itself, because in one breath he says that the Coloured people and the Indians are part of the sovereignty, that they are a permanent part of the people of South Africa, in the broad sense; that they have no homeland of their own, and in the same breath he says that for ever they shall have no say in the sovereign authority which governs their affairs.

Not with the White people.

That is not the point.

That is what I told you—“met my en my mense”, I told you that directly.

Here we have the major question of credibility, I believe, of this decade. The whole key to the Government’s case is that there is no such thing as “baasskap” in their case because each man has a say in the authority which governs his sovereignty. It is the very basis of the Government’s case; it is the very basis upon which they attempt to justify themselves here amongst honest intellectual people and in the outside world, and when we come to the key issue, the hon. gentleman falls down flat on his face. Sir, let us take it a stage further. By the end of the century, on current predictions, in the White part of South Africa the Coloured people and the Indians will be in a majority over the Whites in White South Africa, and we get back once again to the very cardinal factor which is the key to the hon. gentleman’s point and that is that he objects to minority rule; that is why he objects to our case in one respect. What then, Sir, is the situation in this country on the basis of the hon. the Prime Minister’s own case? Mr. Speaker, let us not talk about credibility in respect of the policy of others; let us not talk about honestly presenting one’s case to the country; let us not talk about having the courage of our convictions unless we are prepared to do that in respect of our own policy. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition spelt out our policy in Bloemfontein some time ago with unanimous support from a packed congress; he spelt it out in speech after speech thereafter, and he has spelt it out again today, and in the first confrontation we have with the hon. the Prime Minister on what he says is the key issue of an election, the hon. gentleman is not prepared to face up to the situation. Sir, is this a game? Are we involved in some frivolity here, or are we dealing with a serious matter of state?

Sir, the hon. gentleman dealt with some speeches made by Chief Buthelezi and others. I am glad to be able to say that I enjoy cordial relations with Chief Buthelezi. I do not believe that there is advantage to be obtained by our debating in this House this speech or that speech by this or that Bantu leader. In any event, I do not believe that there is advantage to be gained by the hon. the Prime Minister or myself trying to say: “I have got one up on you because this aspect of my policy was agreed to by this particular non-White leader or that particular non-White leader.” But what is important, I believe …

What are you running away from?

I am not running away from anything. What I believe can and should be debated is whether the hon. the Prime Minister’s policy provides a broad framework within which there can be useful dialogue with the various non-White peoples, or whether the policy of the United Party provides that broad framework. Sir, this is something on which I would like to speak a little further this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most disturbing aspects, I believe, of life in South Africa today, life in the ’seventies, in 1974, is the gulf that exists between responsible non-White opinion and the point of view of this Government. I believe this is one of the most serious aspects which face us today—the fact that there is this gulf, this chasm, between the points of view of responsible leaders of all shades of opinion. I speak not only of the heads of government, but of other shades of opinion as well which have been consulted by myself, by our constitutional committee and by others. Sir, I wonder if hon. gentlemen realize what it means when one says that that gulf exists. It means that although we have a Government here which as an electoral majority, it does not carry the confidence of the vast mass of the population of White South Africa.

I believe that this is the issue which the electorate should be made aware of, because we have here a situation which is both highly undesirable in any state and in our State in particular, and which indeed in circumstances can be positively dangerous. It is not simply a question of differences in detail between the Government and responsible non-White opinion all over South Africa. It is not a basic, broad understanding between them, but differences in detail. There is what I have described as a chasm, as a gulf, between the policies of the Government and that responsible opinion, and the tragedy of the situation is that Government policy, being what it is, unrelated to the facts, will not as time goes by adapt more to the situation and so heal that breach. It will move further from it and that gulf will grow wider. You do not ease a difficult situation with a policy which is based on the removal of the Black people from the White areas of South Africa, when in fact they are coming into that area faster and faster all the time, and, Sir, coming in on a permanent basis. A policy based on that will create a greater gulf.

Now, Sir, the United Party fortunately is differently placed. We may not have, and indeed we do not have, and nobody has suggested that we do have, agreement in detail with any particular group or person in every aspect of our policy, but we are operating in a field and within a framework in which there is some prospect of agreement being obtained. One can say that from one’s own experience. I myself, as chairman of the Indian Affairs group of the United Party, have consulted widely and in depth with many prominent Indians in Natal and in the Transvaal, and I am able to say, as a result of that consultation, that there is some prospect of agreement or acceptance within the framework of what the United Party is offering. And I believe the same can be said by the hon. member for Durban North, who is head of our constitutional committee, in respect of the wide consultation which his committee has had and of which I am aware. It is not surprising in this situation that the bulk of the discussions in this House and elsewhere should take place around the United Party’s policy. One discusses and debates in a serious Chamber like this fact and not fiction, and it is the United Party’s policy. We are the major party operating in the field today of political fact, and that is why it is natural, it is to be expected, that the bulk of the debate in this House should be concerned, at least a good deal of the time, with the affairs and the activities and the policies of the United Party; because apart from the Progressive Party, who are on the fringe because they have very small representation amongst the electorate …

At least we are one party.

… it is the United Party and its policy which is occupied with the broad spectrum of political fact as it exists today.

Now, what is the basis of the hon. the Prime Minister’s theory about sovereignty? It is of course that the other races have their sovereignties elsewhere. Although it is now accepted that the majority of the Blacks and the Browns are now in the White areas permanently, the question of sovereignty is dealt with on the basis that they will have their sovereignties elsewhere and their votes will be channelled out from the White area where they live and work, to be exercised in those sovereignties elsewhere. I had occasion to spend Saturday morning in the centre of Cape Town, the heart of the White homeland, and what does one see? A sea of people, a mass of people, shopping and window-shopping, housewives and their children, industrial workers on their Saturday off spending their money, well dressed, well behaved, well fed, generally speaking, the sort of people who make up a society which you will find anywhere else in the world. There they were in the heart of Cape Town going about their affairs as they do elsewhere. But what is remarkable when one looks at the position through the eyes of this Government is that two-thirds of those people were not White. Two-thirds of these ordinary people milling about the centre of Cape Town on a Saturday morning were not White. Of those who were not White, one-third were Black. If you asked any of those people, Black or Brown, where they came from, they would say “town”, which means Cape Town. If that is the situation, and this is what we call white South Africa, what is white South Africa? It is a pyramid, with a small white group at the top with a great mass of Blacks and Browns underneath. This is what the hon. the Prime Minister is talking about when he speaks of his people and his sovereignty. He is only talking about the small pinnacle at the top of the pyramid, but all the rest are here, and the belief is that one can overcome one’s problems by channelling their votes to separate sovereignties in different states elsewhere.

Except the Coloureds.

The Indians and the Coloureds are, of course, in the land of the limbo, as you can see.

Let us now deal with the question of the sovereign states. The belief is that if one channels these votes elsewhere to separate sovereignties one can have a sovereign White Government in South Africa for all time, free of any pressures which would arise from the acceptance of South Africa as a multi-racial state. That is the key to the matter. By channelling off these pressures elsewhere one will remove all the pressures which, in a multi-racial state which we envisage, would be on the White Government, and so one’s problems are solved. What nonsense this is! What is already happening before our eyes and what is developing in this field? The Black Governments are increasingly becoming not agencies to exert pressure only on the areas which they govern and which are under their jurisdiction, the Black areas, but agencies to bring pressure to bear on this Government in respect of the majority of their people who are expatriates living in the White area. What more undesirable situation can one have, whether it be Black or White you are dealing with, than agencies which have power to exert pressure but no responsibility for the results of the exercise of that power? That is the situation which is being developed here. The power for pressure, which is perfectly legitimate in the circumstances and which would be exercised by any of us in similar circumstances, is not the power of economic force or military might. It is the same power which is exercised by trade union leaders. It is precisely the same power, namely the ability to guide, to foster the interests of and to bring to bear as a point of pressure the working force of the country concerned, save that elsewhere the trade unionists concerned are responsible for what they do because they are part of that state, whereas we are moving into a stage where we are developing agencies which, as I say, have power to bring about change but carry no responsibility for the exercise of that power. I cannot believe that this is a desirable phase to be introduced into any country, no matter whether—and this I want to emphasize—it is Black or White. I am dealing now with the principle and not with personalities. By comparison, there is the people of the United Party. We as realists accept the fact that there will be these pressures. Is there a man or woman in this House who believes that these pressures will not exist while the people, the Blacks and the Browns, are here? Of course there is not; those pressures will be there. We in the United Party say you will have a far greater chance of preserving, indeed of beneficially using the influence, economic, social and otherwise, which the White man has, by retaining the various races within a structure in which the White man can work. You will have far greater likelihood of retaining his influence in that type of structure such as we envisage than by fragmenting South Africa into states over which there can be no influence of any kind. I believe that the White people in South Africa are sufficiently strong numerically, are sufficiently strong economically, and that they have sufficient spiritual strength to maintain their position in a federal structure in South Africa and to use that strength and the knowledge which history has given them to guide the other forces which are operating in this country to the benefit of themselves and of the other races as well. It is because I believe that this can be done and because I believe that the White man’s influence—which I believe is beneficial and which, I believe, is accepted by all races—will have greater advantage and greater play in a federal structure of the kind that we stand for than under the proposals of the Government opposite, that indeed I am taking part in this debate.

It depends entirely on the federal structure.

I would be the first to agree with the hon. gentleman that the federal structure is crucial to the issue and that is why there is a fundamental difference between the federal structure of the hon. member for Houghton and ourselves. The federal structure of the hon. member for Houghton does not solve any of our problems, it merely perpetuates them in a number of federal states.

Tell us how far you are prepared to go.

It is not a question of how far you are prepared to go under our system.

But that is the whole crux of the matter.

The hon. the Prime Minister is dealing with the sharing of power. It is elementary that as soon as you set up a federal structure in which powers devolve to lower entities which cannot be taken away as of right, you have from that moment onwards a sharing of power. This is inherent in a federal structure, that is to say with the constituent legislative elements. That is one sphere in which we are prepared to share power. Surely the hon. gentleman, even from his point of view, cannot see any danger in that, because he accepts it in respect of the Coloureds and the Indians.

Tell us what power the federal parliament will have.

I am coming back to the Coloureds and the Indians, because this is the key to the debate so far. If there is no danger whatever—and the hon. gentleman would not have adopted that as his policy if there were danger and if the situation could get out of control in respect of the Coloureds and the Indians—why is it dangerous for other races? The hon. gentleman cannot put it on the basis of fact, as Dr. Verwoerd did, that in respect of the Indians and the Coloureds he is dealing with a minority and therefore it is safe, if one can overcome the cynicism in that approach because as I have said, every projection shows that by the turn of the century, which is probably within my lifetime, they will be a majority in the White state together over the Whites. On what basis can any sensible person accept that policy of the Nationalist Party in respect of the Indians and the Coloured people but reject it in respect of all the others.

I do not believe that a case has been made out by the hon. the Prime Minister to reject the formidable case on defence, on economic affairs, on foreign affairs, on the economy and on race relations—I invite the House to consider how the Prime Minister answered any of those points—but principally on the very point upon which he himself chooses to base this next election, namely the question of sovereignty and who is to share it.

Mr. Speaker, in the first instance I want to congratulate you very sincerely on the important and responsible position which you now occupy and I want to wish you everything of the best for the future.

†I would also like to associate myself with the hon. the Prime Minister’s remarks about the hon. member for Zululand sitting now in his exalted position in the front row. I hope to make one or two further references to him in the course of my short speech.

The hon. member for Zululand spoke about a cartoon. Now, I do not have a cartoon here. At least, it is not called a cartoon, although it might pass for one. I have here The Sunday Tribune of 13 January. Here is a picture of four gentlemen, of the hon. members for Zululand, for Durban Point and for Durban North and of Chief Buthelezi sitting together. Underneath the picture is written—

The notice on the wall reads—

You have done just that.

I have not suggested to whom that refers. I am merely stating a fact. I read what I see before me. If the hon. member for Durban Point wants to make certain inferences, he is certainly free to do so.

*You know, Sir, if one looks at the state of affairs in South Africa today, it amazes one, as the hon. the Prime Minister said, that it should be possible for a motion of no confidence in this Government to be moved here today, at this moment, and especially that it could be done by the Opposition, and, to be specific, by the hon. the Leader, the Leader of a party which, according to all authorities, is heading for a debacle. I think it is rather a pity that this is so, because we should like to see a strong, efficient Opposition in front of us; but I do not think this will be so for many years to come.

†The hon. member for Zululand mentioned a good deal about federation and the federal concept. I think in all fairness one can say that he has really told us nothing. I would like any member in this House to get up and tell us now, in the light of what the hon. member has said, in reply to the devastating case put forward by the hon. the Prime Minister, what precisely the United Party’s federal concept is. I do not want to rub it in—the hon. Leader of the Opposition has many problems—but I cannot help referring here to a little Press cutting I have of 29 October 1973, when the hon. Leader was in Natal. Really, in the course of his speech, there came a cry from the heart. It was really an admission of all admissions. He said—

There he is sitting.

Yes, he is right here. That is why I am saying it in his presence.

Have you got another Douglas Mitchell?

Let us just briefly look at the latest in this series of tragi-comedies that are threatening to overwhelm the United Party. I want just to refer briefly again, despite a most devastating reference to it by the hon. the Prime Minister, to this notorious, or if you like, as they would call it, this famous “Declaration of Faith” entered into by the United Party by way of Mr. Harry Schwarz and, of course, Chief Buthelezi of KwaZulu at Mahlabatini. This Declaration of Faith, we must remind ourselves, postulates among other things, this federal concept. In the course of this discussion of the federal concept and the Press comment, the hon. Leader of the Opposition said—I have it here—that the nature of the federation still has to be determined. The final word on that issue still has to be given. But Chief Buthelezi, within a day or two after the singing of the declaration, said he totally rejects the United Party’s federation scheme. Now, is the hon. Leader of the Opposition telling us that Chief Buthelezi knows what their scheme is, while he does not know it himself? Is that the position? Because this is what it is. Then one finds that it is postulated in the declaration that there will be an all race national consultative assembly. I would like to ask the hon. member a question. Here is the hon. member for Zululand in whose constituency this debacle took place and I would like to ask him what this means. What becomes of the resolution that was passed at Bloemfontein a few months ago? In that resolution it was stipulated that consultation must take place between the constitutional committee under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Durban North and the parties concerned. Then this declaration refers to a Bill of Rights. I want to know, and I am sure Zululand and the country too, want to know, what this Bill of Rights is which is referred to in this declaration and which is held up as one of the great tenets of policy for the future South Africa. The hon. Leader of the Opposition said—

What precisely does that mean? “Properly understood”—by whom? “In general”—why not specifically? I want to say that we are going to ask the hon. member for Zululand in particular in the coming election campaign in Zululand what these things mean. I am giving him a foretaste of what is to come.

Won’t you stand against me?

I knew that was coming. As a matter of fact, I was quite prepared to stand but we, the party on this side of the House, unlike the Opposition, take the party leadership’s views into account when we make our decisions. [Interjections.] If the hon. member does not like that answer, I can give him another one. Is the hon. member not satisfied with the candidate whom we have put there? I can tell him that the candidate whom we have put in Zululand is going to give him an awful headache. I am well satisfied with the candidate whom we have put there and I promise him that I will appear in Zululand during the election campaign on many an occasion. I hope he will come to my meetings. There we can continue this friendly little dialogue which we are now having across the floor.

It is interesting to note that the ink was scarcely dry on this “Declaration of Faith” when the hon. members for Zululand, for Durban Point and for Durban North, the Three Musketeers, faithfully tripped along to Mahlabatini or wherever they met. There they had their own interview with Chief Buthelezi. It is quite true that they did not sign anything that we know of; this little picture which appeared in the Press is the record we have of this meeting. I think the hon. member for Zululand owes us, this House and most definitely the people of Zululand an explanation of precisely what those discussions were about, the discussions which these three members had with Chief Buthelezi a day or two after Mr. Schwarz and Chief Buthelezi issued their Declaration of Faith.

Why don’t you read your paper?

No, it is not stated in this article. I want to say that he must confess this to us and then we can have a Confession of Faith which caps this Declaration of Faith. I do not want to prolong the agony, but I do want to say again that we Nationalists from Natal are small in number—I admit that quite freely—as far as public representatives are concerned, but I can promise the hon. member for Zululand as the leader of his party in Natal that we are going to give him the devil of a fight there and that we are looking forward to it.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a few rather awkward, or shall I say, a few ex cathedra statements which he threw in the debate without any particular justification or substantiation. He made such statements particularly on economic issues but, before that, he gave me the impression that he had developed a war psychosis during the recess. He came here with the postulate that we are apparently on the eve of some kind of war and that we must now be armed to the teeth. Who in this House will forget the attitude of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout during the last session when, in his personal attack on the hon. the Minister of Defence across the floor, he taxed the Government for spending too much on defence? That will be recalled; it is in Hansard. Today the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, if I understand him on this issue, is severely taking us to task because he says we are not preparing this country sufficiently militarily. This is how I understand his attack.

I do not think you were listening.

Yes, I was listening; I have written it down. But I want to come to a few other issues. The hon. member tells us that the Common Market countries are putting up a so much better performance with regard to economic growth and the raising of living standards than South Africa. Does the hon. member say he did not say that?

I said: “Up to five years ago.”

I must be careful now because the hon. member argued with me a moment ago too, but this is what I have written down; this is what he said. However, I will come to that point. He also said that in this country we cannot do with less than a real rate of growth of 4% per annum. He says that that is the absolute minimum if we are to stay where we are as regards our standard of living, if I understood him correctly.

Having regard to obsolescence.

Of course we must have regard to obsolescence. That is a basic part of the national income and product calculations and naturally has been taken into account. He then says what we must have is a growth rate of 8%. It is interesting that even as recently as last year he was telling everybody that we should have a growth rate of 10%. Does the hon. member remember? He told us we must have 10% because otherwise we could not employ the people coming onto the labour market.

I said “we should have” but now I say “we must have”.

If the hon. member goes on much longer, next year he will tell us it should be a real growth rate of 6%.

No, no.

If so, he will be talking a great deal of sense, with respect, because 6% as a real rate of growth is in fact a fantastic performance. How many countries in the world can show a 6% real rate of growth? Do you know that over the seven successive years from 1965 to the end of 1972 there was an average rate of growth in South Africa in real terms, after adjusting for the cost of living, of exactly 6% per annum? That is the position. I ask the hon. member again to compare that with any list of countries he wishes and to tell us how many of them can improve on that performance. It is easy to talk of 8% in a country like South Africa which has what we call a dual economy in that a large number of people by virtue of the very facts of life are living at a lower standard than those at the top. With that sort of division it is an extremely difficult matter to raise the average to 6%. It is in fact, I should think, the best sustained performance in the field of economic growth of any developing country over many years. That is our reputation and our achievement. As far as the Common Market countries are concerned, the hon. Leader of the Opposition might be interested to know that just recently, a matter of a month or so ago, the O.E.C.D.—the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development—which embraces most of the major industrial countries, expressed grave concern over the question of raising the standard of living in the whole of that important area of the world in order to maintain economic growth. In fact, their calculations show that under present conditions they will not get a growth rate of 2% per annum. In fact, they put it at a maximum of 1,9% per annum.

For when? That is for 1974 only.

Yes, for 1974.

Because of special circumstances.

Wait a bit, I am coming to 1974. I agree with the hon. the Prime Minister that all the signs at the moment are that our growth rate will be above 5% and will very likely be 6% again this year. There is a leading commercial bank that is critical with regard to these matters and quite correctly so. Indeed, I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation for the valuable work which the commercial banks do and the publications they issue from month to month and from quarter to quarter. May I say in this respect that I hope Hill Samuel will perhaps become a little bit less pessimistic than they tend to be. It is a sort of pathological pessimism there, but I think it will come right because all the others differ from them.

I want to say that we must look at the prospects ahead for 1974 which the hon. member for Parktown has mentioned. We say that we are so grateful for this magnificent agricultural year; all the signs are that there will be an all-time record maize crop. Last year agriculture was in great difficulty and it could not contribute to the general growth, but this year agriculture will be playing a very important part as it has traditionally played in the South African economy over very many years. Let us consider our mineral wealth. Last year’s mineral exports were up 20% on the previous year’s. That is a very big jump. If we consider the yield of gold, we find that last year it totalled nearly R1 800 million compared with R1 160 million the year before. The yield increased by more than 50%. This is continuing. I want to come back to gold briefly in a moment if I may.

I mention these things because I believe the prospects for the coming year are absolutely magnificent. Contrast this with what is going on in the world. There is an energy crisis. The hon. the Prime Minister said that we were not nearly as vulnerable as many other countries, and we are very grateful for that circumstance. We are weathering this crisis which is causing havoc with the economies of many other countries. Inflation—of course we concede that there is inflation, inflation which is too high for our comfort, and we are making consistent, sustained efforts to contain and reduce this inflation. However, suddenly we get this very big rise in the price of petrol which has an all-pervading influence on costs in the economy, as we all know. It is extremely difficult to combat this latest stimulus to the higher cost of living, but we are nevertheless taking steps which I believe are going to be effective.

What steps?

However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in talking about the cost of living, did not mention the extent to which incomes and earnings had risen faster than the cost of living. The hon. the Prime Minister correctly referred to that. I have some figures available for the first quarter of 1973 compared with the first quarter of 1972 and these show that earnings of White workers—this is everybody excluding agriculture—increased by 8,1%, the earnings of Coloureds by 14,1%, those of Asians by 14,1% and those of Bantu by 10,8%.

Are those the average increases?

Let us compare that with the increase in the cost of living. It means, if you take the increased incomes of this very wide spectrum of people, that, in fact, the increase is substantially more than the increase in the cost of living and therefore their standards of living are rising.

But not in the case of Blacks.

No, you will see it if you take the wider figure, the national income. You will then find that the figure shows that in fact there is an overall increase, because it should not be forgotten that we are leaving out very important sections of the White population. We are leaving out the whole entrepreneurial group, which is a very big section, the whole professional group. We are leaving out all the teachers and many others. If we were to put them all in, I have the calculations available which show that the national income in real terms is, in fact, rising per head of the population and therefore the standard of living must be rising. I do not want to burden the House with the figures, but that is the position.

If we come to the question of economic growth, we talk of the real growth—in other words, after adjustments have been made for the fall in the value of the rand—but if we look at the growth performance of the economy in monetary terms year by year—we are taking it from the one year to the next—then we see the strength of the South African economy, then we see the growth performance and the growth potential. For instance, if you take it from 1965, the increase in the gross national product from 1965 to 1966, on the yearly figure, was 8,6%. From 1966 to 1967 it was 10,8%; from 1967 to 1968 it was 7,3%; from 1968 to 1969 it was 11,7%; from 1969 to 1970 it was 9%; from 1970 to 1971 it was 11% and from 1971 to 1972 it was 12%. Sir, I ask you again …

Is that real growth?

Sir, this is the monetary growth from year to year. The real problem here, the fly in the ointment, is, of course, inflation. These figures indicate what the growth potential of this country is.

Sir, take the employment position in the world today. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition should have mentioned this. In Germany at this moment they fear that within a month they will overtake the record unemployment figure of 1967 of nearly 800 000 unemployed. In other words, they are moving towards a million unemployed; this is the latest report. In America they are already talking about an unemployment figure of 5 or 6%. That would involve millions of people. I would not even like to say what the position is today in Britain. It was a million but, of course, today most members of the industrial labour force are only working three days a week. That means they are two-fifths unemployed anyway. In comparison with other countries, we in South Africa have no unemployment worth talking about.

Nonsense.

Here we are dealing with a motion of no confidence in the Government, and the Government is responsible overall for many of the policies which have produced this state of affairs, but the Opposition is not prepared to give the Government credit for these policies. These are the blatant facts.

But, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the question of trade and our balance of payment for a moment. What was our trading position last year, right up to the end of December—about a month ago? Despite the rise in imports, our exports rose percentage-wise by at least as much. I am talking now about merchandise exports. Our gold exports rose by more than 50%. It is true that because of the fantastically high rates of interest outside, we did not get capital flowing into this country to the extent that we would have liked, and in fact a certain amount of capital was taken out of the country, as one can understand, because in Britain, for example, the official rate of interest was 13%. This is also the position in Europe, and in America the interest rate has been rising also. We have this difficulty, therefore, as far as capital is concerned, but despite that our reserves—our gold and foreign exchange—were only down by about R140 million compared with the previous year. The figure which I have just quoted is the Reserve Bank’s figure. Sir, if you take into account the balances which are held by the commercial banks and the Central Government abroad, you find that that deficit is wiped out. In other words, although the figure for the year, as at the end of December is a preliminary figure, it looks to me as if we broke even on our balance of payments last year. Sir, in the circumstances in which we operated I suggest that that is a performance worth talking about. We have broken even overall. [Interjection.] I may be a few millions out either way, but is the hon. member going to argue about a few million when we are talking here about hundreds or thousands of millions? I want to say this with regard to our balance of payments, in contrast with the position in other parts of the world. The hon. member for Parktown and other Opposition members will know that the two biggest headaches for the world economy today are inflation and balance of payments deficits, particularly now that we are faced with the oil problem. There is the gravest concern about the balance of payments deficits which are looming up. If you read the communique of the Committee of Twenty issued the other day, you will see that this was regarded as the biggest issue. The hon. member for Parktown shakes his head. Well, I cannot argue with a man who shakes his head on that issue.

Now, let us just for a moment look at the position in regard to gold, which is an item which many years ago some people said was a wasting asset which was in fact disappearing from the scene in South Africa. Twenty years ago some people said that. Sir, I said many times, and I say it again today, that in our lifetime not only will gold remain at the base of the monetary system, but also as an item of first-class importance as an export item in South Africa. You cannot simply say that it is disappearing. With the very high prices today, and with the lower-grade ore being mined, we find that we are in fact mining gold which would not otherwise have been mined. I want to say that all this agitation today in the context of the fantastic balance of payments position facing the world and the virtual breakdown in the world’s monetary system, this can all be very substantially remedied if the world has a proper relook at gold as a monetary metal. As far as the price is concerned, I ventured the opinion two years ago that the official price of gold, and not the free market price of gold, which was then incidentally only about 44 dollars per fine ounce, would double itself before the end of this decade, and I was certainly subjected to quite a bit of ridicule both in the Other Place and in many of the newspapers in this country, even in leading articles. But leaving that aside, what is happening today is that the free market price is round about 130 to 140 dollars an ounce, which constitutes an enormous increase, and the official price, so called, the price at which the central banks are supposed to deal in the metal—but cannot, because nobody will sell at that price—is 42,2 dollars per fine ounce. Now, I believe it is quite impossible, even if America or any other country says they are going to stop the official price from rising, I believe present circumstances and the pressures of events will overtake them. I honestly believe that we are going to witness a substantial increase within the next few years; in fact, starting from this year, there will be a new epoch for gold and for South Africa, and I believe that that is going to be an extremely important matter for us and our economy. You will notice, Sir, that just recently the managing director of the International Monetary Fund himself called for an increase in the official price of gold, and not only that. The deputy president of the Common Market Commission a week or two ago urged the Common Market countries not to wait but to go ahead and to raise the official price of gold among themselves, for transactions among themselves, amongst those nine important countries. I believe that if that happens it will give an impetus to the raising of the official price, which will not be able to be stopped. I know, Sir, that this is a no-confidence debate, on a motion of no confidence in the Government. But I want to ask, when we look at gold, that we should not talk too soon. If we look at gold, and international monetary policy, and the state in which the world has landed itself, if ever we could get up in this House to say that there was one issue on which this Government was right, on which the hon. the Minister of Finance was right, it is the gold issue, the monetary issue. [Interjections.] I want to pay my tribute today to the hon. the Minister of Finance for his sustained confidence in the future of gold and in the basic health of the South African economy. I believe that where the leading economists of the world are now beginning to call for a substantial raising of the price of gold, particularly to meet the balance of payments deficits arising from the huge increase in the price of oil, this is in fact where gold is going to come into its own in the monetary sense. The fact is that gold is once again going to show itself as the absolute and inevitable basis of the monetary order and the monetary system. I give much of the credit for that to this Government and to the hon. the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Speaker, I have sat here for half and hour listening to the hon. Senator talking about finance, and I did not know whether he was in fact the Minister of Finance or the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs. I was a little nonplussed because I thought he was the Minister of Tourism and of Indian Affairs, but it is interesting that he mentioned neither of the latter two subjects. Perhaps the hon. the Minister is unaware of the fact that in Durban 22 000 Indian families are looking for homes and that something like 4 000 Indian traders are living by the permit systems. Perhaps the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs has only seen an Indian when he has passed through Durban. What I find most interesting is that he spoke about my leader in Natal, the hon. member for Zululand. If the hon. the Minister would do me the courtesy of listening to me when I am replying to him, I would appreciate it. I believe it is the practice in this House for a member to listen when another member is replying to him. I was telling the hon. the Minister that he had a good deal to say about the leader of my party in Natal. I should like to say this to the hon. the Minister: I challenge him to come and fight me in the constituency of Port Natal. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister may laugh. Let me tell him that he is the Nationalist Party’s shop-window in the province of Natal. He is their English-speaking Cabinet Minister—not the most noteworthy one; but we shall not deal with that now. He is their shop-window in the province of Natal and I challenge him to fight a constituency in Natal rather than to sit in the Other Place. If it is any consolation to him, I challenge him to fight me in my constituency of Port Natal.

I challenge you to learn to speak Afrikaans.

Despite the grin on his face, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he does not have the guts to challenge me in Port Natal. From another point of view, I should like to tell the hon. the Minister, as the leader of the party in the province of Natal, that I am a little sick and tired of having to fight the Cronje family. I fought Mr. Cronje in 1966, his father-in-law in 1970 and now I have to fight Mr. Cronje again in 1974. Are there no other Nationalists of any note in my constituency? Of course, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Senator, Mr. Cronje, has recently been decorated as a petrol patriot. You will recall that he made a statement in which he said that Durban was obviously less patriotic than Bloemfontein or Pretoria because in these two cities they used less petrol than was used in Durban. I find that he has been strangely silent in this regard since one of his Ministers was caught speeding.

I want to come back now to the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs. As I said, the hon. the Minister did not deal with his own portfolio at all. He dealt with economics. I should like to suggest to the gentlemen on that side who deal with this matter that they should be very careful about their positions in the party after the election because the hon. the Minister is in a fortunate position. He is a senator and will be returning to Parliament in any event. Despite what our party may do to his colleagues at the election, he will be coming back. He has probably been paving the way for a possible position in economic affairs. I am, however, rather disturbed because I know that he knows nothing about Indian affairs and after having just listened to him, I now know that he knows nothing about economics either. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister dealt with the growth rate, inflation, and gold as though they in fact put the gold in the ground. Then he quoted a figure of a million or two and said: “Well what is a million or two when you are dealing with figures like this?” I would like to say to the hon. the Minister that he must come to my constituency and explain to the housewives that a million or two means nothing. They will say to him that a cent or two means a lot in their lives with the high cost of living as it is today. I would say to the hon. the Minister that he can talk about growth rates and the balance of payments if he likes, but if he comes to my constituency he can tell that to the marines. I would like to turn to something of more consequence than the hon. the Minister who has just sat down.

Everyone who comes to this House comes here to represent the voters in his constituency and also, I might add, the non-voters in his constituency. They send him here as a representative to put their case and their problems to the Government, the members sitting on the other side. I propose to do just that very thing this afternoon. But before I do so I want to remind the House that this is only the first day of the no-confidence debate. By the time we have reached the last day of the no-confidence debate not one member on the Government side will have got up and criticized a single Minister or the Government for all the things which their own constituents have complained to them about. They cannot tell me, for example, that none of their constituents have complained to them about the cost of living. But not one of them will get up in this House and complain to the Government about the cost of living. This to my mind is where democracy begins. This to my mind is why the Nationalist Government can never claim to be democratic in the true sense of the word. But one thing I found strange—and you heard it again from the hon. the Prime Minister and also from the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs—is that it seems that when anything goes wrong with South Africa it is the world’s fault. We inherit inflation, we inherit all the evils of the world, but when it suits their purpose then of course the world is out of step. [Interjections.] If the hon. gentlemen to my left will keep quiet for a moment they might hear something which would be to their advantage in the election. They can make all the noise they like, because even their voters have stopped listening to them. I challenge any Minister or any member on that side in this coming week to criticize a Minister or the Government. I bet you they will not do so.

Why must we do that?

The only thing I find strange, and it is a miracle, is that the Government has been in power for so long. Perhaps it is our present system which has enabled it to be in power for so long. With its record of mismanagement and bungling and its recent record of broken promises, in any other country in the world it would have been sacked years ago. They have disregarded every problem which has been presented to them, they have disregarded the cost-of-living increases and they have also disregarded the problems of transport and housing which I will deal with shortly. They are sitting in their ivory palaces in Pretoria completely ignoring the very people who elected them in the first place. If one speaks to a Nationalist supporter of 1948 he will be the first person to tell you that the Nationalist Party of today is a disgrace by comparison to the Nationalist Party of 1948. At least the Nationalist Party of 1948 could claim, and rightly claim I believe, to have looked after its people. The Nationalist Party of 1974 could not care less for its people. All it seeks to do is to get returned to this House for the next four or five years to carry on as before. I listened to the hon. the Minister of Finance in Durban, and he made a brilliant speech.

Hear, hear!

Oh, yes, he made a brilliant speech. For every problem South Africa had, it was somebody else’s fault. It was the outside world’s fault. But, like the hon. the Minister who has just sat down, anything that went well was to the National Party’s credit: The fact that there was gold in the ground, for instance. I think they must have planted it. If anything else was wrong, it was inflation that was being imported. It was obvious that the election was coming, because the Minister of Finance, for whom I have a high regard, kept saying: “In 1974 things will be better. Wait for 1974.” The hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs said the same thing. We are on the up and up, as it were. I want to know from the Government for whom it will be better? It will not be better for the civil servant or the Railwayman, who is already asking for more money, to which he is fully entitled. It will not be better for him, because if you give him an increase of 15%, by the time he has it, it is worth nothing. I want to ask the hon. the Minister and the Government, whom will 1974 benefit? I will tell you whom it will benefit. It will benefit the sort of people whose names appear, for example, in this morning’s newspaper. This is just an example. I will just read the headlines:

These are the companies.

This is just one page of this morning’s paper. This has been repeated over the last four or five months over the whole of South Africa as finance companies publish their reports.

And then they ask more for their papers.

Yes, this is the most amazing thing. On Thursday or Friday there was an article saying that the price of newspapers was going up by 2 cents, by 40% in other words, as from Friday. But it is interesting that in the same issue the same newspaper said that its profits were 20%. This is where the problem of South Africa lies, because those hon. members sitting on the other side of the House have lost all contact with the electorate. But what is more serious, they could not care either.

They talk about price increases. The hon. the Minister mentioned oil. I would like, in all seriousness, for the hon. the Minister to tell me something. I am sorry, I mean the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. The hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs almost led me astray. The Minister of Economic Affairs probably knows more about economic affairs than the Minister of Indian Affairs. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister: Has he seen the balance sheets of the oil companies that have asked for an increase in the price of oil? it seems strange to me—and I have looked into this matter to some extent—that the oil companies can pay exorbitant amounts for petrol filling station sites in back streets. They certainly could not do that unless their profits were high. It seems strange to me that in little villages, in all the cities and suburbs of South Africa, there always seem to be dozens of petrol filling stations …

Next to one another.

… next to one another. I would like to ask this Government that has the nerve, the audacity, to ask the electorate to vote for it after 26 years of mismanagement, whether it has investigated these oil companies to ensure that they are not making excessive profits. Has this Government decided to cut back on its own profits? I will tell you why it has not, Mr. Speaker: Because I accuse this Government of profiteering at the expense of the electorate.

Now I am going to prove to you how this Government is profiteering. In my own constituency, a quarter of an acre of ground nine years ago cost R1 200. That same quarter acre of ground today costs R12 000. This happened within a period of nine years. That is fair enough. This is the way private capital works. We believe in this type of society. But why does it happen? It happens, because not less than four miles away from this land which is sold at such a price, the Department of Community Development, a Government department, which owns something like R500 million worth of property in South Africa today at value, is sitting on hundreds and hundreds of good building sites which it will not put on the market. This is why the price is so high; this is why they can get R12 000 for a quarter of an acre. This is why I accuse the Government of profiteering at the expense of the man in the street. The hon. the Minister of Justice is smiling now, but I would like him to smile in front of the housewives who cannot make ends meet. I would like to see him smile in front of 500 or 600 African workers who are claiming more money because they cannot pay the price of food. Should this happen you will see the look on his face! This Government profiteers at the expense of the electorate, the voter, and of every single person in South Africa because the Department of Community Development does not pay rates on the property which it holds and this property is worth more than R500 million. Therefore everybody in every city in South Africa has to make up that shortfall of rates which is caused by this department. This is where the Government is profiteering.

While people were complaining about the price of food and while African workers went on strike for more pay in Durban, what did the Government do? They dumped 5 million bananas because there was a surplus. [Interjections.] This callous disregard of human suffering, of hunger among the masses, is going to cost this Government dear. Five million bananas were dumped merely to keep the price up. Let us see the smiles on the faces of the hon. members opposite now! Let them go into my constituency and explain to the people there why the price of a bag of beans has risen from R6 per bag to R42 per bag in two years’ time. Let them go and explain what happens to the price of food. The food prices in the shops are going up daily! Let the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs then turn around and say that the incomes are keeping up with the cost of living! I say to that hon. Minister that he may have those figures, but the housewife will tell him what to do with those figures.

I want to return to the land issue for a while. I might tell hon. members that when I inquired why the department was holding back land which was available for sale and which had all the necessary services I was told by an official: “Do not be silly; if we put up all the land for sale, the price will come down.” This is what is being done with our money. Our money buys the land, our money pays for the services, our money pays for the salaries of these people and yet this Government allows this kind of practise. I accuse this Government of every known mismanagement … Mr. Speaker, I am trying to keep parliamentary! [Interjections.] It has come to a stage where I quite frankly believe that they should put up a candidate in a working-class constituency like my constituency where people have to work hard for a living. If you say to the people of such a constituency that their productivity rate is low they will laugh at you. These people are already working harder than they should and I challenge the hon. the Minister or any member of the Nationalist Party to come along and explain to the people in my constituency and the dozens of other working class constituencies in South Africa that they have to work still harder. Let the hon. Senator come along and say to these constituents that their incomes have always kept ahead of costs. Let him try that argument in my constituency!

I do not want to get involved in an agricultural debate, yet I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, I want to ask the Government and I want to ask every Nationalist supporter in South Africa whether they can tell me why a pocket of potatoes was selling for R1-90 a pocket in Durban at Christmas time, while two days after Christmas it was selling for 80 cents a pocket.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister and the Government why, when the requirement of the abattoir in Durban is 1 500 sheep a day and it suddenly drops to 100, the price goes up and, when the price goes up, the meat comes back again? The Government has 22 control boards. What are they controlling? They are certainly not helping the housewife, and the farmer says he is not making money. I have plenty of farmer friends here and they are all honest people. I agree with them. They cannot be making money. [Interjections.]

They are starving.

I even know some retail shopkeepers here and I know that they too say they are not making excess profits, but to be serious, who is making the excess profits? I know that the housewife is paying. I am glad to see that the hon. the Prime Minister is back in the House. I want to say to him … [Interjections.] I would like to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that I welcome the fact that he has called an election. I welcome it for the reason that he is going to be shown just what the housewife, the wage earner, the ordinary man in the street in South Africa thinks of the Government which has ignored him for so long that it cannot prevent profiteering because it itself profiteers and which cannot hold down the cost of living because it helps to push it up with its multitude of boards which do not do their job. Therefore I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that I welcome the opportunity of this election. In fact, I hope he will come to my constituency. Let me tell him that he is going to get the biggest hiding that the Nationalist Party has ever had in constituencies such as mine.

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding public denials and the reprimands of the past few days, the English Press and Mr. Harry Schwarz and his Young Turks have dealt the old United Party a final death blow and created a new, more leftist-liberal United Party. When I say that Mr. Harry Schwarz and his Young Turks have created a new, more leftist United Party, and there is no reaction to that from that side of the House, I must accept that my statement is correct. I want to add that this is not a statement of mine, in actual fact, being in effect an allegation from their own members. No less a person then the hon. member for Newton Park, Leader of the United Party in the Cape, alleged this, and I shall prove it at a later stage. And the hon. member for Simons-town, Deputy Leader of the United Party in the Cape, and the hon. member for Maitland, Chairman of the United Party’s youth affairs, also made this allegation. No less a person than the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself also made the allegation. The result is that the United Party is now becoming increasingly estranged from the Afrikaans-speaking rural United Party members because, inter alia, the attendance of their Transvaal annual congress by invited Black political guests is completely irreconcilable with the traditional attitudes to life of even the United Party members in the rural areas. This is incomprehensible to them.

Apartheid!

It has nothing to do with apartheid. It is incomprehensible to the Afrikaans-speaking United Party members in the rural areas, and to me as well, that the leadership of the United Party could allow this at their annual congress, which is the foremost institutional authority of any party, an institution which is regarded as something valuable, unique and almost sacred by the loyal and dedicated party supporters because any party’s most intimate and confidential matters are discussed and given substance at its annual congress. It is inconceivable that that institution should now be used as a platform for non-White speakers so that they could give the United Party a few lessons in race relations. History will record that the United Party called in the assistance of non-Whites to teach them how to conduct their own White politics. It is a self-admission of complete political immaturity and unparalleled political bankruptcy.

And of fear.

Yes, and of fear. And they are the people who are today moving a motion of no confidence in the National Party Government’s policy or politics and in a way in which it has so safely and successfully ruled this country for the past 25 years. Is there anyone on that side who would like to stand up to claim, in the light of the international situation and with special reference to England, that the National Party has not safely and successfully ruled this country for the past 25 years? There is no one—whence then the motion of no confidence in the Government which they are moving today?

It is specifically under the policy of the National Party that the Black peoples of South Africa have come into their own, that non-White leaders could come to the fore, leaders with whom the United Party is now trying to fraternize politically, even though The Cape Times alleges that “racial fears” are a fabrication, something to which I shall refer again later.

With the advent of its Transvaal congress, the United Party did the National Party a very great service. It has once again brought the National Party’s policy of separate development brightly and clearly to the fore, so much so that even Chief Buthelezi now alleges that separate development is the only possible basis on which South Africa’s race problems can be solved. That is why The Cape Times suddenly gave the United Party the following words of advice on 23 January:

The National Party adheres relentlessly and irrevocably to the separation of peoples.

What about the Coloureds?

The National Party is, however, realistic enough to offer the Black people the opportunity to realize their political aspirations completely within their own areas. What could be fairer than that? In addition the National Party is also realistic enough to warn the various peoples of this country continuously that serious clashes should be avoided. I say the following with some hesitation, but I do so with a great sense of responsibility: Even bloodshed could start the moment the Whites have to share their sovereignty with another people in this country. A struggle would then develop to obtain control over the political power in this country, and such a struggle would give rise to serious clashes which hon. members on that side of the House would not even be able to understand or describe. Those who fail to appreciate these facts are purposely misleading our people. That is why the National Party will not make any of its annual congresses available to non-White speakers as a platform from which they can show discord and even shout slogans against the Whites, because something like that cannot, after all, improve the relations between Whites and non-Whites in this country; it would be more likely to distort them.

If there is something the United Party and the English Press can credit themselves with it is the fact that they have, frequently in the past, distorted the relations between Whites and non-Whites in this country. Although this has frequently been done blatantly and openly in the past, we can expect it to be done more carefully and more subtly in the future, and particularly because the hon. the Prime Minister has already intimated that legislation in this connection is to be submitted to Parliament even before the year is up.

However, let me come back to the policy of the United Party. With its federation policy the United Party has done an even greater service to the National Party than it did with respect to its Transvaal congress and its invited Black political guests at that congress. The United Party’s federation policy has finally convinced the Afrikaan-speaking United Party members of the rural areas that the sovereignty, the identity and the security of the Whites can no longer be entrusted to the United Party in its new guise, and particularly not under the active leadership of Mr. Harry Schwarz and his Young Turks. Even less are they to be trusted when it comes to the safety, the security and the sovereignty of the Afrikaner himself. The result is that an ever increasing degree of estrangement is taking place between the United Party and the Afrikaner, and in addition the United Party’s leadership is becoming conspicuously less Afrikaans-orientated. For the English-language Press and Mr. Harry Schwarz and his Young Turks it has long ceased to be a matter of the interests of this country and its people and their security; as far as they are concerned it is chiefly a matter of promoting the leftist-liberal objectives of the United Party. Hence, Mr. Speaker, their continual insistence that the U.P. members on the Schlebusch Commission should resign, as the English-language Press and Mr. Harry Schwarz and his Young Turks continually propagate, even now. [Interjection.]

The hon. member for Green Point has just made a remark denying this, but it is a fact, Mr. Speaker. They insist on it. The Sunday Times of 26 August 1973 states very clearly—and I should like to prove this to the hon. member—that the interests of the new United Party must at all times have precedence. It states as much in the following words—

The hon. member denies this—

That is all it is, Mr. Speaker—a matter of the interests of the United Party and not the interests of our country and our people. This is surely clear proof that Mr. Harry Schwarz and his Young Turks give precedence to the interests of the new United Party. Its interests can, in fact, best prosper in an atmosphere of anarchy, subversion, chaos and disorder. Hence their opposition to the Government’s efforts to maintain law and order under all circumstances.

Sir, it is now only the National Party that can give the Whites the assurance that they will not share their sovereignty with another people. Today the hon. the Prime Minister again stated this very clearly and appositely. It is only the National Party that can give the Whites the assurance that it will maintain their identity as Whites as long as the National Party governs. The hon. the Prime Minister has also stated this very clearly today. It is now only the National Party which can give the Whites and the country the assurance that it will rule with an eye on security, stability and order.

And “baasskap”.

The hon. member does not know what he is talking about.

What is the difference between leadership and “baasskap”?

To try to conceal the political suicide that waits upon the Whites under the policy of the new United Party, The Cape Times wishes to discredit those United Party members of the House of Assembly who might possibly display a slightly conservative inclination, by stating that they belong, together with Marais Steyn, the hon. member for Yeoville, with the National Party. The Cape Times writes as follows in this connection—

Now I want to tell hon. members on that side that whether it is the English Press or Mr. Harry Schwarz who is trying to belittle our Whites, who fears that they will be delivered into the hands of a non-White majority under the policy of the new United Party, because this is supposedly impossible, according to these gentlemen, under the policy of the United Party—to them I want to say that they are nothing less than political sleepwalkers, even political frauds, because the machinery to make this possible is specifically being created in the policy of the new United Party, the possibility of domination. There is consequently some ground for fears in this connection, except of course in those for whom it has become an obsession to share White sovereignty in their own area with a non-White majority. And if the United Party’s leaders cannot see this possibility, no, this undoubted certainty, they can never ever be allowed to rule this country. And they are the people who want to move a motion of no confidence in this Government and its policy today. They can no longer support their own case; they can no longer trust one another, and their own people do not trust them. Even the English Press gossips about them, belittles them and reviles them. The English Press even ventures to inspect the United Party’s candidates in the next election, and those whom Mr. Harry Schwarz and his Young Turks and the English Press do not like, are branded as being backwoodsmen, “takhare”! They also refer to the United Party M.P.s of the Cape, people who display conservative tendencies, people with chiefly an Afrikaans background. They are branded as being “backwoodsmen”. You know, Sir, the word which the English Pressmen have used to revile my people, the Boer people, is a political name of abuse and a swearword. Now, in truth, those same English reporters have the arrogance to label people with conservative tendencies as being “backwoodsmen” … “takhare”, who belong with the National Party, as if the National Party offers accommodation to backwoodsmen. But that is how the English Press and Mr. Harry Schwarz and his Young Turks see the Afrikaners, as backwoodsmen. The Sunday Times of 21 October 1973 asks, with great repugnance, in heavy black type—

I should like to grant to the Sunday Times that this is a fair and reasonable question to Mr. Streicher and his colleagues. If it should ever become necessary for me to revile my party and my people in such terms and to make them so contemptible I would, in truth, walk out of that party myself! And if I were to do so, my party and my people would also reject me. But, of course, the United Party has long been merely a unique conglomeration of individuals each going his own way, each with his own characteristic way of reviling the others. And that is what the United Party looks like today, and that is how the world sees the United Party—a divided, bewildered and pathetic old lot who will sit there on the opposite side of the House as a languishing minority, because further than a languishing minority even the English Press will not be able to carry the United Party. Is that not true, Sir? The Prime Minister stated this very clearly, because they allow themselves to be led. They wait upon the English Press chiefly for its guidance, and the English Press itself and the United Party’s Executive and its parliamentary caucus apparently do not understand that a leftist-liberal leader in the Rand Daily Mail, or a poison-soaked “Graaff Must Go” article in the Sunday Times is totally at odds with practical politics, totally at odds with the demands of good government, yes totally at odds with the knowledge and experience gathered in the passage of time, which the authorities of the day must implement to reconcile the theories of the English-language reporters with the reality of practical government.

In contrast to that, the United Party continually allows itself to be deviated from its course by more and more leftist elements within the United Party, the new United Party and the English Press. I say that they are allowing themselves to be forced off the rails by ever greater leftist elements within their own party and by the English Press. I have said this twice, but there is no reaction from the other side. They cannot react, and I am not the one who says so, their own people do. It is their own people who say so, and I am going to prove this to them. According to Rapport of 28 October the hon. member for Newton Park, the Cape Leader of the United Party, leader of the Executive and of their parliamentary caucus, said the following (translation)—

He is not the only person who says that there are “bodies” trying to deflect the United Party from its old course. The hon. member for Maitland also states as much. I am very sorry he is not in the House now. I quote from Die Volksblad of 15 October, where the following appeared (translation)—

This is now the hon. member for Turffontein—

There are these leftist-liberal bodies within the United Party, and their own people say it.

I am very glad the hon. member for Maitland has just come in. I should like to tell him that he referred to certain bodies which are deflecting the United Party from its old course. It is my supposition that the bodies to which he referred are Mr. Harry Schwarz and his Young Turks and the English Press. Will he confirm that my supposition is correct? He does not answer me. He just stares ahead of him as if he has seen a ghost. My presumption is therefore correct.

Are you perhaps speaking to me?

Yes, if the hon. member is still the member for Maitland. The hon. member for Maitland is apparently now going to become the hon. member for Soutrivier. The hon. member for Maitland continued by saying (translation)—

Those are his remarks to the Press.

Another prominent member of the United Party, the hon. member for Simons-town, Deputy Leader of the United Party in the Cape—he too is not in the House—said the following at Ceres on 13 October 1973 (Volksblad of 15 October) (translation)—

He speaks of a leftist-liberal front.

He continues—and this is very important—

So there is apparently another United Party as well—

But even the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made such an allegation. He had to endure the castigation, scorn and contempt of the English Press when he warned the United Party’s youth movement not to move too far left too quickly. The fact that he gave warning is, after all, a sign and proof of the fact that the United Party is moving in a leftist, liberal direction. The fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition warned against it, means that he is not the one who is leading this movement to the left. The fact that he warned against it means that he does not like this movement to the left. The fact that he warned against it means, in addition, that he is not able to stop this movement to the left.

Then I am surely correct in having stated at the beginning of my speech that Mr. Harry Schwarz and his Young Turks and the English Press have dealt the old United Party a final death blow and that they have created a new, more leftist-liberal United Party, a new United Party which is becoming estranged from the Afrikaner, a new United Party whose Executive is conspicuously becoming less Afrikaans orientated, a new United Party in which there is no longer any place left for any Afrikaner.

Then they are the people … [Interjections.] Yes, there they sit. They are dismayed and humiliated at the hands-down victory by Mr. Harry Schwarz. They are now moving a motion of no confidence in the Government, which has never stood more solid and firm than it now does. Their motion of no confidence is a farce that one can only laugh at; one can feel sorry for them. I therefore want to reject their motion of no confidence with contempt.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Odendaalsrust, who has just resumed his seat, was not listening to the speech of my hon. Leader and to that of the hon. the Prime Minister. They both spoke of the dangers on our doorstep in the next two to five years. The hon. the Prime Minister emphasized this. The hon. member now comes along with the story of a division between Afrikaans and English-speaking people and does not argue about policy. He now comes along with the old story of South Africa’s past, i.e. the division between Afrikaans and English-speaking citizens of South Africa. If he wants to make capital out of statements such as those, I just want to tell him that I have no hope for the future of people like himself. Mr. Speaker, at this stage I move—

That the debate be now adjourned.

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the House do now adjourn.

Agreed to.