Mr. Speaker, I wish to react to certain remarks of the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday when he warned the country at large of what in his view we could expect over the next two to five years. Since he has laid his finger on the ailment, on the illness, I wish this afternoon to see if we can perhaps diagnose some of the causes and then see what curative treatment might be applied to remedy the position in which South Africa finds herself. Because, Sir, I want to say that there must be few, if any, South Africans who are not concerned about the Republic’s isolation from the rest of the Western world and the threats to our security which arise from that particular isolation. Sir, this isolation has not arisen overnight. It has been accentuated more and more over the years that we have been ruled in South Africa by the Nationalist Government. It has been intensified by the Government’s race policies. It has been aggravated by administrative blunders, some of which I wish to refer to this afternoon.

The hon. the Prime Minister yesterday attempted to indicate to this House and the country that this antagonistic feeling against South Africa was nothing new. He quoted press reports of the years immediately following World War II. That is a fact of history. There have always been persons and organizations who have been antagonistic towards South Africa but, Sir, despite that hostility which then existed, South Africa as a nation was not in the isolated position in which she finds herself today.

Nonsense.

Immigrants were streaming to this country, almost more than could be accommodated, until this Government’s policy put an end to immigration to this country. The main point I want to make is that Governments remained friendly towards the Government of South Africa, although there was individual friction. Today, to argue that our isolation in the Western world is due to ignorance or lack of understanding of our problems and our attempts in solving those problems, is to beg the question, because the position is exactly the opposite. Those of us who have had the opportunity to travel abroad cannot but be impressed by the measure of goodwill which exists amongst individual persons of the various foreign nations of the Western world. Those of us who have had the opportunity of speaking to visitors who have come to this country, officially and unofficially, are impressed by their sincere endeavour to understand our problems. Sir, our businessmen and our industrialists have established and are expanding contacts in many foreign States. Financiers throughout the world look to South Africa for opportunities for investment, where we have been endowed by Providence with gold and mineral resources which excite their interest. We are a country that can and should provide opportunities for dynamic development and growth. We should be the workshop of Africa, as has been said often enough in this House. We should be giving full opportunity for employment and economic progress to all our peoples; but while this personal and trade goodwill exists between South Africa and persons and organizations in other countries, we face isolation, and growing isolation, when it comes to Government relations. We are told that we are expanding our diplomatic missions, but that is not creating contact and goodwill as between Government and Government. Dialogue at Government level today is virtually non-existent. The goodwill of individuals is constantly eroded by the actions of this Government. We find incident after incident caused by this Government, incidents which are manna from Heaven to anybody outside South Africa who wants to damn South Africa. While the officials in our Department of Information, with their undoubted ability, are making every effort to build up understanding and goodwill, their efforts are neutralized by the unnecessary, the ill-advised and the indefensible actions of Ministers in this Cabinet. Sir, these incidents led to the necessity for the hon. the Minister of Information to undertake what might almost be called a clandestine visit to the United States to try to put right the harm which was done by him in his other capacity as Minister of the Interior of South Africa. Believing as I do that actions speak louder than words, Sir, I want, in the time at my disposal, to deal with some of these unfortunate incidents—unfortunate, if not disastrous, to the status of South Africa in the comity of nations. Sir, while the Government and other agencies invite a cross-section from foreign countries to visit the Republic, we find the grossest incompetence in the handling of visas for individuals who wish to visit South Africa. The hon. the Minister has told me this afternoon that last year 1 786 visas were refused.

*While the refusal of the application by certain of our churches for a visa for the Dutch theologist, Prof. Berkhof, was under discussion, people throughout South Africa pleaded for a new approach. They pleaded for a new approach to the refusal of visas as well as passports. This was done in the Government’s own Press. [Interjection.] Surely that hon. member who is responsible for the dissemination of information must know this. Rapport, the newspaper with the biggest circulation in the Republic, stated its opinion as follows on 22 July 1973 (translation)—

It is not only the English newspapers that write in this vein. It is the Nationalist Party’s own newspapers that have expressed this opinion.

Mr. Speaker, I want to avail myself of this opportunity to elaborate a little on this history which Rapport wrote about. I am not raking up old stories. Let us see what appeared in Rapport quite recently, in July (translation)—

That was not so.

It was so—

†Now, in case hon. members think that I am relating this history without foundation, let me say I have been quoting from a leading article in Rapport. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, during the discussion on the Interior Vote last session I appealed to the hon. the Minister that he should give reasons as far as possible for the refusal of visas and passports and for the withdrawal of passports, and he did so, I concede, in the case of the refusal of the visa to Prof. Berkhof, and he also gave reasons to the deputation from the Coloured Representatives Council in regard to Mr. Leon. Sir, I believe that is a step in the right direction that he is doing this, but apparently what is convincing the hon. the Minister as being sufficient reason for refusing visas does not convince the public at large, because according to Die Burger Prof. Heyns had a discussion with the hon. the Minister and then said—

*That was in July or August of 1973, but what do we find in the same month? On 27 August Die Transvaler found it necessary to express its opinion as follows. This is what it said (translation)—

Then there is Die Vaderland. I think it is Die Vaderland; I have the cutting somewhere. It expresses its opinion as follows (translation)—

And I too am pleading for a sensible attitude—

†Believe it or not, Sir, despite these warnings, despite the warnings from within what I might call the Nationalist family circle, through its newspapers, the Minister of the Interior then acted against Dr. Beyers Naudé in most strange circumstances. These are not my words, Sir, They appear in editorial comment of a paper which supports this Government. This happened only four months ago, on 30 September 1973. It says—

The same newspaper goes on to say—

Let me use this newspaper friendly to the Government to elaborate for a bit. This is where they deal with the case of Dr. Beyers Naudé—

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that officials then had to be sent post haste to Jan Smuts Airport to withdraw a passport that had already expired. That is what happened in this instance. But apart from that, this report continues—

This was not the only editorial. The columnist, Mr. Grosskopf, who, I believe, is not unknown to hon. members on the Government benches, has this to say—

Sir, if that is not an expression of no confidence in this Government and its administration of affairs in this country, I should like to read something stronger appearing in the Government’s own Press.

In October I posed certain questions to the hon. the Minister through the Press in connection with this episode of Dr. Naudé. I want to pose them again because they have not been answered. I posed them for these reasons: Dr. Naudé was about to be charged. He had committed an act which laid him open to prosecution. That episode was reported in the papers on the Monday. On the Tuesday action was taken against Dr. Naudé by somebody acting in the Minister’s place, because he was away at that stage. There can be no doubt that the country, as reflected in the Government’s own Press, is worried and disturbed about what happened. I shall therefore repeat my questions. The first question is this: On what information did the Minister of the Interior act? Was it based on a newspaper report that Dr. Naudé had refused to testify before the Schlebusch Commission? The second point is this: On what authority did the Government, through the Minister, usurp both the discretion of the courts and the discretion of the Attorney-General to withdraw the passport? Any lawyer in this House knows that the Attorney-General, if he feels that a person who has been charged and who is awaiting trial may leave the country, can apply immediately for an order that that person’s passport be surrendered. It is done through the courts and it is not necessary that this should be done in the way in which it was done. I want to come to the next question: Did the Government seriously believe that Dr. Naudé was going to flee the country to avoid trial? Fourthly, was the Attorney-General consulted before the hon. the Minister took action? And fifthly, Sir, was South Africa to accept that this was some sort of additional penalty that was imposed by the Government administratively on a yet unconvicted person?

Mr. Speaker, I think it is necessary for me to remind the House of the manner in which other visas have been handled. I have dealt just in passing with certain aspects relating to sportsmen. The chaos which has arisen from conflicting and irreconcilable decisions in regard to the admission of sportsmen to South Africa has been a hallmark of this Minister’s contribution to the hesitant and confused retreat of the Nationalist Government from the sports policy of Loskop. The chaos and confusion, the ineptitude which have been shown in this regard have resulted in our isolation growing. It will continue to grow and with that growth the dangers threatening us in a hostile world will not diminish.

Will you not admit that we have more international sport than we have ever had?

If the hon. the Prime Minister will just take advice from this side of the House and drop the Loskop policy and get on with sport as we advise it should be handled, we would be a happy country.

You talk about isolation; why not admit the facts of the matter?

These actions to which I have referred briefly in the time at my disposal have done more harm to our country than could be achieved by a hundred hostile speeches. I do not believe that this Government is capable of repairing the damage which it has caused and the danger it constitutes in this sphere of international relations to South Africa. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that every person in South Africa welcomed it when he announced and set out upon his outward policy. We looked forward to dialogue, to contact, to movement and to friendships being established. But because of the policies of that Government and because of its actions, we find that the outward policy has become landlocked in the boundaries of the Republic of South Africa.

That is not so.

It is so. As I have said before, there is much dialogue amongst the ordinary people in this country and other people, but there is no dialogue, no meaningful contact, of government with government, because if there was would we be standing without an alliance with any other country? Would we be paying for the arms we require the price demanded by a country which is willing to sell them to us without competition from the whole Western world? No, the hon. the Prime Minister knows that this is what is happening.

In dealing with passports and visas, I would like to deal with one other aspect, namely the manner in which the hon. the Minister of Justice is administering on behalf of this Government the Suppression of Communism Act. Unfortunately he has not been able to give me figures today, but I want to say without fear of contradiction that I am sure that for every person who is prosecuted under the Suppression of Communism Act, there must be 20 who are excommunicated from society by the administrative actions of that Minister without any right of testing the wisdom of such actions. Those are the things that are telling against South Africa. Those are the things which are contributing to and building up this isolation. The electorate is disturbed. They see no hope of any change of approach from the Government. The electorate can expect no improvement in foreign relations while this Government is in power. It can find no assurance for the future for continued peaceful co-existence for all our people in South Africa while this Government is in power. It sees the erosion of individual rights and individual opportunities.

It is for these reasons that I support the motion of my hon. leader. As I said at the commencement, if we look for the curative treatment for the illness which is now besetting South Africa and to which the hon. the Prime Minister referred yesterday, it is the excising from the body politic of South Africa of a Nationalist Party Government.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat raised a number of matters here which would normally be dealt with on the Votes of the Ministers concerned. It is perfectly within the hon. member’s right to put questions to my colleague here, the Minister of Information. The hon. member will, however, remember that when matters such as visas and the banning of people are involved, it has repeatedly been said in this House—and everyone knows this—that in most instances the details in regard to such cases are of a delicate nature. From past years we know that a tremendous fuss has been kicked up in regard to certain cases where it has not suited hon. members opposite, either to have had certain persons banned or to have had certain legislation made applicable to them. We also know, however, that after all the facts were made known, hon. members opposite have had to hang their heads in shame. As far as this matter is concerned, however, the hon. member will get the necessary answers from my colleague. Nevertheless, it amazes me that the hon. member should ask such questions at this stage of the debate. We were really expecting hon. members opposite to tell South Africa at this stage what they wanted to do with South Africa’s future, we expected hon. members at this stage to say what would be in store for South Africa if they were to win the election on 24 April.

If the point at issue is the matter raised by the hon. member, there is a role to be played by an Opposition, too, and that is a role of loyalty. Now I do not want to accuse the hon. member of being disloyal …

It is your own newspapers who say so.

… but I want to tell the hon. member that in the past many of these matters came to the fore which demanded of hon. members greater circumspection in raising them here, and that this aid not occur. But it is not my intention at this stage to level a general accusation at hon. members. I just want to tell the hon. member that it amazes me that at this stage he should not have followed his leader in telling South Africa what would happen if the United Party were to come into power.

In the time that has elapsed since we were here last, hon. members opposite have made progress. On this vacillating course of the United Party, greater clarity has been reached on at least two matters, and these I should like to mention to you. You will remember that the last time we assembled in this Chamber, the words “White leadership” dominated the debates. But since then there has been no one who would want to assert that the concept of “White leadership” is not on its way out. You know how this has come about, Sir. You know that one of the leaders of the United Party, the man who is not in this House, has said on occasion that he would not let those words pass his lips. He rejected them.

He denies it.

Has he denied it? What is more, however, is that the members of the Party who are in league with him, his Turks, his lieutenants, do not use the expression “White leadership”. Now hon. members will remember that a congress was then held. At that congress a standpoint was taken up also in regard to White leadership. Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition came forward with a compromise. Just to refresh the House’s memory: You will remember that the hon. member said it was true that there would still be White leadership, but that White leadership would be employed up to the point when the convention was held, when the federation was established. [Interjections.] Yes, I now ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition across the floor of this House: Does he foresee White Leadership for all time in the future? Answer me. [Interjections.] Surely this is a very simple question. The hon. member need only say to me “yes” or “no”.

I shall reply in my speech.

In any event, the hon. the leader does not want to say here and now, across the floor of this House, in reply to my specific question, whether White leadership is to be retained in the future.

He must first phone Harry.

I have said that progress has taken place. White leadership is on its way out. If we were to have asked the same question across the floor of this House last year, the reply would have been “yes”. Now the reply is neither “yes” nor “no”. The hon. the Leader says he will reply to this at some time or another.

But progress has been made in another sphere as well. Hon. members will remember that through the years we have warned hon. members on the other side of this House that the policy they are busy with and with which they progress a little further each time, will eventually lead to a total capitulation of the White man in his own area. Hon. members will also agree with me that the concept of “sharing of power” or “verdeling van mag” as we call it nowadays across the floor of this House, is the dominant concept in the vocabulary of the party on the other side of this House. At the present stage there is no doubt in South Africa that there will be a sharing (verdeling) of power in the White area. The only thing we do not know at this stage is whether the hon. members on the other side of this House are aware of all this implies for South Africa. Hon. members will also remember that in the past few months there has been feverish activity among hon. members on the other side of this House and among many other bodies in South Africa, such as the newspapers supporting them, to bring this policy issue to a head—the issue of the establishment of a new Republic. All this is now being done with a view to change in an attempt to appease the world; a change in which the hon. the Leader and his people hope to play a very important role. I do not think that my summing-up of recent events is incorrect. As I sum it up, hon. members on the other side of this House are engaged in consulting and considering what people should be consulted. Obviously the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is going to take the lead when consultation takes place and these consultations must result in a convention. I do not want to introduce a word with which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not agree, but what I say, is that this will result in a convention or a conference in which everyone in South Africa must have part. At that convention would have to be determined what the Republic, the federation to come, would have to look like. I want to ask the hon. Leader whether I am wrong … [Interjections.] Very well, I shall take the matter further. I put it to this House that the hon. the Leader and his party are engaged in making preparations and in having discussions with people. Everyone is helping him and there are many of them—inside the universities and outside the universities, newspapers and many other people joining in the discussions so that South Africa may be brought to a certain point. I think that the hon. member is already visualizing that convention table around which everyone will sit to consider the new Republic. What is important is that at its Bloemfontein congress, the United Party published a document in which certain guarantees were given. In it is stated in that document that in this new Republic there will be, inter alia, a common citizenship. A common citizenship is guaranteed to all citizens. I want to come to the matter of common citizenship in a moment.

They have it now.

A further promise is that there will be a fair sharing of South Africa. A great deal has already been said in this regard. Mention has been made of a fair sharing of the resources of South Africa and of a sharing of opportunities in South Africa. It is very striking that when the hon. the Leader spoke yesterday he only spoke about the sharing of resources. He did not speak about the constitutional situation; he merely referred in passing to the “sharing of resources” and not the “sharing of power”. We are now at the stage when we know that the hon. the Leader is engaged in making preparations for the new Republic of South Africa. The Republic will be a federal Republic and within the Republic there will be equal citizenship for all. Within that Republic the sharing of powers will be guaranteed to all people and thus there will also be sharing of opportunities. The resources will also be shared …

“Sharing” does not mean “verdeling”.

Oh, doesn’t it? [Interjections.] That is very interesting. I now want to ask the hon. the Leader whether what that hon. member has just said is true. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not want to tell me whether the interpretation emanating from his backbenchers over there, is correct. I say …

You were much better last year; you were less irresponsible.

The hon. member over there on the front benches may stand up just now and give me a reply to this question. Yesterday the hon. the Leader went further and said that this whole plan of his “will operate within the framework of political facts”. You will also note that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, after laying all the blame for what was wrong in South Africa at the door of this side of the House, said that South Africa under a Nationalist Government was a security risk and that the federation they were busy with, did not constitute a security risk to South Africa. Is that correct? Now I immediately want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition across the floor of this House whether, now that he knows that an election will be held on 24 April, he intends asking South Africa at that election for a mandate on this policy of his. It is in fact very important for us to know this. We shall go to the people and we shall put the policy of the National Party to them. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition dare fight an election if at this stage he is unable to say with regard to so important a matter as the future of South Africa, whether he is going to ask in the election for a mandate to govern as he wants to? Is the hon. the Leader going to request a mandate for that?

He must first ask Harry.

Is the hon. the Leader going to ask the people to give him a mandate to put him in power so as to carry out his policy? The hon. the Leader does not want to give me a reply to that. To make it easier for him, I can tell him that every time we have held an election in past years we on this side of the House have asked for a mandate to be given to us to carry out our ethnic policy.

Never!

Of course that has been the case. I can tell the hon. member now that when we go to the people on 24 April we shall ask them whether we should continue with our policy. I therefore ask the hon. member: “Can we take it that he will ask for a mandate?” It is very important for us to know this.

What about your Coloured policy?

It is important because when a matter as important as this is involved, one wants the matter to be clarified; one wants to make a special point of asking the people on the day they go to the polls to say “yes” or “no” in regard to so important a policy of the country. The hon. member does not want to reply to me in that regard; I therefore leave the matter at that.

Now I want to go further with the hon. member. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether this common citizenship will be an equal citizenship. I have reason to ask this. The hon. the leader is very careful and refers only to a common citizenship, but I want to know whether it will be an equal one, because it is important for us to know this. If the hon. member wants to go and sit at a conference table to discuss the future of South Africa, we all know that this is a sensitive point, namely whether the citizens of that new country will be equal in all respects and will enjoy the same privileges in all respects. Is that the basis of the conference which he wants to hold up to the new South Africa?

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

I now want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether the people attending his conference can accept that there will be equal citizenship for all people so that they may share as equal citizens in all the privileges of South Africa. I see the hon. member does not want to reply to me in that regard.

Is the Government prepared to advocate an equal geographic division of South Africa?

We have never talked of an equal geographic division of South Africa. It is ridiculous to ask me anything of the kind. If the Opposition were to come into power on 24 April it is very important, and this also goes for that meeting which will decide on the new South Africa, to know at this stage whether the various population groups would be able to depend on absolute fairness and justice in the new Republic. I ask whether there would be absolute equality and justice for everyone in White South Africa in the implementation of his policy—now, for the time being, we are referring only to the Republic of White South Africa. The hon. the Leader does not want to reply to me on that. I shall therefore proceed with my argument. I want to say this to the hon. the Leader: While he holds this out as a prospect, and invites all the people in South Africa to make a new start in a new Republic—which will be a federal Republic in which all privileges and powers will be shared, which will “operate within the framework of political fact”, and which will be just towards the people who will live in it, just towards us who will have to give up a great deal and just towards an outside world to which the hon. member also wants to be accommodating—I want to say that the least with which he can expect all those constituent peoples to be satisfied, is at least either a representation, or a sharing of power in all respects either in the ratio of numbers—that is to say, at least 18 out of 22—or in the ratio of states, which for the Black people, the Bantu people, of South Africa will mean a ratio of at least 8 to 15. I now want to say to the hon. the Leader that to make an offer for a new Republic, to start consulting now in order to make a new start in South Africa and to hold out the prospect of anything less than this ratio—everything shared in accordance with this ratio—would mean an injustice which the hon. the Leader dare not expect will be accepted. I put it to him. I put it to the hon. the Leader that if he wants to make a new start in South Africa, if he wants to liquidate the existing Republic and put in its place a federal Republic, the minimum he can expect to give satisfaction is this, that all powers, all privileges, all properties, everything which exists, should be shared at least in accordance with the ratio of the existing states or at least the ratio of the numbers of people. Now I want to ask the hon. the Leader this: Does he foresee that when South Africa changes over to his federation, there will be anything less than what I have stated here? We shall not get a reply from the hon. the Leader, but I want to go still further with the hon. the Leader. I want to tell the hon. the Leader that if he were to be elected in April, if he were to win the election in April, then as early as May of this year he would be confronted with the implementation of the policy he had been advocating in South Africa, in other words, it is “within the framework of political fact” for him to think in these terms. Then, I say to the hon. the Leader, he would be confronted with a conference which he would have to hold very soon, and I cannot see that this conference would be on any other basis than the basis conceded by the hon. the Leader, and that is that it would fall within the framework of the United Party’s policy, that is to say, the basis of the Schwarz Declaration of Faith. The Schwarz declaration is very clear and the hon. the Leader said that it fell within the policy of the United Party. In the Schwarz declaration certain things are promised. Point No. 2 reads as follows—

And he proceeds in this vein.

Do you, too, agree with that?

He goes further and says—

I therefore say to the hon. member that he will be confronted at a round table where he will have to start talking to people, and at that table he will have to talk to people who expect from him, in the first instance, fairness and justice. The hon. member will sit there at the table, probably as leader of the Whites, because, after all, he is going to be voted into power in the coming election, and I foresee that there is going to be someone with him who is not here now, the boss of so many United Party supporters in South Africa, Mr. Harry Schwarz. Probably the hon. member from Bezuidenhout will also be there. But the hon. member will be confronted on that occasion with one of two things, i.e. by a deadlock of unreasonable demands, or the hon. member will have to start arguing about and negotiating concessions. I say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that if he starts negotiating concessions on that occasion …

Like Port St. Johns.

… then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will have to make a choice. He will have to say what the basis will be for the sharing of South Africa. It would help us a great deal if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition were to furnish us with an answer to this in his reply. It is important to know what basis for the sharing of South Africa will be submitted on that occasion so that we may know what we must vote for on 24 April. I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that a very great danger is involved in that agreement. He must remember that there will be many people who will discuss the agreement among one another. Emotions could run high and many demands could be made. Has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition ever considered what would happen if a deadlock were reached? If a deadlock were reached at the start of his negotiations, then one of two things could happen; he would either yield for the sake of world opinion, and would be unable to resist the pressure or he would turn back, and now I put this question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: If a deadlock were reached, which way would he turn? If a deadlock were reached in the discussions and no progress could be made, does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition realize that the only course he could turn back to would be the course of National Party policy? If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has another alternative to either concession on a just basis, in the ratio I have stated here, or the policy of this party, the National Party, then it is his duty to stand up in this House and to state that other alternative. I say that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will be confronted with a demand either to make a concession to the satisfaction of the other states which will be sitting with him, or, if the discussions were to reach a deadlock, he would have to turn back to the Republic of South Africa as it exists at present. I now want to put this question to him: If he has raised so many expectations, if so many people are looking to him, from outside and inside South Africa, what does he think will be the outcome and the risk of his policy when that day comes and when it must be admitted that the White man and the Black man cannot come to terms in South Africa? Has he thought of that? If it comes to a confrontation and the White man and the Black man cannot come to terms, has he ever considered what the implications of that would be? I say to him that the implications would be bitterness and disillusionment such as South Africa has never seen.

As they are experiencing now.

But, Sir, I shall go further and concede that the possibility exists that he may concede and that the step of establishing a federation may be taken. But now I want to put this question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: If he sits in that federation together with other states, a federation which will be just in regard to the numbers of people, and that federation does not work, in what way does he then withdraw from the federation? Because he must remember that he brought South Africa into the pool and cannot say at that stage, “I am getting out and I am taking White South Africa’s share with me”, because it will then be a part of the pool. The only answer he can get then, is that if he is not satisfied, he can take his hat and leave without White South Africa. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that if his plan does not work, then the only option open to him is to take his hat and leave. That is why I say to the hon. member that the course he proposes for South Africa through his policy, is a course without options; there are no options, because the history of Africa shows us what kind of demands are made. Demands are made consistently when a White man and a Black man confer on this continent, demands concerning time and representation, and the basis of your policy is one of justice, and around such a conference table you dare not be anything but just. If you do not want to do that, you must tell us now. That is why I say that hon. members opposite are engaged in preparing themselves to establish a new Republic, but when they sit around the conference table where decisions must be taken about that new Republic, no options are open to them. The only option open to them, is the option which the voters of South Africa can exercise today, either to reject that hon. members’ policy and subscribe to the standpoint of this Government, or to subscribe to the standpoint of those hon. members with disastrous consequences. That is why I asked hon members at the outset whether they were going to ask for a mandate from the voters of South Africa to carry out what they intended carrying out if they were to come into power. The hon. the Prime Minister was very clear yesterday. [Interjections.] The Prime Minister gave an indication yesterday of what the alternative was for South Africa, and that is various states which will exist, states the founding and formation of which we shall assist, not to evade our responsibilities, but where each will have a sovereignty of its own which will be maintained at all times and where all options will remain open for subsequent co-operation. That is the difference. The National Party, as hon. members know, advocates a policy which keeps open all options for the future, but our problem with those hon. members in the past has been that they have never yet realized that the Government holds the cards of success in its hand. The first breakthrough which the Government made, was the breakthrough in the minds of the people in this country to accept the policy of separate development. What remains now, is a difficult road. What remains, is the bridges which must be built in order to work and to build ahead within that framework. That is where the hon. members left us in the lurch. The Nationalist Party Government from its side had few people at its disposal and little money at its disposal, but with so many enemies against it tried to lay a foundation for co-operation in this country. Hon. members opposite have left South Africa in the lurch in the sense that they have withheld the Government from the success it could have achieved in this country. My hon. colleague sitting here, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, has to come and defend us here year in and year out, not against principles, but against attacks when he is engaged in doing his work. Instead of you having given him sympathetic assistance in the interests of the people who must be served, you have attacked my colleague here. I say that that is the charge South Africa brings against you, that the Government which holds the cards of success in its hand, is prevented from achieving that success. And if success is not achieved by the Government, the only option open to this country, is to stay on that vacillating course, which will result in our losing control of the situation for the future.

Mr. Speaker, when my hon. leader introduced his motion of no confidence, he made it perfectly clear that the theme of the debate, as far as we were concerned, would be that this Government is a security risk to South Africa. He then mentioned a number of very relevant reasons for his argument. One of the main reasons was the question of race relations in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister tried to answer my hon. leader, and it is perfectly obvious that he failed. We then found the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs and of Tourism coming into the debate, and he failed very badly. We have now had another big gun coming into the debate, and we have still had no answers.

He is a water pistol.

I want to say that it has become very obvious indeed that the hon. the Minister was brought in to try to divert us from our main theme. We shall not allow ourselves to be diverted. We feel that the electorate want clear and concise answers to the points put by my hon. leader, and we shall not be diverted. It is perfectly obvious that the Achilles heel of this Government is race relations. I believe that they are very vulnerable indeed when it comes to the question of the urban Bantu. This is a theme I want to deal with and, as I have said, I shall not be diverted by what the hon. the Minister has said.

*Mr. Speaker, in an opinion poll undertaken by Rapport the following question was put to nearly 3 000 participants (translation)—

The result was very plain and very clear. Virtually 45% of the total number of participants said that the urban Bantu should receive the most urgent attention. I should now like to know from the hon. the Prime Minister whether he agrees with that result, or is he satisfied that his Government is doing enough and giving sufficient attention to this growing problem? I do not believe there is an hon. member on that side of the House who would still wish to profess today that the urban Bantu are living in White South Africa on a temporary basis. I am also certain that there is not an hon. member on that side of the House who would deny that Bantu cities, constantly growing Bantu cities, will forever be located around our White cities. If that is so, we should give much more attention to the interests, the rights and the feelings of those urban Bantu. Sir, I also believe that the time has come for us to obtain clarity from the Government in regard to the future of the urban Bantu. If we continue to neglect this problem, as it has in fact been neglected during the past 25 years under the policy of this Government, we are going to create breeding grounds of evil which will hold dire consequences for South Africa and all its people.

You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that during the debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote last year, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration participated in the debate and indicated that there was to be a change in the Government’s approach to the very real problems which millions of Bantu come up against, Bantu who are destined to work and live in the urban areas of South Africa. In his speech the hon. the Deputy Minister pointed out that although the Government wanted to strengthen the urban Bantu’s ties with their homeland, it remained the Government’s duty to make those Bantu feel satisfied and happy in the area where they sold their labour, until such time as homeland development had reached the stage when they could return to go and work there. The new trend of thought and approach on the part of the Government, which we all welcome very sincerely as a small step in the right direction, is a good thing as far as it goes. But the hon. the Deputy Minister is unfortunately in a position of having to work within the limitations of a government policy which offers no real solution to the problem. In the short time he has occupied the post, the hon. the Deputy Minister has shown us that he is doing his best to combat the problem. I should like to tell him that whatever he is trying to do, and whatever he may still do, will not succeed because the Government’s policy is wrong.

Now I should like to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister, and I am sure he will agree, that history has proved, time and again, that after long years of slow development, events in the normal run of things suddenly take a certain turn. I believe we have reached such a stage of rapid social change in respect of race relations in South Africa, I have no intention whatsoever of going into all the reasons for the acceleration of this process over the past five years. I want to say this, though: It ought to be very clear to anyone who is keeping abreast of events, that developments in Africa and in the world, the more rapid development in the industrial sphere in South Africa, the increased sophistication of our urban Bantu communities and the development of the homeland concept, have resulted in an increase in the status and influence of certain areas, at the same time providing certain articulate individuals of the Bantu group with a platform from which old concepts are today being attacked very vigorously. I believe that these are a few of the reasons for the change, and I also believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister must see the whole problem of the urban Bantu against this background and that he should approach it in this way.

I should like to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that the Government must, in the first place, bear most of the blame in the increased rate of racial disharmony in South Africa’s race relations and the still increasing tone of urgency in the pleas that are now coming to the fore. I am making this charge in all sincerity because the Government has blindly and inflexibly been following a policy incapable of implementation. For 25 years the Government has been aiming at the creation of independent Bantu states as the only solution to South Africa’s race problems. The Government has dogmatically turned its back on another important factor concerning our race relations by failing to acknowledge that it is simply not practical politics for all Bantu to have to regard themselves as citizens of those Black states, or for South Africa ever to exist without the millions of Bantu who will always be in the urban areas. But I should like to put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister that his Government will be making a tragic mistake, a mistake which will hold dire consequences for South Africa and all its people, if he continues to cling to the opinion that Bantu affairs and race relations in South Africa can be relegated to consultations between himself and emergent Black states. This cannot work for the simple reason that the thinking of White leaders today must fit in with the sophisticated, developed, Westernized world of today. I also feel that the hon. the Deputy Minister has been making a real effort in the past six to eight months. I have read with interest in the papers what he is trying to do. But, Sir, unfortunately for him he must first bring about a change in his Government’s policy before he will be able to do anything.

†The facts that I have mentioned, for which I believe every sociologist can vouch, have made very little impression on the Government and on the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development; because as late as 1971 we find the hon. the Minister saying the following (Hansard, Vol. 34, col. 9092):

Then the hon. the Minister goes on to say:

It is precisely this battering of impractical, unrealistic Government policy against all the basic facts that gives rise to the potentially dangerous race situation with which we are confronted in South Africa today. To show just how unrealistic and impractical this policy is, one only has to refer to the 1970 census figures. These show, for example, that the number of Bantu in the urban areas more than doubled in the period 1951 to 1970. If any further proof were needed that this policy of separate development has failed hopelessly, one only has to note that, whereas in 1936 Blacks in the urban areas outnumbered Whites by 486 000, in 1970, after the Government had been in power for 22 years, this figure had risen to no less than 1 300 000; and this, Sir, mark you, despite the fact that the pass laws were applied very strictly, despite the fact of border industry development, and despite the fact of so-called “homeland development”. The figures also show that in the period under analysis the number of Blacks in the urban areas increased by 119% while in the same period the increase in the number of Whites was only 56%. The hon. the Deputy Minister has been very active during the recess and I am sure that he will have noted that not only are the demands for change in regard to the urban Bantu becoming louder and more insistent, but that the need for such change is growing by the day. I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister—I say it with the utmost respect—that unless we make meaningful changes, unless we make the necessary adjustments to our social structure, a social structure in which all in this country, both Black and White, have to live and work together, we will be like people in a hurricane trying to live in straw houses. The tragedy of it all for South Africa is that this Government is expending so much energy and using up so much time in trying to bolster up the old crumbling walls of apartheid—walls that should have been redesigned and rebuilt many years ago—that there will be very little time left for the real concerns of achieving a better way of life for everybody in South Africa. I have to pay the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education an indirect compliment—and I have to do so in all fairness—by saying that he has in the comparatively short time in which he has held this particular office, shown that he is conscious of the immensity and the urgency of the urban Bantu problem. Unfortunately for him he has to work within the confines of a very narrow and rigid Government policy. I want to say to him that whatever measures he may adopt and whatever temporary relief he may bring to the urban Bantu, although very welcome indeed will only be in the form of palliatives which can make no real contribution to the overall problem of the urban Bantu. I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that if he really wants to come to grips with this problem, if he really wants to find a solution to this problem, the very first thing he must do is to use his influence with the Government and to press for an enquiry with the widest possible terms of reference. Among these, I want to suggest, should be to investigate and enquire into (a) every aspect of Black family life in South Africa; (b) the mass of laws which specifically affect Blacks in the urban and rural areas of South Africa; (c) the ever-increasing crime rate in the Black townships; (d) restrictions on the economic advancement and opportunities for Blacks; and then a very important aspect, (e) the need for the provision of special education and technical training for all Blacks in South Africa. If the hon. the Deputy Minister were successful and such an enquiry came about, I believe it would show, amongst other things, that there can be no peace or prosperity for Whites in South Africa so long as for the majority of Black there is poverty, not brought about by economic circumstances, but through discriminatory restraints on what a man may do, where he may live and where he may work which in turn makes responsible living, privacy and the inculcation of civilized habits impossible. I believe too that such an enquiry would high-light the fact that a Black man cannot own his own home in the township where he lives, works and where he will most probably die. This makes all future efforts as far as he is concerned worthless. It makes the conservative, cautious and provident habits of civilized people a waste of time. I believe too—the enquiry would show this—that the inhumanities that many Bantu have to suffer daily under the pass laws and petty apartheid reduce their authority and status over their children to absolutely nothing. I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that such an enquiry, as far as I am concerned, is an urgent necessity because for far too long now this Government has been blindly wrapped up in policies on paper, legislative blueprints that have no relevance whatsoever in regard to human happiness and human dignity. I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that this Government has erred badly by not observing for itself the effects on millions of Bantu of these harsh measures. In other words, the Government has erred badly in neglecting the human aspect of the urban Bantu. The myth—and it is a myth—that separate development gives to the Black man in his own areas everything that the White man enjoys in his, has of course been completely exploded. The facts of life are that Blacks in their millions will always be a permanent part of the population of South Africa.

I see that I do not have very much time left. In conclusion I want to make a number of suggestions which I believe are basic to any solution to the urban Bantu problem. Firstly, the urban Bantu must be given a meaningful stake in the maintenance of law and order by making it possible for him to acquire freehold title rights to his property in the urban townships so that he can enjoy what we as Whites all take for granted, i.e. a contented, undisturbed family life. Secondly, the standard of living of the urban Bantu must be raised by creating better educational facilities and training facilities and better opportunities for more constructive and meaningful work. Thirdly, in order to bring this about job reservation must be scrapped, but—I qualify this—with the proviso that an undertaking is given that White workers will be protected through an assurance that there will be no change in the labour pattern without consultation and the full cooperation of all the trade unions concerned. Let us be very clear about this. Fourthly, I would say that elementary education must be provided for every Black child in South Africa. Influx control should be applied humanely, be made less irksome and less frustrating to the Bantu by means of a far wider and better use of labour and aid centres. I would say that a special form of reference book should be issued to every Bantu who has qualified for permanent residence in a prescribed area. This would relieve them of the much—I use this word advisably—resented and hated pass laws. These Bantu who qualify should also be able to live, to work and to move about freely in any urban Bantu area. I believe that these are the types of things which will contribute to solving South Africa’s race situation, a situation which we all know could quite easily get out of hand. I believe that some of the measures that I have suggested here are basic and that there can be no solution without these measures as I have explained them.

I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that what I have outlined here is, I want to say quite openly, basic and true United Party policy. I want to ask the hon. Deputy Minister to examine each and every suggestion that I have made, on merit in the interests of South Africa and all its people, and not to reject them simply because they are basic United Party policy, because they have emanated from this side of the House. I believe that this problem which I have discussed here is a problem that must be resolved to a certain extent. I believe the time is running out for us and that we cannot go along for another 25 years looking for solutions. I want to say that although I accept the fact that there can be no short-term solution, there is no doubt in my mind that conditions in respect of the urban Bantu could be made 100% better if the whole problem were approached on a humane basis.

Mr. Speaker, linking up with what the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs said a while ago, I want to quote from Hansard of last year, column 4340, a quotation by me from what the hon. member for Hillbrow said. It contains an acknowledgment which the hon. the Minister could not obtain from the Opposition today. The hon. member for Hillbrow said the following, and I take it that that unanimity in the party still exists and that others agree with this too—

That was the “window dressing” employed for a single moment, and now that we have to go to the rural areas and the hon. the Minister asks whether “full citizenship rights” means that they are going to give full citizenship rights, they keep silent there on the other side, because the election is at hand. In the second place I want to state that a question was put to the hon. the Minister from the Opposition benches, an old-type slogan, as if that were an argument offering a solution to the problems of South Africa. When one is building up an argument, one hears a chorus of voices from the other side—we know it is a very difficult problem—as if this offered a solution to the problems of South Africa (translation): “What are you going to do with the Coloureds, what are you going to do with the Indians?” And every now and then, when they have exhausted their arguments, they ask: “Are you going to divide the country equally amongst its people?” In reply to that I want to tell the hon. member that I have a Bushveld farm of 4 000 morgen; it has not been fully paid for yet, but I am prepared to trade that Bushveld farm of 4 000 morgen for one acre of Eloff Street. Is that the kind of division he is seeking in South Africa? What kind of foolish argument is that when one is speaking about the future of a country and about the future of that country’s people! One cannot build on those arguments, but when positive suggestions are forthcoming, one could in fact give attention to them, and as far as I am concerned, I should like to give attention to the few suggestions affecting my Department. Since I am going to reply to what the hon. member for Johannesburg North has just said, and in conclusion come to his few suggestions, I firstly want to express heartfelt thanks to him, and to others who came with positive suggestions in the past year when we asked for them. The Minister of Bantu Administration said last year—there are people who laughed about that, and there was also some embarrassed laughter from the other side of the House—that in the South Africa we know there is today a consensus of opinion about the approach to this problem. I went even further and added, in pursuance of that, that there are hon. members sitting on the opposite side of the House who feel exactly as we do on this side of the House, and the hon. member for Yeoville sitting over here is proof of that. There is another group which simply did not have the courage to say it. [Interjection.] Sir, I do not want to quarrel with the hon. member for East London City in a farewell speech to him. He knows what they did with him. But, Sir, let us rather leave personalities out of this. Let us come down to the principles and to the big things we are dealing with. The hon. member accused this side of the House of having neglected the question of national relationships for 26 years. I want to reject that with the utmost emphasis. Mistakes were possibly made; progress may have been too slow; I can make many admissions, but what was achieved in that connection is a tremendous amount. What I want to add is that what has been achieved was achieved in spite of the Opposition, in spite of the opposition we met with at each step from that side of the House. Let me mention just one example in this connection. There is talk here of a federation. Under this federation plan of the United Party, as I have it, representation will also be given to the urban Bantu, divided up into regions; I do not know exactly how things stand from day to day, but what is that other than an admission that there are various peoples in South Africa who have traditionally lived in certain areas and had language and other ties with one another as they did not have with other population groups of South Africa? When we wanted to do those things, our efforts were opposed at every step. But let me mention a second thing. The hon. member says that little has been achieved. He was a member of the Johannesburg City Council, and I do not want to go against him personally, but if there was one city council which offered resistance to the very end, it was the Johannesburg City Council, together with a few others when group areas were discussed. Mr. Speaker, if I may use an English expression, let us leave the “window dressing” for a little while and let us try to be honest with one another and also honest with the Bantu who are not here. I could not write down exactly everything the hon. member said, but if I have understood him correctly, he said something towards the end of his speech about the rights of people. He lodged a plea for them in these words, to the effect that they should have the right “to do what they want and to live where they want to live”. I see the Johannesburg City Council has also made that discovery. The Johannesburg City Council has also said that the “right of ownership” is the solution to our problem, but may I ask, apart from the question of residential rights, whether that party has settled for itself the question as to whether such rights also relate to swimming baths, coastlines and that kind of thing? Does it also relate to Sea Point, if I may ask so drastic a question? The United Party member for Sea Point came along during a previous election with the slogan “Keep Sea Point White”, and it nearly cost him his seat. I want to say this to the people of Sea Point, and also to the city councillors, in connection with such facilities as are now being asked for, with the request that one should not begrudge those people what one does not begrudge oneself and not merely expect them to work for one and then vanish into thin air: The first people to whom we gave the right to supply those facilities were the people of Sea Point; and at the moment there is a “rat race” between the Progressive Party and the United Party to say “We do not want this in Sea Point”; those people must have these facilities, only not in Sea Point; rather drop them there on the other side.

Houghton.

I acknowledge the hon. member’s integrity even though I disagree completely with her views. But I acknowledge her standpoint in that connection. I just want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that the chairman of the divisional committee of the Progressive Party declared, in an official statement in The Argus, that his party dissociated itself from that aspect; those facilities will not be provided in Sea Point. There was talk of the aquarium, but now they are falling over each other in the Cape Town City Council to say: “No facilities here”. But the hon. member comes along and tells me that people should be granted the right to live where they want to live and to own property where they want to. But the Johannesburg City Council comes along with the pious idea of saying that home ownership will offer the solution to those problems. Let me now repeat this question. I should like to get down to positive aspects, but let us first try to get this “window dressing” out of the way. Sir, what member of the United Party will return to the voters, when requesting the mandate—and now I am not referring only to the rural areas; I am also speaking of Turffontein and of everyone in Johannesburg who is going to fight those seats—and tell them: “We are now going to give the Bantu the right to possess land here in Johannesburg”?

But you are wrong.

The hon. member for Turffontein has the temerity to say I am talking nonsense. A while ago the hon. member said, and I want to quote him.

†If I am wrong he must correct me. If it is not the hon. member for Turffontein then it is the hon. member for Johannesburg North who said—and I wrote it down—“the right to live where he wants to live; he should be allowed to live where he wants to live”.

In the urban Bantu areas.

Oh! [Interjections.] When we came forward with the suggestion of having group areas, it was fought tooth and nail by the Opposition, to the last ditch. I can say a lot about this, but we do not want to waste time about these things of the past. I just want to state the fact that it was fought to the last ditch, but now it is an accepted fact that we have group areas and now the hon. member says they should be given full citizenship rights and ownership, but only in the urban areas.

*The hon. member and the Opposition speak of the urban Bantu as if they are the only Bantu who are living in White South Africa. But we do not have to appoint a commission of inquiry into that. With due deference, I have not memorized and cannot give you the information, but if you would allow me a few minutes, I would get that information for you, because we carry out those investigations regularly. There are thousands, millions of Bantu, living in the White area on farms. Why can they not obtain the right to purchase farms there? What does the United Party say? Would you sell the farms to them? Must it also be possible for them to buy farms in the White area? What is it that makes the Bantu in the rural areas a worse type of Bantu than one living in the urban areas? But just because he lives in Johannesburg, Soweto must be dealt with in those terms, but the others living far away in the rural areas cannot have that. Lastly, to get away from the negative points, I just want to say this. If home ownership were the solution, if that were a sine qua non for a happy society, for the elimination of areas of friction and for the fine pictures that are being painted, it would be irresponsible for any person to do away with it and to cast it from him. But this member was a member of the Johannesburg City Council.

†Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell this to the hon. the Mayor of Johannesburg at the present moment and the chairman of the Management Committee and the other members who went to the Press with the new suggestion of what they are going to do for the Bantu in Johannesburg. They even said they were coming to see the hon. the Minister about home ownership for the Bantu because that would solve so many problems. I would like to ask them that before coming to the hon. the Minister and wasting his time, they should please accept the invitation which I extended on previous occasions, i.e. to go to Alexandra, which was under the jurisdiction of the municipality of Johannesburg, where up to this day you have home ownership, and see the slum areas and the lawlessness and everything else that is going on in that area. But to talk of these things when you know so little about them is sheer hypocrisy.I am not referring now to hon. members here, Sir. I am referring to those people who have a lot to say about things without knowing one iota about what is going on in those areas. I can take them to other areas too. I can take them to the areas just outside Pinelands, where they have had home ownership. I can take them to the areas just outside Pretoria where, in a homeland area, they have had not only home ownership, but also right of title. These are areas where we are trying to cope with slum conditions and with problems of crime and violence, problems which are deteriorating by the day. These are problems which exist even in areas where there is right of title and where people own the land.

*I want to tell the hon. member that we even had to offer assistance in those areas. We established police stations there in an effort to combat these problems.

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to more positive matters. It is necessary for me to raise a few points in reply to what the hon. member has said. Unfortunately I had to write very quickly and I shall therefore not be able to give comprehensive replies to all the hon. member’s points. If the opportunity presents itself later in the session, I would like to reply to the hon. member’s arguments in greater detail.

May I put a question just before you come to that point? Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he accepts the fact that the urban Bantu have interests which are different to those of the Bantu in the homelands, and does he accept that they have permanent interests there?

Sir, I am not accustomed to beating about the bush. The Bantu, who are at present working in the urban areas in terms of section 10, have specific problems and specific interests which differ in many respects from those of the Bantu in the homelands, and whoever denies that is denying the obvious. That is why this must be approached in a unique way. However, when it comes to the fundamental question, I shall in any case be dealing with that in greater detail it a later stage. Last year I acknowledged to hon. members here, and the obvious which is true, I do not deny.

I have already replied to the first suggestion that was made, i.e. that “law and order could be maintained and these people’s loyalty could be gained by giving them right of title to the land”. I have already spoken to these people before about improvements to houses. As far back as 1967 a circular was issued giving them the right to make extensions to houses. We have now gone a step further and said that in cases where such extensions are financed by the persons themselves, a method must be calculated according to which they do not have to pay extra rent as their families increase. Such rights are now being granted to them. But it has been stated with the utmost clarity by the Government—the reasons for that are obvious; areas must be expropriated to clear up slums—that this question of home ownership cannot be considered because it leads to joint authority in a White Government area, as the Johannesburg City Council has now proved in practice. I am referring to cases where Bantu were co-opted in a committee to make joint recommendations. I believe in consultation, and I think I have proved this. I think that the administration boards have succeeded, to a large extent, in proving that this consultation takes place and bears fruit.

The hon. member stated, secondly, that the standard of living should be increased. I do not want to argue about that at any length; I am not going to argue about that, because the simple truth is that I share his feelings in that respect. I believe we are getting this done. Figures were quoted yesterday by the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs and of Tourism which indicate how the standard of living of the Bantu has increased in recent years. Hon. members must correct me, but if I remember rightly this was in the region of 10,8%. This increase, which has taken place in the past year, is surely proof that the Government is sincere and that it is not merely a question of words when it comes to the implementation of this aspect. Last year we also adopted in-service training—and the hon. the Minister of Finance announced this. Other facilities were also created, and I can report to the House that rapid progress is being made in that respect. We hope that four of the centres will be fully operative within the next three months, while four others will be under construction. We are not boasting about that. It is just that we are asking for positive assistance to be given in the implementation of these resolutions.

I now come to the next matter, i.e. the question of job reservation. In order to be lenient with a friend whom I esteem, I want to tell the hon. member that he has got the answer to his statement of “job reservation, but qualified” from both his side of the House and from this side. This puts me in mind of the couple who were married before a magistrate. The magistrate told them how they should live, and when they got outside the wife said: “You heard what he said; he said we two were now one, and I am that one.” That is exactly how the hon. member is now carrying on. He says job reservation must be scrapped, but that this should take place with complete unanimity. Has the hon. member carried out any tests to see whether any of the people who belong to the trade unions are silly enough to do something like that? After all, one cannot say one thing and do another, or make people false promises that one cannot implement. Tell them you are going to scrap job reservation or say flatly that others must decide about that and that you are not prepared to take the risk in that respect. One can surely not be that dishonest with those people. One is honest with the Bantu; they expect it. The hon. member also speaks of “elementary education”. I am in full agreement with that. The figures are available, and if they are asked for I shall furnish information about what is being done in this connection with respect to the elementary training of Bantu. I regard it as an ideal that compulsory education should be instituted for Bantu.

Do you believe that there is job reservation in practice?

I know what is on the Statute Book and I know that there are many contraventions. If the hon. member were to ask me whether theft took place in this country, I would unfortunately have to admit that it did. However, there is a law against theft. Unfortunately I cannot say to the hon. member that there are no contraventions, but job reservation is on the Statute Book.

The hon. member also spoke of influx control. I want to reply to that by saying that last year I requested positive suggestions in connection with these influx control measures. I want to acknowledge now that there are many shortcomings in the system. These shortcomings have specifically come to light because on the part of Bantu, and at times with the co-operation of people who are not Bantu, use has been made of loopholes in order to circumvent these measures. I do not want to say this repeatedly, because I have already said that these influx control regulations have also been established for the protection of the Bantu. It is a question of supply and demand. If the Bantu chose to have everything thrown open, throughout the country, if they should chose to have those measures removed completely, it would mean that the same conditions as those in the depression years would again develop, i.e. a situation where one has ten people for only one available job. Payment for that work would consequently be forced downwards. This is consequently a protective measure for the Bantu as well. But I am in full agreement that the points of friction in that system should be eliminated. The Bantu administration boards are now working according to computer methods to facilitate identification problems, etc. In respect of the aid centres, where mistakes were also made, we are in the process of improving the system. We are eliminating from this legislation, as far as possible, those irritating aspects and loopholes which are discovered by various people. If I am to speak of what has already been done and if I am to give a comprehensive report on the functions of my department and the administration boards—for example the establishment of a fund for sport and recreation, which elicited a fine response from all sections of our population, including the Bantu, which I am sincerely grateful for—this would take up a great deal of time. If it were necessary for me to speak about the creation of not only those facilities which are being proposed, but also those which have already been planned, I would be able to keep the house busy for a long time.

†I think it is my duty to put one matter straight for the record. A few days ago the Press was full of reports that the Johannesburg municipality had suddenly decided that they were going to do away with “petty apartheid”, what ever they meant by it.

*As far as the parks in Pretoria are concerned, it is necessary for me to put this one matter to the House this afternoon, and I am saying this with the knowledge of the hon. the Administrator of the Transvaal, who will make an announcement in this connection this afternoon. What I have to say is that the parks in Pretoria have up to now been under the control of a 1904 regulation. That regulation has now been deleted from the Statute Book and the parks have been placed under the control of the municipality of Pretoria, a body which I personally, and the Government, fully trust will implement the control of those parks properly and without creating areas of friction, in such a way that there is no discrimination or irritation, eliminating areas of friction and improving national relationships. But if the Johannesburg City Council thought to place the Government before an accomplished fact, I just want to say, for the information of the House, that a few days before the discussions by the Johannesburg City Council and their sudden discovery of certain aspects, I held discussions with the five administrators of the country. At this Administrators’ Conference a report was submitted of the previous year’s Administrators’ Conference, where a decision had already been taken about the creation of facilities and the elimination of irritating aspects in respect of these smaller matters that can easily be done away with, including decisions about supplying eating facilities, facilities for the travelling public and facilities for people who work in the cities. Let me state here with the utmost clarity that the conclusion by liberalists that the Government has now adopted a course whereby our White cities will be overrun by Bantu is devoid of all truth. This Government is committed to ensure that any new facilities that are created will reduce areas of friction and irritation and not create new ones.

But all these steps are being taken—and with this I conclude—according to a policy which expressly differs from that of the United Party.

†Nothing which the hon. member for Johannesburg North has said has influenced the course of events or will in any way influence it. We are not looking to the immediate future only, but we are looking to the distant future, too. As far as this side of the House is concerned, we have promised our people, firstly our own people, the Whites of this country, and then also the other peoples of South Africa, that we will work for the welfare of all the peoples living in the geographical limits of South Africa, and even further north.

*We want peaceful co-operation with those countries. But there is one explicit difference: We are going to eliminate areas of friction; we want to eliminate points of dispute; we want to limit hurting people unnecessarily. Wherever this has occurred in our department, it has been mercilessly counteracted. But I want to state this one condition, that any steps that may lead to our being forced to share authority in South Africa, or that may lead to our abdication, we shall not allow. This Opposition plan is no federation plan—it is a capitulation plan; it is nothing else. This temporary affair which no one can understand or elucidate, not on that side, nor on this side, is no federation. I think that the supporters of that federation plan should just bear this warning in mind. A leader in the Transvaal must not go meddling in the Natal area. Then he is looking for trouble. If one of their federation leaders, from some other locality, comes meddling in our part of the world, I do not want to be witness to the affair. I therefore think that hon. members on that side of the House should learn a lesson from this simple thing that happened in their party. This time we had provincial leaders coming up against each other. To create a federation of that nature, to have such rambling ideas, which lead to a cul-de-sac, as the hon. the Minister said, will mean the downfall of Western civilization in South Africa and the downfall of the Bantu who have wanted to achieve the level of civilization of the Whites. This side of the House says an inexorable “no” to that. Then these other smaller matters are of lesser importance because we have a greater objective in view, and with that objective we are going to the electorate on 24 April. Do those hon. members want White South Africa to be preserved for White South Africa alone, and do hon. members want to acknowledge other peoples and lead them to full human dignity and full nationhood?

Black peril!

This hon. member, who has just made an interjection, need only go to the Bantu outside Pretoria; they live in Bophuthatswana. When the Ndebeles move in there and there are a hundred Ndebele children, they come along and ask for mother tongue education. I want to tell my hon. Afrikaans-speaking friends on that side of the House, who are at times so self-conscious about being Afrikaans, that Ndebele and Northern Sotho people are so proud of their language that they ask for mother tongue education because they are part of a people. They even request this in Soweto. They demand it of us; they demand it of the Education Department because they still want to remain true to their respective peoples. I listen …

What about the Transkei and Zululand?

The hon. member has asked a question in connection with KwaZulu. Unfortunately I do not have the quotation at hand, but I can give him my word of honour that I shall bring him the relevant quotation. It was remarkable that the leader of KwaZulu, for whom I have great esteem as a person—even though often I disagree with him—esteem because he tries to fight for his people, he speaks of the “Black man”, but at the same time also conclude an article in the Rand Daily Mail with the words: “I am a Zulu and I belong to the Zulu nation”. That was what Chief Buthelezi said. In addition to everything he said, he also stated: “I am a Zulu and I belong to the Zulu nation”. What I am saying is that KwaZulu will belong to the Zulu nation, but as far as this side of the House is concerned, White South Africa will in future belong to the Whites in South Africa.

Where is that?

If the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central does not know where White South Africa is, it does not surprise me that his own party has thrown him out, given him the “sack”.

Mr. Speaker, in introducing the motion of no confidence my leader made it quite clear that one of the difficulties which we have in this country is the Government’s policy towards race relations. The hon. the Deputy Minister who has just spoken is one of the three gentlemen who are responsible for managing the affairs of the majority group in South Africa, i.e. the Black man. I will deal with him and his department more fully at a later stage, but before I come to that I want to say a word about a race problem which should be giving the Government even more concern than the Black problem. That is the changing attitude of the Coloured man in South Africa towards this Government, and not only this Government but also towards all White people.

Yesterday we heard the Prime Minister reaffirming the fact that the Coloured man was to have no say in this country and that he was to live under continual “baasskap”. I want to know from hon. members on the other side how they can possibly justify the Government’s policy. The hon. the Prime Minister said that his policy towards the Coloureds was the same as our federal policy towards the Coloured people. That meant a sharing of power. When he was questioned on that, he ran away from it and said: “Dit sal nooit gebeur nie”—in other words, they will not have any say or any share in the affairs of the White man. If the Coloured man is to remain in South Africa and not have his own country, I want somebody on the other side to explain to us exactly what this Government’s policy is with regard to the Coloured man. They must not be cross with us if we continue to ask what the position of the Coloured man is because it is time somebody told us. The Coloured people are becoming worried. They are becoming more and more hostile, and it is time that this question was answered.

I want to get back to the hon. the Deputy Minister. He attacked the hon. member for Johannesburg North because, he said, the hon. member had said that under our policy the Bantu must be allowed to live where they like. I am surprised at the hon. the Deputy Minister. He knows very well our policy with regard to Bantu home ownership. We have debated this question repeatedly. In three successive sessions of Parliament I have dealt with our policy with regard to the Black man in the urban areas. Sir, you will remember that twice during the last session he said that his policy was the same as ours, to which I replied “deal with it; deal with home ownership”. I spelt out quite clearly what our policy was. I am going to quote from Hansard again. There is no excuse for the hon. the Deputy Minister taking the line he did this afternoon. This is what I said last year (Hansard, Vol. 43, cols. 4044-5)—

What could be clearer than that?

Exactly my words!

The Deputy Minister now nods. Then why did he try to make a little political capital here? He thought he could get away with it, and I have no doubt that this is what they are going to try to tell the public in the next general election.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Does the hon. member realize I was replying to a question pertinently put to me by the hon. member for Johannesburg North in this regard?

I am more surprised than ever at the reply the Deputy Minister has given me now. He says that, because he was replying to a question put to him by somebody, he was entitled to get up and tell an untruth. Is that what he says? He justifies the answer he gave, which was untrue, by saying that he was replying to a question put to him. It makes no difference how he came to answer the question; what he says is not true.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask with all due respect: What did I say that was untrue?

That it was our policy that the Native would be able to live anywhere in White South Africa.

I put that as a question. I never made such a statement.

I will leave the matter there if the hon. the Deputy Minister accepts that that in fact is not our policy.

The hon. the Deputy Minister went on to deal with home ownership. He said that where there was home ownership—he mentioned a few places—one found slums. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister want to say one does not find slums in other townships as well where homes are owned by races other than the Bantu? Do you only find slums where the Bantu own homes? In any case, why does one find the slums which he spoke of? The reason is that this Government has neglected to provide proper housing for those people. All the areas he mentioned are overcrowded.

Talking about the Johannesburg municipality, he blames them for a lot of the overcrowding and for the state of the townships there. His predecessor, who is now the Minister of Sport, has paid tribute in this House to the Johannesburg municipality for the co-operation he has received from them. I want to say that it is because of the attitude of this Government towards housing that sufficient housing has not been provided in Johannesburg. Despite that, the Johannesburg municipality has done more than any other municipality to provide housing for its Bantu population, but this Government has prevented them from building sufficient houses by not passing the plans and by holding up the approval of the plans which the municipality has submitted to them. Now, Sir, the Deputy Minister has said that the Government is looking after the people in the urban areas, that it is doing things for them and he mentioned with pride the fund that has been established to provide sports fields and other facilities and recreation amenities. Has this always been the policy of this Government? I give him the credit for this. He has introduced it, he has done this, but his predecessor, Mr. Blaar Coetzee, deliberately said that he would not allow it to be done. He wanted to make the Bantu living in the urban areas as unhappy as possible so that they would return to the Reserves. He wanted the money to be taken from the urban areas, to be taken from the Johannesburg municipality, revenue which they were entitled to use to improve the lot of the Bantu in their areas, and to put it into the Reserves so as to make the Reserves more attractive. Now there has also been a change in this regard. The hon. the Deputy Minister also says that we must not give credit, all the credit, to the Johannesburg municipality because it is going to do away with “klein apartheid”. He had a meeting with the five Administrators last year and it was at that meeting that they agreed to eliminate all these small points of friction. Again, Sir, it was he who had to do this, this hon. Deputy Minister. His predecessor did not do it. He pleaded for facilities to be provided in the towns where the Bantu could eat without sitting on the pavements. His plea in this regard was a very creditable performance. But why was it necessary for him, after 26 years of Nationalist Government rule, to plead for this? Surely somebody else should have seen to it before? Who introduced the group areas laws which prohibit a Bantu from eating in a café? It was this Government which did so and in a Black town like Umtata as well. In a Black town like Umtata a Black man cannot sit down in a café to have a cup of tea. He has to stand at the counter and drink his tea or eat whatever he has bought there.

On the pavement.

That law was introduced by this Government. This hon. Deputy Minister is now trying to make amends, he is trying to remedy the situation.

Now, Sir, the hon. Deputy Minister has said that he is trying to avoid points of friction and I concede that he is trying. However, I want to tell him that while this Government persists in its policy there will always be points of friction because the policy is an unnatural one.

They can be eliminated.

The Prime Minister has told us that he wants a mandate from the electorate to carry out his policy because he expects the next two to five years to be difficult ones. I submit, Sir, that he wants an election before there is an outright rejection of his policy by the Bantu leaders because he can see what is coming. I am convinced that he has come to an arrangement with Chief Kaiser Matanzima to the effect that if Chief Kaiser Matanzima drops his claim to the whole of the Matatiele, Mount Currie, Elliot and Maclear districts and accepts Port St. Johns and a portion of Maclear, a portion of Elliot and a portion of the Matatiele district in settlement, he can then ask for his independence. The Prime Minister is getting desperate. Not one Bantu leader has shown that he wants his independence or that he is going to ask for his independence, and now the Prime Minister is trying to get them to do so. He is doing this because he realizes that unless they do ask for their independence, his policy will fail. He hopes to win the next election and he is asking for an early election so that he will have more time to try to persuade them to accept his policy. It is obvious that the Prime Minister’s policy is not accepted by the leaders of the Black groups or in fact any other group, and it is also obvious that it is not being accepted by the majority of Whites. I do not believe that all the people who vote for the Nationalist Party vote for them because of their Bantustan policy. I do not believe it for a moment. Sir, of late we have had more “verligte” writings in the Afrikaans newspapers which support the Nationalist Party. We find that their editors are becoming more outspoken in their criticism of the Government and that they are questioning this policy. But now that an election has been declared, we will find that the tribal drums will be beaten again and that they will return to their old attacks on the United Party and that they will base their appeal to the electorate on race grounds, on prejudice, on “swart gevaar” and “Boerehaat” and all the old things. Sir, just watch the leading articles of the Afrikaans newspapers from now onwards, especially those newspapers in the north. In fact, Die Transvaler has lately become more critical than Die Burger. Just see what their attitude is going to be now.

Sir, the country must be made to realize before the next election that the Government’s policy has failed and that things are now coming to a sorry pass. That is why the Prime Minister is worried about the next two to five years. The very Minister who is charged with administering the affairs of the largest race group, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, Mr. M. C. Botha, warned last year that things were coming to a sorry pass. He warned that it may be too late to find a solution. He said that it was almost 12 o’clock. He said that some pessimists said that it was too late but that he was not a pessimist and he appealed for a consensus. Sir, that is a most serious warning for us to get from the Minister responsible for the administration of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. Sir, it is a fact that the Minister’s policy—and that is why he wants this consensus—does not cater for the needs of the Black man. It does not cater for the political or economic needs of the country. The political needs can be met temporarily and confrontation can be parried for a while, but the economic need cannot be parried or put off. Sir, I was surprised to hear the Minister of Indian Affairs saying here yesterday that there is no unemployment in South Africa.

There is no unemployment worth talking about.

I was shocked to hear the Minister of Indian Affairs saying that. The hon. member for East London City called a meeting of farmers, Bantu leaders and members of the municipality in East London towards the end of last year. The Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education was present and also the Minister of Police. At that meeting we heard complaints from the people about lawlessness and about the activities of thugs. We heard the farmers complaining about the theft of their stock in the neighbourhood, in the East London area, and they were all agreed that the police were doing their duty. They had no complaints about the way in which the police were carrying out their duties, but they pointed out that unemployment was the real problem.

The figure given by one authority was that there are 30 000 unemployed in Mdantsane and about 10 000, I think, in Duncan Village. That is the position in one little area. How then can the Minister say that there is no unemployment? The trouble is that those unemployed people must eat; they must live. They are not going to die of starvation. They are going to find food somehow; they are going to steal it. This lawlessness through unemployment is to be found not only around Mdantsane and East London; you also have it in the Transkei, more especially in Umtata, where burglaries are rife, and the story is that the people responsible for these burglaries are the people who are endorsed out from Cape Town and Johannesburg and go back to the Transkei. I say that this policy of the Government’s of trying to force the people back to the reserves, of endorsing them out of the cities, instead of providing proper homes for them in the urban areas and allowing them to seek work there and to be employed there, is a security risk to this country, because it is building up terrific hostility and the Government will have to face up to this problem.

Sir, the Government tries to placate the African leaders by giving them more land. That is not the answer. Giving them more land is not the answer. What they want is work. They want work opportunities, and that is not what they are getting. Sir, the Xhosa Development Corporation and the Bantu Development Corporation are doing their best and the Xhosa Development Corporation, especially in the last two years, has put on a spurt, but what it is doing is negligible; it is only a drop in the bucket. They are not able to cater for the natural increase in the population in that area, let alone for those who are being endorsed out of Johannesburg and Cape Town and other urban areas. They cannot cope with this task. Now they hope to give them extra land, but giving extra land will not provide extra jobs. Giving them Port St. Johns will not provide work for one more African than is employed there now.

Security does not only mean physical security; people worry about their economic security as well, and the White people living in Port St. Johns and the top end of the Matatiele district around Ongeluksnek, and in other areas like Elliot and Maclear, say they have no security; they do not know where they stand. They are given assurances by Dr. Verwoerd and by Mr. De Wet Nel and by the present Minister, Mr. M. C. Botha, that their land will never become part of the Transkei. They have those documents locked up in banks for safekeeping. They have the letters there, written promises that the land will never—not only in the foreseeable future—become part of the Transkei. What faith can anybody have in the promises of this Government in future? I see the Deputy Minister, Mr. Raubenheimer, has given a deputation from East London the assurance that East London will never become Black. [Interjections.] But on 20 January, in dealing with Port St. Johns, he said that the mere fact that promises had been made could not be allowed to weigh too heavily against the necessity of going ahead with the consolidation plans. What is the worth of such a promise?

The tragedy of this country is that many people—I will not say the majority, but a large percentage of the people who will vote in the next election—have no idea of any other way of life in South Africa. They think that the laws passed by this Government and the life that this Government forces upon us is the traditional life of South Africa. Of course it is not. Those of us who remember the position in South Africa before the Nationalist Party came into power will remember how different things were. Mr. Gary Player says it is a miracle that mixed golf is allowed, and that Dr. Koornhof has done a wonderful thing. [Interjections.] He calls the Minister a miracle-maker, because he has allowed White and Black golfers to play together. That is what Mr. Gary Player calls a miracle. But the editor of the Dispatch had this to say—

But it is a fact that the younger people especially think that this Government is a benevolent Government; it is breaking down the old order to meet current thinking. It is the “verligte” Government which is allowing us to mix more freely. Sir, I remember—and the Minister and a lot of members on that side will remember—that before 1948 we had mixed sport. We used to watch mixed teams playing cricket here. They played golf. We had mixed sport, and who stopped it? This Government stopped it, but now the hon. the Minister of Sport is regarded as a miracle-maker because, he is restoring things to what they were in the time of the United Party Government. You will remember, Sir, that we used to go to cinemas particularly in the villages, where Whites and Blacks attended together. There was no trouble. We used to go to the opera together.

I used to go to the Opera House here, where Whites and Blacks were together. There was nothing strange about it. There was no hostility. But now because the Department of Community Development allows a certain amount of mixing—and nobody knows when you will be allowed to mix and when not because they are so inconsistent in giving their decisions—they are regarded as being a benevolent Government. It is time the people realize what the position is. Somehow it should be brought to their attention that this Government does not act naturally, that their actions are not the traditional actions of a government in this country.

I should like to remind them too that the hon. the Prime Minister quoted with approval from the speech by Chief Mangope at the last meeting of the Institute of Race Relations. What did Chief Mangope say? He said—

He was talking about the granting of land—

He was referring to the 1936 Act—

That is the impression this Government is giving the Black man and others—it is a subterfuge. It looks for confirmation in old Acts for what it wants to do now. Chief Mangope said—

That is Chief Mangope’s view—we are crowded together in one little boat. He certainly does not support the policies of the hon. the Prime Minister. Furthermore his overall view was openly tied to a de-emphasis of “race” and “tribe”. Prof. Ntsanwise had this to say—

Reference was made by the hon. the Deputy Minister to Chief Buthelezi being proud of being a Zulu. Because he is proud of being a Zulu it does not mean to say that we wants to have a separate Zulu state. He has never said that he wants a separate Zulu state. He is of Zulu origin. You also find people who are proud of being of Scots descent or of German descent or of French descent or of wherever their ancestors came from. It does not mean to say that because I am proud of my English descent I now want to be an Englishman and want to have a separate English country. I am a South African. Chief Mangope says we all live in one small boat. Prof. Ntsanwise says that they want to build a greater South Africa and that they do not think ethnically. I have said before that when we interviewed the leaders of the urban Africans in all the large cities the year before last it was quite clear to us that they did not think ethnically. They did not want to be regarded as separate groups, as Pondos, Zulus or whatever it might be; they wanted to be regarded as Blacks living together and sharing in the control of the town.

The hon. the Deputy Minister said he would allow no co-operation or rather joint governing, in the urban areas, the big Bantu towns, but that he would consult. We pointed out before that where matters affect other people you cannot just govern by consulting. We pointed out that it was wrong to do so in respect of the universities. What has happened? The Government has now changed that although they said at the time that they would not have Whites and Blacks sitting on the same council. They have changed their ideas completely. People say things are changing. One Minister even said so to me, but I say things are not changing, the Nationalists are changing. But they try to hide the change. They will, however, have to change and they will have to do so more rapidly. What this country needs is not just a change in Nationalist thinking, but in fact a change in Government.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the hon. member for Transkei singing “O, saai die waatlemoen”, and this afternoon he was sowing the watermelon. He seized upon all kinds of things, only to drop them again. I now want to try to reply to these disconnected stories, and I want to begin with the last one.

This hon. member is from Umtata, which is situated within a Bantu area. The knowledge of the Bantu which he displayed this afternoon, of their customs and how they feel about their own ethnic groups, was entirely erroneous and misplaced, and he knows it.

What about their own leaders?

We have continual liaison with the various Bantu leaders, with leaders of the various Black nations. One of our greatest problems, as my hon. colleague indicated this afternoon, is their insistence on mother-tongue education. He mentioned the Southern Ndebele. Ninety years ago the Southern Ndebele were scattered over the Transvaal after clashes with the burghers of the Transvaal Republic of that time. The year before last they held a sit-down demonstration in Paul Kruger Street, saying that they were not Pedis. The hon. Minister was overseas and I was obliged to speak to them and to tell those people that we would see whether we would be able to accommodate them separately. These were people who were scattered throughout the urban and rural areas of the Transvaal, but who said “Look, we have a culture and a language, and under the policy of this Government we would please like to see justice being done to our language and our culture”. That is the evidence we have. I could also mention that I have lying in my office a letter from a Turfloop academic, Prof. Mathivha of the Lembas, who says that a Lemba is not a Venda. He had made a study of their history and claimed that the credit for the buildings at Zimbabwe was due to them, and that the Lembas were a group of people who should receive separate recognition. I could continue in this vein and mention numerous examples. That hon. member knows that there are various tribes within the Transkei. The people of the Ciskei and the Transkei belong to different groups. Why have they not yet become united? We hope that they are going to do so, for they are all Xhosas. But the hon. member tried to make us believe here this afternoon that the Government is adopting an artificial approach to the separation of people. One of our major problems in this country is that there are so many people who, either for political convenience or who for other reasons are trying to attract attention, want to express an opinion on a problem, this basic problem of multinationality which this Government is approaching in a realistic way, and who want to give advice from all quarters, as in the newspapers which were mentioned here. All that I can say to the hon. member is that the Department of Bantu Administration and Development and of Bantu Education has, under the present Minister, achieved the success which it has already achieved today because the Minister ignored 90% of this advice; there are too many people who talk about things they know nothing about. It happened here today.

Reference was also made to the 1936 Act, and I want to deal with that first. Chief Mangope did say that, if we want to distribute land on the basis of the 1936 Act, he had no intention of paying any heed to that; according to him it was an absolete basis. It is one of the basic approaches and policies of the National Party—and this is traditional—that there should be territorial, political and social separation. Those are the cornerstones. As soon as one allows intermingling in those spheres one can write Ichabod as far as the Whites in this country are concerned, and those hon. members know it. This is not an approach which developed under this Government during the past 26 years. I see that Gen. Louis Botha adopted the same approach in 1912 already. In a letter to the editor of the Volkstem of that time he said that political autonomy for the Blacks should slowly be advanced. It is therefore an old idea, but we have been giving effect to it to an increasing extent.

Before I return to the territorial question there is just one other thing I should like to mention. Mention was made here of consensus. In regard to what precisely is there consensus among everyone these days? The homelands, Sir, the homeland leaders! Those people who, a few years ago, were described as stooges are now being frantically approached for consultation, those leaders, who politically and constitutionally, are now on the road of development. Hon. members opposite are now falling over themselves to recognize these people. They are being recognized by the world. They are so enthusiastic that certain provincial party leaders are, without consent, visiting other provinces and drawing up Declarations. This is the situation which has developed, and that hon. member is not even aware of it. He quoted these leaders, while it was the policy of this Government which gave stimulus to the political development of these people and which gave geographic shape to their territories.

Is the hon. the Deputy Minister aware of the fact that a Native Representative Council was established especially for consultation by the United Party and abolished by the National Party?

I am aware of that. I never said that the United Party never did anything worthwhile in its history. This was one of the few things which they initiated and which nevertheless proved of some use in this country. Liaison is still being used today; liaison is still being used to good purpose today although in another form, but it points once again to this homeland idea and the participation of the urban Bantu in the politics of the homeland, for which we have much evidence. In the polling in the Ciskei last year large numbers—I think more than 8 000 people from Cape Town—voted in that election. Bantu in the urban area of Johannesburg elected council members of the various homeland governments. Thus there is no question that these homelands are developing separately, culturally and otherwise, from their people in the urban areas. If hon. members think otherwise, they are chasing a myth.

Let us return to the question of land tenure and the basis on which this matter is being tackled. This matter is one which is receiving attention throughout the country, and we are still waiting for the United Party, which is building away at a federation, a confederation or what have you, to return to earth realistically and solve these problems. They have not yet expressed a clear opinion on this matter. Three years ago that hon. member introduced a motion here. He asked us at the time to make known the boundaries of the Bantu areas. The words which he used were “to allay the fears of the people”. We are now making the boundaries known. And now? Now he wants to try to make political capital out of it.

*What about the promises?

We shall come to the promises. I just want to inform the hon. member that that extract in that newspaper is not correct. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Durban Central must restrain himself! The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

That quotation which he used, is not correct. I said that promises would be weighed against other considerations. It does not mean to say that if a promise has been made we should adhere to it at all costs. I did not say that this weighed more heavily than anything else. We have to be realistic. The hon. the Minister can elaborate further on that. But we are realistic and we weigh these factors. We shall reach a decision later. We are not afraid to do so. The hon. member should not hold out the prospect of winning an enormous number of votes because of this.

I want to come now to the policy of the United Party on this cardinal point of land distribution, this cardinal point of the 1936 legislation. I have never able to find anything about this in writing. Recently, however, I did come across something which does apply. In this article the following is stated—

I do not know whether what they believe and what their policy is, is one and the same thing, but I accept that it is. I accept that this is now their policy.

This is a concession which is being made by them. They accept it now, but a few years ago when we began with consolidation, there were six different opinions on their side of the House. A few other points which are also stated in this article, are very interesting. They say, inter alia, in one of the points—

Now I am asking the hon. members what this means. There are perhaps a few of the hon. members on that side of the House who are aware of this document, and I want to ask them now whether they agree with it. If one now says it is “desirable”, must we then accept that everything which is “desirable” in this country under the United Party will not be “essential” and that for that reason it need not be done? This is the kind of article which is being presented when we are dealing with this cardinal question. I shall go further. In the one paragraph mention is made of “desirable” and “essential” while the next states—

In other words, this consolidation is not really necessary now. The words “small Black spots which serve no social or economic purpose should be eliminated”, confirm this. I now want to ask the hon. the Leader of the United Party in Natal …

I agree with that wholeheartedly.

He has to agree with that because it was he who drew it up. I do not know whether he has forgotten, but it appears under his name. [Interjections.] The hon. member drew up this document in September last year, and now he has given us the assurance that he still agrees with it.

He agrees with himself.

Now I want to ask him how small these Black spots must be. How do you distinguish between “small” and “big”?

Every farmers’ association in the country knows what those Black spots are.

Do you know them?

Of course I know them.

Can you mention one?

The whole of Northern Natal is full of them.

The hon. member says that the whole of Natal is full of them. I now want to mention a few to him.

I said that Northern Natal was full of them.

Does the hon. member regard the Upper Tugela location as one of them?

No.

Does the hon. member regard locations Nos. 1 and 2 in Estcourt as …

Those are the Upper Tugela locations?

Now there are three of them which are not small Black spots. If I have sufficient time I shall go into this further. I want to ask the hon. member whether he regards Draycott or Roosboom as “small Black spots”?

I do not know them.

Do you regard Driefontein as a small Black spot? I think the hon. member should now return and take a look to see what is large and what is small. In other words, he should be able to state clearly to the people of Natal what is going to be consolidated and what not. He should not allow a publication to be presented which can be interpreted both ways. The next point the hon. member mentioned was …

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question?

The hon. member can speak later; I have replied sufficiently to that. I should like to deal with this document of the hon. member as fully as possible. Inter alia, he stated—

Now we want to know where the land should be purchased. What are “natural growth points”? Are they Richards Bay or Durban or Pitermaritzburg? Are those natural growth points He must now tell us whether the Bantu should own even more land in those areas. This is stated here in this document which was drawn up by the Natal leader of the United Party. Here is his policy statement. He refers to land “in the neighbourhood of natural growth points”. In view of the coming election they should elucidate this matter so that the people may know clearly what the policy of that party is. I read further—

This is followed by a comma, and then it is stated—

Now I ask you! Read that and try to make head or tail of it. He states: “More land may be necessary than was provided for in 1936, but less may also suffice if other land which is made available is being used more beneficially.” What does the United Party mean by this document which was issued last year by “Mr. R. M. Cadman, M.P.”? It states here: “This fact paper was prepared by the chairman of the party in Natal, Mr. R. M. Cadman, M.P., and is made available for distribution by the kind courtesy of the United Party”. Apparently they give it away for nothing, and I am not surprised at that because I do not think it is worth anything. However, it may have value for us during the election. In addition there is still a very interesting “conclusion”—

This is a reference to the province of Natal—

This refers now to development and so on. Now I want to ask this hon. Leader of the United Party whether the United Party is a model of political stability. I think his own Party is a tragic example of instability. The hon. member, and others, yesterday challenged the hon. the Leader of the National Party in Natal, and said: “Come and stand against me in Zululand”. The one hon. member said he should stand against him in Zululand, and the hon. member for Port Natal also issued him with a challenge. I do not take it amiss of these two members for doing so. They do not expect to win, but at least they want to lose against an important man. I want to say to him: We have many other important people in Natal. They need not be ashamed of losing against those people for they will still discover what an important role those people are going to play in the future of Natal: I want to ask the hon. member why he is inviting the hon. the Minister to stand against him. When he speaks of “stability” I want to suggest something to him. Since there is now some doubt about the stability of the United Party, I want to ask him why he does not invite the Transvaal leader of the United Party to come and help him. I think that that would be an excellent idea. After all, the leader of the United Party in the Transvaal was at Mahlabatini in the hon. member’s constituency, but the hon. mem-member did not even have the opportunity of introducing him to his voters. In fact, he did not even know that he was there. Taking into consideration the problems he is going to have in Zululand as a result of his consolidation policy, and other problems, I think that this would have been an excellent opportunity of introducing this man who made history in his constituency to his voters. I think that this man could perhaps be of assistance to him. There is another very important point.

I do not think that that is very fair.

It would be an excellent opportunity to prove how united the United Party is if this man were invited to join him in addressing a meeting. With all the problems they have I really want to suggest that they adopt this approach. If he cannot get the leader of the United Party in the Transvaal, he could invite the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I hold out this prospect for the hon. leader in Natal, in view of the problems he is going to experience there, and I sincerely hope that he will seriously consider doing so. I think he ought to do so, for in order to prove conclusively that there is stability in the United Party, I cannot see how he can fight an election without Mr. Harry Schwarz appearing on a platform with him somewhere.

I now want to deal with another few points raised by the hon. member for Transkei. An important matter is the question of housing, and in this regard I honestly want to say, and admit together with my colleague the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, that we are experiencing great problems with housing. There is no doubt about that. However, I want to say that this Government has spent a great deal of money and has built large numbers of houses. There is clarity in this regard as well.

Slum houses?

They are not. Who said “slum houses”?

I asked whether they were slum houses.

That is the kind of irresponsible rubbish we get from the opposite side of the House. That is the kind of remark that is made to try to make the Bantu in this country believe that the treatment they are being given is inferior. I just want to say that the financial demands which are being made in respect of housing for the Bantu, are enormous. They are enormous. Year after year this Government has made the increased amounts which are required available. I also want to make it very clear that the question of ethnic relations here, the development of the Black homelands and the Black nations which we as a Government realistically recognize, and in regard to which we take realistic cognizance of the facts, is not something which can be lightly achieved. What is being said on the opposite side, “Build houses in the White areas; let these people stream in”, is going to cause enormous problems. The basic approach and the solution is that these homelands are developing, but the Blacks do not merely want to be the hewers of wood and drawers of water for the Whites. For that reason this Government has created for them the opportunity, through the development in all spheres of those homelands, of being able to advance to the topmost rung of the ladder on all levels and in all directions—professional, commercial and otherwise. That opportunity has been presented to them. If we now want to open doors to political rights in the White areas, to land tenure rights in the White areas and other privileges, we would be undermining those people in their own homelands. The only solution is the approach of multi-nationality, of peaceful co-existence, where each nation has political say in its area, and where that nation is able to develop to the highest level in all directions. This Government has created that opportunity for them. We say that it is the only solution. This story that people from different population groups can be brought together—this has been demonstrated repeatedly here this afternoon to hon. members opposite and I do not want to repeat it—and that they can be cajoled into living together, is an impossible story. These differences are profound. The requirements set by development are so high that we cannot comply with them overnight. If they were forced together, one would immediately be creating friction, and for that reason we have this approach of the Government which we have been working on for 26 years, and with which we have achieved more in those 26 years than in the previous 200.

You have done nothing in that time.

That is the position, and not only that. We have accelerated the pace, but in the process we not only guarantee to the Black man his development and help him with it; we also give the Whites in this country their security. We have interdependence in this country, and we admit that these people can come into the White areas with the restriction which is placed on them in respect of land tenure and political rights, and perhaps other restrictions such as that of movement restrictions under which they can enter these areas to sell their labour whenever it appears necessary. I want to reiterate that in my department and under this Government, mountains are being moved to fulfil this tremendous task. But this casual talk, this opportunism of hon. members opposite will not get us anywhere. This afternoon the hon. member for Green Point again raised the matter of dialogue. The question of dialogue was discussed once again. Sir, the Government has its Commissioners-General in the homelands who consult daily with those people as representatives of the Government. There are no deficiencies as far as liaison is concerned. Apart from that, they approach the department and the Minister, and even the Prime Minister, regularly to discuss their affairs. But now they are all falling over one another in their eagerness to see whether these Black leaders cannot be used politically. Sir, I think that at the election on 24 April this policy of the National Party and the progress which has been made with it and the courage which the National Party has to carry on in spite of the problems, is going to speak volumes and return this side of the House to these cushions, and I predict that the first thing that that side of the House is going to do after that election is to reconsider this question of federation to see whether they cannot find something else with which they can fight the next election. It seems to me that that is what is in store for them, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister spoke here for almost 30 minutes and I make so bold as to say that he cast no further light on the road ahead under the policy of the Nationalist Party, neither for us as members of this House, nor for the electorate of South Africa, nor for the Blacks in this country. He did not mention one single fact that is of any value to anyone. I am sorry the hon. the Deputy Minister came forward with what I regard as a shocking statement. He said we are not going to improve the rights and privileges of the non-Whites in the urban areas because by doing so, one would be undermining the position of the homelands. Sir, I regard this statement, coming from a Deputy Minister of this Government, as a shocking one. How can he say that he is going to withhold for all time rights and privileges from people in places where the majority of the Black population of South Africa is living, namely in the urban areas? Does he want to tell this House that this is the solution to the problem of influx into the cities? Surely, the solution is not to withhold rights from them in the urban areas. The solution is to develop the homelands in a proper way so that they are able to absorb their own people, and this is what my hon. Leader pointed out so pertinently to the hon. the Prime Minister during his introductory speech here.

Sir, what I, furthermore, regard as quite shocking, is the manner in which the hon. the Deputy Minister glossed over the question of promises here. I do not think it behoves the hon. the Deputy Minister to deal with the matter in the way he did here. I want to ask him what a promise means to him. Does he act on the promise, to use an old Afrikaans saying, that “beloftes maak skuld en dié wat daarop wag is ge-kuld” (promises are like piecrust, made to be broken)? Is that the attitude of the hon. the Deputy Minister? Sir, this is a serious question. We are going to have an election in April and this Government, knowing it as we do, will once again make various promises. What value can the electorate of South Africa attach to those promises? I am certain that the electorate will take good note of the words used by the hon. the Deputy Minister in this House today in regard to promises. Sir, it is not only a question of the merits of the case as far as Port St. Johns is concerned; the fact of the matter is that a promise has been made in this regard and that this Government thinks nothing of acting contrary to that promise now. Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister went further and raised a hue and cry about a fact paper issued by the hon. member for Zululand. Now, Sir, apart from the contents of that document, of which so much has been said, I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that this entire document is based on a speech made by the hon. member for Transkei in this House two years ago. Why does the hon. the Deputy Minister respond to it only now? Has it taken him such a long time to figure out what might be wrong with it? No, I think this is nothing but a quarrel mongering.

I would like to deal with a matter which I believe every South African, irrespective of his colour, has at heart. This is a matter which is very closely related to the debate we have been conducting up to now. I refer to the Government’s handling of the non-White question, and especially their handling of the urban areas. As I said at the beginning, we have had no replies from the hon. the Deputy Ministers who have spoken already. We still do not know what the policy of the Government is with regard to the urban areas. We have had no replies as to what the aims are as far as the Coloureds and the Indians are concerned. We hear it is the same as the policy of the United Party. We have to be grateful for that, but I do not believe the Government has the insight to implement our policy.

†The question which I want to deal with, and which is absolutely pertinent to this debate, is a question I have discussed before in this House, and that is the incidence of crime in South Africa. The attitude of this Government is well known. As you might recall, Sir, I moved a private member’s motion here last year in which this issue was discussed, and the attitude of this Government became too well known, I may say. Their attitude has been that everything in the garden is rosy and that they see no cause for change in the approach of the Government with regard to crime. Knowing the Government’s attitude now, being fully aware of that attitude, I now wish to charge this Government with gross indifference to this question and gross neglect to tackle the problem at its roots.

Mr. Speaker, crime is something which threatens the security of every citizen of South Africa, and therefore I must agree wholeheartedly with the charge which has been laid by my hon. Leader, that the Government has indeed become a security threat to the country. Their indifference threatens the security of every citizen in his own home, be he Black, Coloured, Indian or White. A Security threat is what the Government claims to protect us against. The Government claims to protect us against the security threats of the terrorists on the borders, and it is continually making noises in that respect, but I wish to say that our most immediate security threat is not the terrorists on the borders but the terrorists in the townships; because these terrorists in the townships not only threaten the inhabitants of the Bantu and Coloured townships in our cities, but they spill out from the townships into other residential areas to loot, to pillage and to terrorize in more profitable areas. If anybody doubts the seriousness of the situation and of the threat, let him speak to the people of Sea Point and Hillbrow. Ask them whether it is safe to walk the lesser thoroughfares at night; ask the inhabitants of Berea, ask the inhabitants of Florida and even those of Water-kloof. This is an issue which is much more pertinent than any other security threat which South Africa faces. Every day peoples’ homes are being violated, especially the homes of elderly people. Especially elderly people face the terrible ordeal of burglary, robbery, rape and even murder in their own homes. This is no idle fancy of my imagination, it is no idle plot cooked up by the Press. I recall that recently in Florida, in my constituency, there was the case where a young couple’s home was invaded by three or more gangsters. The young husband had to watch while his wife was being raped under the threat of their baby’s throat being slit. I mention this to bring the shocking facts home because most of us sit far away in our ivory towers and we think that it is something which happens to other people; it is not something that can happen to us.

Like Bryntirion.

We think it is far away. These are the facts of life in our everyday living in society and the question is: What has the Government done; what does it intend doing?

Nothing!

Under these circumstances and bearing these facts in mind, I was at once surprised but also highly gratified to learn from the State President in his opening address to Parliament that the crime rate has not increased. As I say, that is highly gratifying. However, it would be very interesting to all concerned to know on which statistics such a statement is based, because all people who are trying to study this subject seriously, and there have been many, have been grossly hampered by the inadequacy of available statistics and the virtual impossibility of valid annual comparisons because of the differing forms in which statistics are given in different years. The best available official statistics present a grim picture nevertheless. During 1970 to 1971 there were 7 463 violent deaths in South Africa. This figure excludes motor-car accidents. During 1971 to 1972 there were 10 490 victims of whom 5 720 were murder victims, and 4 770 were manslaughter victims. If these figures are correct, it means that there was an increase of 38% in one year. During the past 14 years the prison population of South Africa has increased by 83% against a population increase of approximately 33%.

The highest in the Western world.

That is correct. However, I want to point out that terrifying and grim as these statistics are, statistics do not tell the whole story, not by a long shot. I should like to read to the House what the editor of the Criminological Journal of NICRO had to say in the issue of July last year—

In the same issue J. Midgely, writing about the problems of the measurement of crime, said—

This is important.

The question I want to put is, what has the Government done to alleviate the situation? How has this Government protected the security of our people? This is what my charge arises from, because they have done nothing. To be sure, they have trained many policemen and they are doing a great job under very difficult circumstances.

They do not pay them enough either.

That is also true. They have littered the Statute Book with myriads of crimes and have prescribed harsher and harsher sentences with minimum sentences. But this is not the solution. This jackboot philosophy can never be the solution to a social problem which is as deep-seated as that of crime. I want to quote Mr. Justice Steyn who delivered the Leopold Green memorial lecture on 11 September last year. He said—

I want to say that far from doing anything about the crime and security threat to South Africa, Government action itself has often aggravated crime, especially in the townships, albeit unintentionally, but nevertheless with a callous disregard of the consequences of their strict utopian ideologies. Let me name a few; there are many more. They have failed, in the first instance, to supply electricity to the townships, which is a serious failure. They have failed to supply private telephones, which means that the inhabitants do not have this means of obtaining help from the police. The public telephone booths that are there are mostly destroyed by vandals, which in fact means that they have no lines of communication open whatsoever. I know there are great practical problems, but the Government has not even tried to reinstitute the policeman on the beat. This can be one of the most efficient methods of all. But these things are superficial. These are only the superficial things that could have been done, but it goes much deeper than that. The Government has failed to provide proper social and recreational facilities in the townships for the Coloureds, the Blacks and the Indians. They have failed to provide proper and adequate educational facilities. In education, to a large extent, lies the answer to crime and especially delinquency. They have, further, failed to give proper consideration to aesthetics and comforts when they planned these townships, if they can be called “planned”. They have also failed to plan resettlement adequately. [Interjections.] There is an hon. member who suggests that I am speaking a lot of nonsense. He apparently thinks that these points which I have mentioned are not important. But may I again refer him to what Mr. Justice Steyn said in the same lecture from which I have quoted before. This is a man of great experience and of much integrity. He says—

This is the charge which I think the whole of South Africa lays against the door of this Government as far as this matter is concerned. They have not planned resettlement. They have not created viable communities in the townships. They have not provided the facilities. Because of their rigid ideologies, we find in a township like Soweto that there is not one O.K. Bazaars, not one Checkers centre or a Pick-’n-Pay. These people in their hordes have to take trains into Johannesburg in order to do most of their shopping—you find them there every day—which means that it is a great discomfort, an additional expense, an additional hardship which the people of these townships have to shoulder. It means that they become less of a community and it becomes more of a social strain to live in these communities. No, Sir, there has been no regard in the planning of these townships to the class and social structure of the communities. These people virtually have no choice in which part of such a township they are to live. It goes even further than that. I refer to the oft-raised question of home ownership. They do not feel part of a community because they have no pride of possession. They have no stake in their own community or in this country. It comes to the question of crime as well. One of the reasons is that these people are uprooted and unsettled. In all respects are they crowded in. This is one of the major causes of crime and one of the deep-lying factors. It is a question to which this Government has refused to give any attention whatsoever. We are offering them no future. They live from day to day, and have no hope or legitimate means of obtaining a higher social or professional status. I think that this is a very, very serious allegation. Because of this attitude of the Government, they will never be able to solve the question of crime in South Africa. They will never be able to do so by training more police, by putting more of them into the field; because their basic problem lies with their ideology. Their ideology does not take note of human dignity. It does not take note of what people require to live a meaningful life in society. And if people do not live a meaningful life in their society, they resort to crime. If they cannot get further by legitimate means, people will do so by illegitimate means.

The attitude of the United Party in this regard is very much different from that of the National Party. We do not speak of human dignity as a gift from above, not like the hon. the Minister of the Interior who is reported to have said—unfortunaetly I do not have his actual words with me, but I can remember it very well because I was startled at the time—that the Government wished to give the Blacks of South Africa more human dignity. He also said that he wished that their leaders would act and talk more responsibly so that the Government could give them more dignity. Human dignity is not something which is given as a favour because you have been a good boy, but human dignity is the right of every person who was born on this earth. It is time that this Government realizes that and they should pay attention to the call which has been made from many quarters in the past. If we want to solve crime in South Africa we must establish a complete body which only the Government can do. This body should go into this matter. The University of South Africa has now started a body whose object is to do research into crime. We need a body which should oversee all the work that has been done.

*We need a co-ordinating criminological institute in South Africa and this appeal has often been made to the Government by various responsible bodies and by various responsible people. The Government has never paid any heed to it. Even I have appealed to the Government in this regard in the past. It is no use trying to solve the problem of crime if one has not undertaken proper research into the background and the social conditions where it originated. The problem of the Government is that they will have to change their entire policy, and especially their policy with regard to the urban Bantu, the Coloureds and the Indians, if they want to solve the problem of crime in South Africa. We cannot have a Coloured population that is politically frustrated because they do not know where they are going to. We cannot have a Coloured population that is economically frustrated because they cannot make proper progress. We cannot have a Coloured population that is frustrated as far as education is concerned because there are not enough teachers, schools and facilities available. We cannot make any progress at all and we cannot eradicate crime unless this Government changes their whole attitude with regard to the racial problems in South Africa. Only when this happens, shall we make progress.

It is a great privilege for me today to support the motion of my hon. Leader. In particular, I support the aspect accentuating that the Government constitutes in every respect a risk to the security of South Africa. I support it for the reasons I have just mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, except for the few passages from judicial decisions which the hon. member for Florida quoted here, I think he has made many debatable statements. He said many irresponsible things, and he has contributed to the unrest which people are trying to create amongst our non-Whites. If there are frustration and problems amongst the non-Whites, the National Party and the Government are presented, by those hon. members, as being the cause. I think hon. members could very often look for the fault in themselves, particularly as a result of their irresponsible utterances. Perhaps they do not mean it, but they say it in the hope of thereby winning the support of certain non-Whites. As far as this young hon. member is concerned, I just want to say that I happened to hear the hon. member for Yeoville telling someone else that that hon. member was fortunately not one of his pupils. The hon. young member for Florida launched an argument here about crime. In actual fact this is chapter 2 of a previous speech he made last year.

It is the same speech.

We are all concerned at the increase in the crime rate throughout the world. In due course the hon. the Minister of Police will certainly supply a good answer to this lecture by the hon. member. The crime rate in the country is not going to determine South Africa’s fate in the future. The question that must be answered in this country is: What do we want to do with this South Africa of ours? Do we want to deliver it into the hands of those who come along with a federation policy, something I should like to say more about in a moment, or are we again going to place it in the hands of the National Party which has now, in practical terms, been ruling the country for 26 years—and ruling it very well—and which has for a longer period than that been proclaiming a philosophy—and I do not hesitate to say this—which the majority of our Whites in South Africa support and endorse, i.e. the political philosophy of separate development? It is very interesting that even the Sunday Times already accepts this political philosophy and tells the United Party: That is the course you must follow. On 20 January 1974 the Sunday Times stated—

The Sunday Times goes further and states—

Now comes the important sentence—

Mr. Speaker, I am always asking myself: Why is this Government in so strong a position? Why could it, in past years, furnish records of achievement in the economic sphere? We can quote from many publications about economic achievements on their part. I have here, for example, a Standard Bank document which praises the Government for its fine economic achievements. Why do we still have peace and quiet in this country today in spite of an inflammatory speech such as that of the hon. member for Florida? Why are we experiencing, in this country, this fine economic growth which the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs spoke of yesterday? There is one reason for that, in particular: The National Party does not tour the country with “political gimmicks”, as the hon. member for Houghton said, or “politieke foefies” as Die Burger puts it. It does not run like a frightened hare, continually looking round and darting into a new hole every now and then hoping to escape the problems. The answer is that throughout the years hundreds and thousands of people in this country have worked with inner conviction and dedication, and are still working today, on a set of common principles, based on the political philosophy of separate development. They worked with dedication and inner conviction; not like hon. friends on the opposite side of this House who spy on each other, fight with each other and set their political house ablaze concerning what Harry Schwarz had gone to do in Natal. Things are going so well with us that last year on 7 June the hon. member for Transkei, who was not feeling very well that day, for some or other reason, perhaps because political darkness had descended upon him, uttered these words in the House of Assembly in a moment of frustration (Hansard 1973, col. 8525)—

What has he said by implication? He has said that it is no longer any use appealing to the electorate of South Africa to vote against the National Party. It is no use trying to convince them because they do not want to be convinced. Obviously the electorate in general will not turn against this party and this Government because it knows what it has got. It can view the achievements of many years. Just listening to the chopping and changing on the opposite side and just looking at their policy, every voter who is doing right by South Africa will say “No thank you” to such a party. We have an election at hand. It is certainly the Opposition’s duty, if it can, to show the Government up to the electorate, but it is also our duty on this side of the House to tell the electorate out there what the alternative government will look like, to give them a picture of the party that takes the field against the National Party. In looking at the United Party we must begin with its leader. We know that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition recently went fishing at Blombos. While he was fishing there, his political house caught fire. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that it took him three weeks to decide whether he should give Harry a thrashing or support him? After three weeks of deep thought, what did he decide? He gave Harry a thrashing, but he also supported him. The point I want to make is that South Africa has no need of someone who is a master at covering up cracks. South Africa has need of a leader who stands firm, a person who adopts his standpoint, a person who knows where he wants to go, a person such as the one we have the privilege to have as our leader-in-chief, the hon. the Prime Minister. The electorate, which is going to decide who is to rule this country, has no need of a political party that sends someone overseas to go and proclaim and hawk its policy over there. Because just after the birth of this new policy, the hon. member for Hillbrow ran to London—he probably flew—and made a statement there. He is sent to London as the director of planning of the United Party to go and tell the people in England what the United Party in South Africa is going to do. This is what he said—

I say that the electorate of South Africa has no need of a political party which goes to seek its support in an overseas country. No. It has need of a political party with its feet squarely planted in South Africa, a political party which is of South Africa, which is from South Africa and which is for South Africa.

Just so many words that mean nothing.

This is the kind of party the National Party is. We have an election at hand and one must tell these things to the voters. It is the electorate which is going to decide what party must return and take its seats here on these benches. It is our duty to inform them on this issue. Let us look at the alternative government. I find it striking that in that party one has a lot of impossible twins, and I should like to mention a few of their names. These are people who are politically as far apart as one can imagine, people who contradict one another, people who say things vaguely and do not mean what they say. Sir, let us take the question of the White Parliament. What is going to happen to this White Parliament under the federal policy of the United Party? Last year in this House, as you will remember, Sir, I asked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition what was going to happen to the White Parliament if they were to come into power; I asked if it was going to disappear and his answer was, “No”. Now, of course, he no longer says so. I think the Transvaal leader of the United Party has crept in very deeply under the coat of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. It is interesting that during their five day congress here, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition regularly saw to it that he and Mr. Schwarz walked out together, without any other people near them. They always walked out together, “all smiles”.

It was not a five day congress; it was a five-day war.

There are people like Senator Henry du Toit and the hon. member for Newton Park who say that if the White Parliament were to disappear it would have to be the White voters who would have to decide about that. They said that last year. I challenge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to tell me again that the White electorate is eventually going to decide whether the White Parliament will continue to exist under their federal policy, yes or no. Sir, they said this last year.

Are you worried about that?

Now they keep quiet. In other words, what is the implication? The implication is that that standpoint of the hon. member for Newton Park and Senator Henry du Toit and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition no longer applies. I therefore conclude that they have already decided, as the hon. member for Durban North has said—I am now going to quote him—that “the multi-racial parliament will come”.

Who said that?

I am now going to quote this. I draw the conclusion that there will be no returning in future to the White electorate to decide whether the White Parliament must disappear or not. [Interjection.] Sir, I think the hon. members for Simonstown and Port Natal are poles apart, politically speaking. Then I come to the hon. member for King William’s Town and the hon. member for Von Brandis. The hon. member for Von Brandis spoke of a corporate nation. Sir, what do the words “gemeenskaplike nasie” imply? I put the same question to them which the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration put to both of them this afternoon: Does corporate nationhood mean equal rights for everyone in the country, throughout South Africa? Sir, silence is the answer one gets to that question. I do not think they have an answer to the question.

Sir, then we have the question of Braam Fischer, and in that connection I want to refer to the hon. member for Durban North and Mr. Epstein, member of the Transvaal Provincial Council. The one portion of the United Party, supported by Prof. Chris Barnard, initiated a demonstration for the freeing of Bram Fischer. In that connection they had petitions signed, but the hon. member for Durban North says: “No! ” How can one put a party into power which differs within its ranks on as important a question as this? Take the Immorality Act. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout says it is the pettiest of petty apartheid. The hon. member for Durban Point says the Immorality Act will stay. Here again we have two divergent standpoints. How can one ever put into power that party with such divergent standpoints about the matters I have mentioned here? Sir, someone asked me where I read of a “multi-racial parliament” or a “multi-racial federal assembly”—call it what you will.

Is it a Parliament or an Assembly?

I do not know; the hon. member must tell me. Sir, I want to quote what was said by the hon. member for Durban North.

What newspaper is that?

The Cape Times of 3 September 1973.

That Prog newspaper.

Oh, now it is a “Prog newspaper”.

I quote—

Mr. Mitchell’s unreserved commitment to the complete sharing of power by all races, in terms of our policy, follows the defection of Mr. Marais Steyn to the National Party this weekend.

The report continues—

Sir, “fully sovereign”—what does that mean other than a sovereign parliament? “Multi-racial sovereign parliament”? But he says nothing here, as was the case last year, about their first asking the White electorate to vote on that. They now keep silent about that. [Interjections.] It is very important for us to know, because they change their standpoint every now and then. What I am asking is how one can put a party into power which disagrees within its own ranks about as important a matter as the Schlebusch Commission? Here the hon. the Leader of the Opposition gets an urgent request from the United Party members in Caledon to the effect that he should please dissociate the United Party from the Schlebusch Commission, while some of their own members have seats on that commission. How can one give South Africa a government which is so inwardly divided on cardinal matters such as these? Then there is the hon. Leader in Natal, Mr. Cadman. Sir, we speak of “sharing of power”. Mr. Mitchell speaks of a “multiracial sovereign parliament”. What did the hon. leader of Natal say last year according to Hansard (col. 8566 of 8 July 1973)? The White parliament is at issue here. Mr. Mitchell speaks of a “sovereign multiracial parliament”. The Natal leader says the following—

Sir, he says the ultimate power rests with this Parliament. That is what the Natal leader says. He says that if one stands for a regulatory parliament such as this one, “as we do”, then the ultimate power rests there, while at the national level there is no real sharing of power. He says that as far as he can judge the matter, that is the only way in which one can approach the problems of South Africa; there is no other way. The one person speaks of a “sovereign multi-racial federal parliament”; the other speaks of this White parliament which will continue to exist. Sir, how can one, in South Africa, tell the electorate: There is a party and you must put that party in power to rule?

I spoke last year about the question of the federation. By your leave I should again like to speak about that because I believe one should learn one’s lessons from history. History teaches us that one has only one of two kinds of federation in the annals of world history. The one kind where one joins two peoples together in a federal bond and they eventually become one nation, like America, Australia and Canada. Then one has the second kind, and here in South Africa there have been four experiments attempting to bring about that type of federation.

History has taught us not to vote Nat again.

That is the kind of federation in which one desires to create a political home for various national groups, and in all four of the cases in Africa it was the idea of the White minority which were the wealthier groups in those countries; they created that federation. People who were present at the birth burial of that kind of federation, tell us that it could not succeed because in these four cases—the circumstances which applied there apply here too, because here we also have a White minority which forms the wealthy group—a plan existed whereby a minority group, which happened to be the highly developed White group, wished to give permanence to White leadership by means of this type of federation. It is said that this kind of thing, in this type of federation, simply cannot succeed. There was also a second reason. The people who wanted to and did create this federation in Africa—we think, in particular, of the Central African Federation—saw the failure of their creation because the Black leaders there said—

The United Party frequently has quite a mouthful to say about the status of the non-Whites. They speak about full citizenship which they want to give the non-Whites, but now they want to create a federation, and in that federation they want to give the non-Whites a position of permanent subordination. What is the third reason advanced for the failure of these federations in Africa? It lies in the statement made to the effect that—

Now, by means of its federation policy, the United Party wants to give each of the minority groups a say on an inferior basis. I should like to mention the names of the people I have quoted. They are people who have had experience of and helped build a federation which subsequently failed. Let me mention the name of Sir Robert Tredgold who was chief justice of the Central African Federation. There is also M. D’Arboussier, an Attorney-General, Dr. Kiano and a Mr. Currie. These four persons are experts in this field, people who were involved in the birth and burial of a federation in Central Africa. That federation is identical to the type of federation the United Party wants to establish in South Africa.

We on this side say—it was said yesterday, it was said this afternoon and it will be said again tomorrow and the day after—that there is one solution in this country, i.e. the solution which the National Party offers and that is that one should implement the policy of separate development, the policy of individual sovereignty and the policy of the maintenance of identity. No wonder homeland leaders support us. We can mention numerous names; let us give a few. Mr. Kaizer Matanzima said in September 1973—

Mr. Lennox Sebe said in September last year—

In October last year Mr. Lesolang, member of the Legislative Assembly of Bophuthatswana,made the following important statement (translation)—

What did Chief Mangope say? He was reported as follows in Die Burger (translation)—

Where does one want a better testimonial than from these people who see this policy as the solution to South Africa’s problem? The hon. members opposite are so deaf they will not hear and so blind they will not see. They do not want to learn and they kick against the thorns. We want to tell them that if they wanted to help in the maintenance of order and security in South Africa, and with the development of the multinational idea in South Africa, they would also make a contribution to the history of our country.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, has put various questions to us. There is one thing which has become very clear to me—not only from the questions he has put—namely that the political party which will govern South Africa in the future will be the one whose political philosophy contains hope for the future. The federal policy of the United Party is just such a policy. It is based on a philosophy which contains hope for the future. I shall reply to many of the questions put by the hon. member.

†I listened attentively and let me say patiently to the attempted effort of the hon. the Prime Minister to reply to the charges of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Nothing that he said, or what any other hon. member opposite said in this debate, has convinced me that the National Party still has a political philosophy for South Africa. Let us consider one thing. Here we have the hon. the Prime Minister announcing his new vision. It is the old trick of the National Party. When it comes to the end of the road with its policy, it always change the name. The Prime Minister tried to announce a new vision, and what is that new vision? A vision of a powerful bloc of nations in Southern Africa linked together. But what is the prerequisite for the creation of such a powerful bloc? The prerequisite for such a creation is the successful implementation of the Government’s policy of establishing independent yet economically unviable mini-states in South Africa. Let me remind this hon. house that the hon. the Prime Minister actually said that once independence has been granted—I want to underline that—then this bloc can be created. But what is the reality of the South African situation today? There can be no doubt in anyone’s mind that in spite of the 26 years of National Party rule and in spite of its trying to implement its political philosophy in practice, South Africa today is no nearer to the creation of those sovereign independent States than before.

One only has to look at the province I am from, the province of Natal. One only has to look at the so-called “final” consolidation plans announced for KwaZulu last year to realize that the hopes of the Prime Minister, the hopes of eventually having a powerful bloc in South Africa, are doomed to failure; because the hard facts of the situation are that in spite of millions of rand being spent by the Government on the removal of thousands of people in KwaZulu, that country will still be a country which its own leader describes as a “country of nowhere”. The policy of the National Party does not even make sense on paper. KwaZulu, which represents the penultimate step before the creation of the “powerful bloc” in South Africa, will not consist of a consolidated area, but often fragments scattered from the boundary of Mozambique in the north to the boundary of the Cape Province in the south, from the Indian Ocean in the east to the foothills of the Drakensberg in the west. It is against this background, this reality of National Party policy, that one must look at the federal policy of the United Party and evaluate it.

Our philosophy envisages evolutionary, constitutional change in South Africa. Through this we will provide South Africa with a constitution based on realities as they exist, not based on wishful thinking, pipe dreams or airy-fairy hypotheses, but on the realities of the South African situation. This political philosophy of the United Party will give to all the people of South Africa a sense of belonging to South Africa. They will feel that they are part of South Africa, because the philosophy of the United Party will make it possible for them to share a common destiny. When you have reached that situation where people know that they share a common destiny, you can start to look forward to the future with confidence. This will ensure that, whatever progress is made by anyone in the country, that progress and prosperity will be shared by all. Above all, I wish to emphasize what my leader said yesterday, namely that he is concerned about the security of South Africa, and that it is only when you have reached a situation where people share a common destiny that, in fact, you can rely on them to assist you when South Africa is in danger. Then all the people in South Africa will spontaneously rise to defend what is legitimately theirs. I would like to say that it is true that this political philosophy of constitutional change in South Africa is born out of the conviction that the time is long overdue in South Africa that we must have a sharing of power, and that the time is long overdue in South Africa that there must be a sharing of responsibility. You cannot have the one without the other. The Government is making a cardinal mistake by trying to exclude people from a say in decision making …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Mr. Speaker, no.

Sir …

Order! The hon. member is not prepared to reply to a question.

The cardinal mistake of the National Party is that they think that by excluding people from a share in decision making, they in fact are safeguarding our future. No, Sir, when you exclude people from a share in decision making, you also say to them “You have no responsibilities in carrying that out”. This is why I find it so shocking for the hon. the Prime Minister to have said yesterday that there is no need for the Coloureds or Indians to share in our sovereignty. No, Sir, it is of cardinal importance that they must; because once they have had a share in decision making, the onus is on them as well to see that those decisions are in the best interests of South Africa and can be put into practice. Much has been said about Bantu Affairs. One of the hon. Deputy Ministers said that a Zulu wants to be a Zulu, a Tembo wants to be a Tembo, and so forth, but I am convinced that if that hon. Deputy Minister only understood the elementary facts of federation he would see that the identities of people are not endangered in a federation. We know that there are different groups in a federation of peoples. We know the South African situation where we have a heterogeneous population. People of different race groups, different language groups and different communities can all form part of a federation in which the maintenance of the identities of the various federal elements can be guaranteed. Where every group and every community will have the responsibility of exercising control over those matters of intimate concern to them and to them alone, just think of the change this will bring about in South Africa. I am saying that we are trying to offer our people hope. At the present moment everything is dictated from a central point as is the case under a unitary system. Should our policy be implemented those days will be gone. The days will be gone of people deciding on plans in the traditional darkrooms of Pretoria, without giving the people whose daily lives will be affected the opportunity to be consulted or to share in the making of decisions. I can once again refer to the National Party’s attempt to put into practice its philosophy of separate development through the consolidation plans for KwaZulu. I want to use this as an example of what can only be regarded as the cruelty, the brutality and the complete harshness of the unitary system of government when applied in a country with a heterogeneous society.

What is the position in Natal? It is an identifiable community even as far as the White people are concerned. In Natal you have the situation where it is a known fact that the majority of people, be they White, Coloured, Indian or Zulu, are opposed to the policy of this Government, the policy of the creation of mini-states in South Africa. Hon. members know the history of what happened when such a cardinal plan was put forward without consulting the non-Whites. We all know that it was done against the wishes of the majority of people in that province. [Interjections.] I am illustrating the dangers of a unitary system to hon. members. This is why you find conflict and this is why people of different groups fear each other. In a unitary system there is no protection for all the people, while a federation is the only way in which one can safeguard one’s future. In a federal system a situation of conflict can never arise because nobody will be left out and everybody will have a share in the making of decisions. In a federation of peoples, and this has been pointed out in this hon. House time and again, you will have an elected legislative assembly or a community government which will have full power over the matters concerning the group concerned. Such a legislative assembly will have representation in a federal assembly where matters of mutual concern will be decided upon. There will be permanent links from the legislative assemblies to the sovereign Parliament. In other words, nobody is going to be left out and everyone will have the responsibility to ensure that the decisions which are finally arrived at are in the best interests of all concerned.

*I am going to say that there comes a time in the history of every people when one has to say farewell to one and enter the new future with courage and daring. South Africa has reached such a stage, because the political philosophy of the National Party has led us into a blind alley. The unitary constitution is eminently suitable in a homogeneous country, but in our country with its diversity, a country with a heterogeneous population, a country in which we have our different population groups and communities, each with its own traditions and identity, it is the duty of every person who says that he wants to be a leader in the country, seriously to consider federalism as a solution for South Africa. They must not simply reject it or, as the hon. member tried to do, compare it with the geographical federations which existed in Africa and which failed because no real attempts were made to penetrate to the heart of the problem.

No, Sir, we know South Africa is a country which has been built up economically as a result of the concerted efforts of both Whites and non-Whites. This is a process which has brought South Africa to where she stands today; a process of economic integration which has created the situation that South Africa as a country has become strong. This process started in the Cape with the earliest settlement. It is a process which our forefathers, the Voortrekkers, took with them through the whole of South Africa. As a result of this process the position has been reached where the wealth of South Africa—its mines, its industries—do not belong to this or that group alone, because we know that everyone in South Africa, irrespective of their colour, has had a share in the development and establishment of South Africa. In a country such as this we have to accept that the country cannot be divided up. The present Government is living in a fool’s paradise; I see time and again that they think that the solution of their problem in South Africa is a simple one. They think it is only a geographical problem they have to solve. They think that all they have to do, is bring about a division of South Africa.

Let me tell the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs who spoke earlier today, that a “sharing of power” is not a “verdeling” (division) of power, but is, in fact, a “deling” (sharing) of power. It is not a “division”. By the way, when mention is made of “a declaration of faith”, it is not a “treaty” (“traktaat”), but a “declaration” is a “verklaring”. We should really get our political terms straight in this hon. House.

The geographical solution which the Government offers—they do not have a constitutional solution—means only one thing: That the Bantu must be enticed to the homelands or mini-states. It is often said that one should be politically honest, but is the National Party honest with the Bantu in South Africa? Are they honest? What are they trying to achieve? Are they trying to entice them to a state where we know they will be economically doomed to poverty, in “a country of nowhere”? We have seen what they are able to do. The best of their attempts we find in Natal where there are ten different fragments. Are they honest? Is this not an attempt to get them to the point where they will renounce their rightful share in the prosperity of South Africa?