Mr. Speaker, there are only six minutes left to me, and I shall therefore have to make haste. Yesterday I said that the total number of Blacks in the White areas will increase to 23 million within 30 years’ time. These are the figures of the chairman of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council, Dr. Riekert. It is therefore an official figure. Already there are approximately 8 million Blacks in the White area today. The majority of them are workers and we know how indispensable they are for our economy. They are indispensable for our coal-mines. When one considers the disruption caused in all the countries of the world by the minor reduction in the supply of oil, one realizes the disruption which will be caused if we are unable to mine our coal. No coal means no electricity. When thinking in terms of our gold-mines, we have to realize that we are going to lose more than R2 000 million in foreign exchange if that gold is not mined. We have to think of our Railways, with more than 100 000 Black workers. We have to think of our factories; we have to think of our Police on the border and our army. If the Blacks do not work, South Africa comes to a standstill. Therefore, when the hon. the Prime Minister says that he is not prepared to make any portion of the sovereignty of his people subordinate to any other nation, when he says—as he said at the Cango Caves recently—that he will not enter into any dispensation where someone other than the Whites themselves determine their future in South Africa, he reminds me of King Canute, who told the waves and the sea, “Go back”. These words sound forcible but they are quite devoid of meaning. We are already under such a dispensation. It is only the Nationalist Party politicians who do not want to admit that fact. For 26 years the Nationalist Party tried its best to keep us out of that dispensation. They could not succeed. In November last year we heard from the hon. the Prime Minister, and yesterday it was confirmed by the hon. the Minister of Labour, that a further capitulation with regard to Black labour had commenced. “Dawie” says that this economic dispensation presupposes uninterrupted, tolerable White/ Black relations at all levels. Those relations can only be reached if the Blacks receive fair and just treatment at all levels. This includes the political level. If not, the country would come to a standstill. It is not only we who determine our future. If there is anyone in this House who does not believe me, he should take a look at modern-day Britain. Is there anyone who can say that those quarter of a million coal-miners are not helping to determine the future of Britain? They do not have a single representative in Parliament, but they are determining the future of that country. Already they have almost brought Britain to her knees, and they have forced her into an election. Consequently they could bring about a change of government. Their actions could lead to quite a different government coming into power. In this way they could determine events for the next decade.

If that quarter of a million coal-miners can do this, just think of the millions of Black workers South Africa needs and will need in future. Under the Nationalist Party policy they will be supported by independent Black States and they, in turn, by the Afro-Asiatic States and the Communists.

I want to conclude by saying: Let us enter into a federation and let them share in the government of the country according to their contribution towards the country and the welfare of her people. This is the just way; this is the safe way; this is the moral way; and this is the way of the United Party.

Mr. Speaker, the most positive point made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, is the one which, so it turned out, he did not make, viz. that he said nothing at all about sport. I had not credited him with so much intelligence, but I now want to withdraw that and thank him for the fact that it is so. It is, in fact, in the interests of South Africa. As far as the rest of his speech is concerned, I want to use his own words: It was more or less “a little on the confused side”, and I hope he will forgive me when I say this.

If we look at the world situation around us it can be described in one word, and that word is “uncertainty”. If we look at the hon. members of the Opposition on the other side and the United Party, they too can be described in one word, and that word is also “uncertainty”. In these circumstances of uncertainty in the world, people seek confidence, and in South Africa with its special position, its multi-racial setup and all the implications flowing from it, confidence is pre-eminently what its voters are seeking. If we look at the National Party Government and the National Party, the people of South Africa see that this Government has for 26 years been a tower of strength in the stormiest seas. [Interjections.] It is true! The Leader of the National Party Government, our Prime Minister, has in fact distinguished himself as pre-eminently a strong, a reliable and a fearless leader who inspires confidence. We can say with assurance and with certainty that what with South Africa’s fortunes at present there is no person or party in our political firmament in whose hands we would be as secure as we are in the hands of our present leader and of the National Party. South Africa can, thank goodness, consider herself fortunate that in these particular circumstances we have such a man and such a party.

If, on the other hand, we look at the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and at the United Party—and the nation is going to pass judgment on this; that is expected of it on 24 April—what do we see? We see in the Leader of the Opposition a man with undoubtedly fine qualities, qualities which one values, but we also see him as the leader of a political opposition party which, in all South Africa’s history, has been in opposition the longest. We see a man whose political career, with all the fine and praiseworthy qualities he possesses, is characterized by “always hesitant, seldom sure; a man trying to be all things to all people”. His own newspapers say this; his own people say it—a man behind whose back the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said only the other day at the meeting of the top 400 in Johannesburg, “If others in the United Party fail to take the initiative ’”, thus including the Leader of the United Party, “’ then Mr. Schwarz should do so, and do so by all means.” A leader who is unable to display initiative, is a security risk to South Africa. That, we know, is what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, in his heart of hearts, thinks of Sir De-Villiers Graaff. I know, the newspapers know and the people of South Africa will know before 24 April that there are members of Parliament sitting on that side of the House who also think so. More than one of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s own newspapers have written on more than one occasion: “Graaff must go”.

†Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that to me it is almost a tragedy to note how the Leader of the Opposition is gracefully tolerated by his own members in this House, of whom he believes—at least that is what he says; I do not know whether he really believes it—that they are all 100% behind him. There are members there who just cannot hide the fact that they are unhappy, unsure, insecure and in an awkward position in the United Party under the leadership of Sir De Villiers Graaff.

How you would like him to go!

Why is this so? It is because of the hesitancy shown by their hon. leader. Where this will lead to we have yet to see in the immediate political future of South Africa. To me it is a tragedy to behold. One feels almost sick at the sight of it. One feels sorry for the leader; one feels sorry for his party, and one feels sorry for the country of South Africa.

To hear from the hon. the leader’s lips, against this background, that this Government is a security risk, leaves a tremendous credibility gap which is even wider in the light of the story put out by him as against the story of Mr. Harry Schwarz concerning the Mahlabatini treaty. Hesitation in a leader is killing. It is killing for himself, but also killing for his party. Hesitation on the part of a leader is a source of enjoyment to his opponents. It can be said “make a decision, even if you are wrong, but do not hesitate”.

Who is talking?

Napoleon said that he succeeded in everything he endeavoured to do because he willed it. He added: “I never hesitated, and that gave me an advantage over the rest of mankind”.

But he met his Waterloo.

And here we have a Leader of the Opposition, whose political hallmark is hesitation all along the line. And, Sir, if that is not so, I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a very, very simple question. I have three departments: Mines, Immigration and Sport and Recreation. It is important to me to have a simple reply to a simple question and that is this: “Will the hon. Leader tell me and this House and the country whether he would transfer the portfolio of Mines to the federal assembly in terms of his policy? Would he transfer Mines?” I want to know. There you are, Sir—hesitation!

*I have here a list of the 43 departments of the Government of this country.

May I ask a question?

I am sorry my time is limited and I therefore cannot answer questions now. I have here a list of the 43 departments of the Republic, three of which are being administered by me. I am asking the hon. member this simple question. Mines is an innocuous department, as are Immigration and Sport and Recreation. Thus far it has only been with the greatest difficulty that we have been able to get out of him that Tourism, Public Works and Water Affairs would be transferred to this federal council of the United Party. I want to ask him a direct question: What is the position in regard to Mines? All he need do is to sit down and take this list of 43 and tick off which departments he wants to transfer to the federal council and which ones he does not. But you see there, Sir, a leader who hesitates when one asks him a simple question. That is why I can in point of fact say: The United Party is trying to play the fool with the voters of South Africa on this issue. They are asking the voters to vote for a half-baked thing. In the words of the hon. member for Pinelands, it is “more or less” a mess the United Party finds itself in. Here we have a leader who hesitates, who is unable to inspire any confidence, a party that does not even have a policy which it can explain to the voters when it asks them to vote for it. As against this, let us look at the National Party Government. What is the position? Let us examine it fairly and objectively.

In regard to the relations policy, we see that the policy of the National Party Government has been in operation for the past 26 years. This policy is being evolved logically, it is being adapted and polished, and in the world arena more and more thinkers are starting to turn their heads and wonder whether we do not, after all, have the right idea in South Africa. Time will show that this is so and that they are correct. In looking at the party solidarity on our side, we see that over the past 26 years the National Party has been subject to a continuous process of rejuvenation …

Where is Mr. Gerdener?

’ has been subject to a continuous process of rejuvenation, and we see that attempts by other parties and by new schools of thought—including Mr. Gerdener’s—come and go. Why? They smash themselves against a brick wall, because the members of the National Party believe in a basic philosophy of the party and because it has a sound foundation. That is why it can rejuvenate itself all the time, why it can continue to renew and adapt itself and to control the circumstances in which it is placed and thus also the circumstances of South Africa in the world context. Where could we find a finer example of this than sport and recreation, where the logical evolution of our policy is a visible proof of this, and so it is in other spheres as well. In looking at a good government, at the solidarity of this Government, then we see our monetary and economic stability, and how, in the face of what have often been difficult circumstances, we have, in the interests of our country, continually had stability and growth. Sir, let no one overlook the fact that this Government has preserved a system of free enterprize in our economy, while other countries have followed other trends. South Africa today, under the 26-year-old National Party Government, is a star in the firmament of nations when it comes to the upholding of the system of free enterprise. [Laughter.] The hon. member opposite is laughing, but under this system his right to enjoy free enterprise here in South Africa has also been protected, and that goes for his children too. His laughter is scornful because he is being hurt. Just go and ask experts such as Prof. Hobart-Houghton and others and hear what they say about this important achievement by the Government in the past 26 years. It has upheld the system of free enterprise here, and the Government should be given the credit for that. Sir, does this look like a Government which is a security risk to the people of South Africa? If we look at the labour position in a country such as South Africa with its multiracial set-up, then we find that we have industrial peace here. Just have a look at what is happening in other countries of the world. After all, the people of South Africa are not blind. If we compare our labour position with that of England, then we see that the National Party Government is not a security risk, because we have industrial peace in South Africa. I shall mention a fifth point to you, Sir: If we consider the public service of South Africa, then we see that it is a good public service, sound to the core and loyal towards the Republic of South Africa, and I want to pay tribute to our public servants on this occasion. Does the Opposition want to suggest that our public service is a security risk to South Africa? If they suggest that, then the public servants will take note of it. Sir, instead of being a security risk, our public service is sound, and we are right and have reason to praise them for that.

Who is arguing?

But if we consider what is perhaps most important of all, namely our technological progress and the overseas acknowledgement of our technological progress under National Party rule, then we see that this Government has not been a security risk; we see the exact opposite; we see that this Government has most capably shown foresight and has done a wonderful job of looking after the interests of the people of South Africa. In this regard I want to mention a few examples.

†There was a time, only yesterday, when the price of gold was very low and its future looked all but bright at that time. This Government put its faith in gold and in South Africa and in its peoples, in its assets and in the expertize of our people. This Government therefore, when gold was at its lowest ebb in 1964, introduced an assistance scheme for marginal mines which could not continue at the then ruling price of gold. Sir, this was a tremendous act of faith on the part of this Government and an act of foresight. Since its introduction in 1964, R74 million has been ploughed by this Government into the assistance scheme for marginal mines. Sir, what was the result? Up to 31 December 1973 the income on these marginal mines alone, thanks to the capital outlay on the part of this Government, because of the faith which it had in gold when it was at its lowest price, was well over R1 000 million. Sir, is that a Government which is a security risk? No, it is a Government with foresight; it is a Government acting in the interest of its people. Do you know, Sir, how many people have been employed in these mines as the result of this act of faith on the part of this Government? Today in the marginal mines only over 10 000 White and over 120 000 non-Whites are employed. That is not a Government that is a security risk; it is a good Government, and this is a very fine example of such good government.

You have got a good job.

If we look at uranium and uranium enrichment, what do we see?

†We see that the current world price of uranium concentrate, U3O8, is now about R9-40 per kg, or 6 dollars per lb., so that the value of the South African uranium reserves of plus-minus 300 000 tons is R2 600 million. Now, if only a half of these reserves be enriched to 3%—and I am giving you the most conservative figure, and it is really a miracle that a small country like ours could have discovered this most outstanding process of uranium enrichment—then we see that at a 3% enrichment the value of the turnover of uranium to UF 6 will add another R2 600 million, so that the value of our uranium today at the lowest figure is well over R5 100 million. Add to that our gold, our platinum, our diamonds and many other minerals, and then you will understand that this is not a Government which is a security risk. Then you will know that it is a Government with foresight, with strong leadership, a Government looking after its people.

*Sir, if we look at Sasol, we find that Sasol was established by this Government, and that the Opposition launched a fierce campaign against it, just as they did not want Iscor to be established. Why? Because they hesitated. Today Sasol is there and provides our sons and daughters, and this includes some of their sons and daughters, with good employment opportunities, and it is the leading institute in the world with regard to the gasification process of petroleum from coal. Here in my hand I have Die Vaderland of 31 October 1973 (translation)—

This is what Dr. Teller, one of the greatest scientists in the world, came and said here. Is that a Government which is a security risk? No, it is a strong Government which sees to the future of its people with foresight. I mention to you the Saldanha-Sishen project, Sir, with a railway line of 680 km. A city will rise at Saldanha which will probably be bigger than Cape Town and which will provide employment opportunities for thousands and hundreds of thousands of Whites and non-Whites in years to come. This has been brought about by this National Party Government at very great cost. These are difficult decisions which have had to be taken by this National Party Government, but because the National Party Government is not a security risk to its people, but a tower of strength and a base to which its people can return, because this Government sees to the future of its people, White and non-White, the Saldanha-Sishen scheme has today become a reality. Sir, today you can see that the Verwoerd Dam is overflowing, as a sign of blessings from above and of the prosperity of the Republic of South Africa. The water is flowing over the walls there. The Verwoerd Dam was built by this Government. Once that scheme has been completed, three cities the size of Johannesburg will rise in the shadow of the Verwoerd Dam. Is that a Government which is a security risk? I go on to refer to Richards Bay. Americans who have paid a visit there, say that Richards Bay is a miracle, judging by modern standards. Those who doubt this should go and see how, virtually overnight, Richards Bay is rising up and towering over the plains. In the years to come, thousands and hundreds of thousands of Whites and non-Whites and their children will be given employment opportunities in Richards Bay, which will become a city bigger than Durban. Does that look like a Government which is a security risk to its people? Take the Tugela basin. The other day a commission instituted an investigation into the Tugela basin and its possibilities and found that the Tugela basin has a potential four times greater than that of the Orange River Scheme. Now, if you take another look at the Orange River Scheme which was established by this Government and where three cities the size of Johannesburg are going to rise, and if you consider that a commission appointed by this Government has found, on scientific grounds, that the Tugela basin offers opportunities four times as great, then you know, Sir, that when people say that this Government is a security risk to this country, they are talking through their necks and they do not know what they are talking about!

I shall mention a seventh—the Development Bank, in which R500 million has been provided by this Government to promote the development of the Bantu homelands, in which our children can also participate by helping the Bantu homelands, along with the Bantu Governments, so that they may develop properly. What a wonderful challenge this is to the children of the United Party supporters, and also to mine and everybody’s! Last year this Government established the Development Bank, at very great cost. This Government showed foresight, which is so important for the future of our children. That is why I say that this Government is not a security risk.

Let us look at the position concerning, our minerals, and the Government’s attitude over the last 26 years of its régime in that regard. What do we see? Under United Party régime, sales of the Republic’s minerals came to a meagre R251,4 million. Do you know what this figure was last year, Sir? R1 942,3 million. I do not have the time to go into this now and to indicate with what foresight, resoluteness and firmness the Government has handled this matter. Let me just say that I am the responsible Minister of Mines. Mining is in fact where my greatest interest and my greatest love lie, because I know that the future of our children is intimately bound up with the way in which the raw materials of South Africa are exploited. This Government ensures that this is done in a fitting manner in the interests of all our people.

Let us look at the position concerning our defence. Defence has been the biggest item on our budget every year. As the hon. the Minister of Defence said yesterday, we can in point of fact say today that our defence is secure, thanks to the National Party Government. In this regard our position is a secure one for any contingency. That is why it is not correct to allege that this Government is a security risk.

The hon. member for Von Brandis yesterday asked a very important question in connection with coal. I do not have the time to go into that in detail now. I should very much have liked to have done so, but I can only say this to the hon. member: As he knows, export control in respect of coal was introduced in December 1973. We are watching the position. I want to give hon. members the categorical assurance that I shall come back to this and deal with it in detail, in later debates. Under the present circumstances, special attention is being paid to the mineral resources of South Africa. As far as this, too, is concerned, we should like to leave a good inheritance to our children.

Sir, if we look at advanced planning, we see that the Government had been giving this matter its attention a long time before the energy crisis arose. I have here a book, entitled “Energy in South Africa—a Forecast”, which was compiled by the Department of Planning. It was compiled as far back as towards the end of 1972, before the hon. the Leader of the Opposition expressed the view that this Government is a security risk. Let him go and read this book. If he does so, he will not talk that way.

Lastly I should very much like to refer to the religious basis of approach and the striving after moral standards which we have under National Party rule and have had during the past 26 years. The youth of South Africa realizes that this Government has fought permissiveness and drugs in South Africa. This Government has tried to offer to our youth a basically sound future, with the result that South Africa can rightly be proud of its youth today—probably more so than any other country in the world. That is why the youth of South Africa are saying, as in fact they will be saying in this election too, “The youth will be the decisive factor; come and vote Nationalist!” They also say, “Not federal, not liberal; we vote Nationalist.” After 26 years we have left a place in South Africa for our children of which they can be proud. The children of the Opposition, too, can be proud of it. This Government and the National Party vibrate with life. It is a dynamic party. We want to govern and we will govern, because the future of our children can safely be left in the hands of the National Party Government.

I conclude by saying: On 24 April it will be a case of: “It’s a Nat voting, it’s a Nat winning, that is all.”

Mr. Speaker, I must say it is always very entertaining to listen to the hon. the Minister, because he usually states his case with great enthusiasm. Where his arguments are concerned, the same good sense is found to be lacking in them. The hon. gentleman says that in the past few years the Nationalist Party has consistently been experiencing a “rejuvenation”. But I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can recall the last election in 1970 and the provincial election when his own newspapermen reported that in surveying the Nationalist Party one sees it looking so much like a men’s old-age home. The old men on that side of the House have not changed yet. The hon. gentleman also speaks of how beautifully and how logically everything has unfurled under this Government, but who was responsible for the fact that today we have a sports policy in this country which that hon. gentleman has to apply and carry out? Is it still the same as that which was set out in the very notorious Loskop Dam speech of 1965?

Last year this hon. gentleman had to go to South-West Africa to his party’s congress. There they cross-examined him about his sports policy. One question after another was put to him by his own people. All the hon. gentleman could say was: “Leave it to us; our sports policy will unfurl beautifully as time goes on.” That is the sports policy which did not allow any multi-racialism seven or eight years ago. “We shall not allow any Maori to come and play rugby in South Africa,” were their words. How has this not changed, and then he speaks about how this Government is pointing the way in South Africa. The Minister also went further and said the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s newspapers are attacking him and telling him to go. But what does this hon. Minister do? He is only an echoer of the Sunday Times and certain other newspapers in this country. I want to remind the hon. the Minister of a report which appeared in the Evening Post on 27 February last year under the heading “Attack on Graaff bad for Press”. In this article it is stated, inter alia—

Now the hon. the Minister comes along and he echoes them. However, that is what journalists themselves said about that attack on the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

The hon. the Minister put certain questions to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He asked what we were going to do with certain departments under our federal system. But why does the hon. the Minister put such questions to us? He and his side of the House are prepared to hand over all 41 departments that exist to the various Black states in South Africa. Why would it now be so strange for some of those departments to be in the hands of the federal body? The hon. the Minister also boasts that they have permitted free initiative in South Africa. That is strange because they are, after all, the people who wanted to nationalize the mines in South Africa prior to 1948. But now he comes along and boasts that they have permitted free initiative. Now he boasts of all the wonderful contributions which the mines have made in recent years. He boasts of the fact that they were responsible for Sasol. But does the hon. the Minister not know that the Bill for the manufacture of oil, gas and petroleum from coal was passed and placed on the Statute Book by a Minister on this side even before the Nationalist Party came into power in 1948? He can boast of the fact that the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam is beautifully full of water.

That hon. member was not in this House when a previous Minister of Water Affairs, Mr. P. K. le Roux, time and again, when we had motions before this House for the Orange River to be dammed up, ridiculed that scheme of ours by saying: “That is the old Conroy scheme, and it would be too expensive to implement in South Africa.” And now that hon. member has the temerity to boast of the fact that they are responsible for the construction of the Verwoerd Dam and for what follows on from that. But he goes even further and states that they have just carried out an investigation and found that the potential of the Tugela Basin is four times greater. Oh, Sir, surely that hon. Minister has not been in politics that short a time. In 1951-’52 a certain professor, who was in South Africa at the time, said exactly the same thing. If the Government now wants to develop the Tugela Basin, we would be able to accommodate four or five times as many people in that area and supply them with work for factories and new developments. And now, 23 years later, that hon. Minister makes a discovery that the Government can still do all these things.

The trouble with that hon. Minister and his colleagues is that South Africa developed in spite of that wrong approach. How far could South Africa not have been already! He boasts of the technological development in this country. Can he remember how the Leader of the Opposition told them year after year that we are going to have a shortage of managers, technologists, technicians and scientists and that we must have a crash programme to train these people in South Africa? Am I consequently not entitled to say: How far would South Africa not already have been if we had not had that short-sighted Government in power, a Government which has obstructed our development!

Was it not that hon. Minister and the Government who were responsible, for example, for our placing the Physical Planning in South Africa Act on the Statute Book? Are they not the ones who did not want us to make increasing use of the Black labour which we have at our disposal in South Africa? Now that we have to open the sluices and have a greater amount of development—because the only way of solving our inflationary problems, surely, is by growing—that hon. Minister wants to boast that they are developing the potential of South Africa. No, Sir, the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation is—I want to reiterate—tremendously enthusiastic. But the Minister’s philosophy of making South Africa really great has for too long been shrouded in that rancour and foggishness in which it was shrouded when he was Secretary of the Broederbond in South Africa. If he had not had that narrow outlook, one could have made something of that hon. gentleman.

He went to Oxford.

Yes, I find that strange; the fact that he went to Oxford should have made a bigger difference to the hon. the Minister. But unfortunately he had been with that organization for too long.

We have now had this debate and the Government has come along with all the lightning conductors they could muster to keep the people away from the actual problems South Africa is faced with. They have tried to exploit the local events in the United Party in recent times, and they have tried to say that for that reason the people of South Africa cannot have confidence in us. We on this side of the House not only have a big obligation to ourselves as a party; our obligation and responsibility to the general electorate is even greater. For that reason it will be of no use to them to make the United Party suspect; it will do them no good to say that the Opposition in South Africa is weak, because in 1970 and in the subsequent by-elections, the electorate has already shown from time to time that it wants to strengthen the Opposition of South Africa. The electorate wants a party that can be the alternative Government of South Africa. As the people helped the United Party at that time, likewise will the people help us in this election because in the past 25 years, and particularly in the past four years, we have carried out our responsibility dutifully and because we did so in the best interests of South Africa.

Things have been too easy for this Government for too long. It has made them unnecessarily fat, and that side is resting on some doubtful laurels. Therefore, to present events within our party as lightning conductors for the Government’s own inefficiency and incompetence, is a disservice to South Africa and we shall not allow the Government to play hide and seek in this place of concealment. The hon. members on the other side of the House are gathering every effort to find an emotional question for the election, and it is obvious they want to use power sharing association as the slogan to try to put a scare into the people of South Africa again, to try to make them afraid or make them take to their heels, thereby diverting the peoples’ attention from the real problems of this country. What has happened in this debate? Hon. members on the other side of the House have been told by this side of the House that the cost of living in the country has increased tremendously. I quoted this before, but I want to reiterate that as long ago as 1967 Die Vaderland stated that “one is now getting it in the neck”, and that was said as a result of the tremendous increase in the cost of living.

If now, seven years later, one looks at the increase in the cost of living, I wonder what one should ask oneself and what the comment of a newspaper like Die Vaderland must be. Recently there was an investigation and it was found that the prices of approximately 1 200 items in certain supermarkets had increased tremendously. Recently there was again an increase in the price of petrol and oil. The price of every item, of house construction, of the requirements of the housewife, the farmer, the industrialists, the businessman and the consumer, is getting out of hand. The hon. the Minister of Transport was, at a certain stage, a member of a certain Cabinet committee. That committee was concerned about the question of price rises. What did that hon. Minister do? He walked out of that committee? Why did he do so?

He apparently did so, according to the newspapers of his own side, because there was a clash between the hon. the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Economic Affairs, Mr. Lourens Muller, because the hon. the Minister of Transport is no longer in a position to put his case and convince the Government that they have to do something to keep the cost of living in South Africa stable; so much so that the hon. gentleman resigned from the committee; so much so that last year this Government had to place front page advertisements in the majority of their newspapers to indicate that the cost of living in South Africa was not all that high and that South Africans are better off than the majority of people in other countries of the world. They pointed out that the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance were responsible for the fact that food subsidies in the past year had increased tremendously. That is true; they have increased, but today I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. He not only has an obligation to the farmers of South Africa, although he does have that obligation too. I see that there is now a greater future than ever for the farmer because there is a tremendous demand for his products, but can South Africa allow our cost of living, and particularly food prices, to increase as they are doing, unless that hon. Minister and the Minister of Finance are prepared to do something to keep the prices more stable? The increase in the cost of living is one of the foremost points raised in this debate. We want to know from that hon. Minister: What is he going to insist upon in consultation with the Minister of Finance? What are they going to do to keep food prices in South Africa stable? Is it necessary for us, from time to time, to have to bury large quantities of bananas in South Africa, as has in fact been the case? I want to remind the hon. the Minister of his own words. A year or two ago, when he was opening a show, he said South Africa should not be obsessed by surpluses. He was correct; I agree with him wholeheartedly. But what did the hon. gentleman do when these surpluses occurred? Now he says, “Yes, but we told the people: Come and fetch the bananas’ ”. They told the welfare organizations: “You may come and get them for nothing,” but no one was prepared to do so. That is not the answer. The majority of welfare organizations do not get their money from the State. It is true that some are subsidized, but the majority of them can only depend on their own funds. Was it impossible for the Government to distribute this item, for example, free of charge amongst those people? There were days when we still had a school-feeding scheme and cheese, milk and other products, of which there were a surplus, were given to our children, Whites and non-Whites. Was it impossible for him to substitute something similar in its place? The Government is neglecting its duty to the voters and the children, to the young people and the health of the South African people when they allow this type of incident. If there were a United Party Government today we would, for example, have helped the Banana Control Board, if necessary, if they did not have the necessary funds at their disposal either, to ensure that the surplus was distributed in those areas where the people needed them most. I want to reiterate that the hon. the Minister has a duty to the consumer of South Africa, because he needs the consumer as much as he does the farmer. If it is necessary to extend the food subsidies in South Africa, to make better provision for that, I want to tell him that we on this side of the House will not criticize the move. On the contrary, we shall be grateful to the hon. the Minister for doing that. This is the kind of step we would very much like to see carried out to keep our cost of living, the price of food, as stable as possible in South Africa. Whether we adopt a federal policy and whether we adopt the policy of that side of the House in respect of the non-Whites, if these people do not eat, as Anton Rupert said, we in South Africa will not sleep. We have an obligation to ensure that the provision of food, although not cheap—because it is impossible to make it dirt cheap—is such that those people will pay fair and reasonable prices. If we do that we shall at least have no dissatisfaction, we shall have no agitation and we shall have a situation where we could also improve race relations in South Africa. That is my warning to the hon. gentleman. Unless he and his Government do something in respect of the increasing cost of living, I want to tell him that the United Party will not hesitate to hold them responsible for that to the electorate on 24 April. If the Government does not do so, they are shirking their duty and responsibility to South Africa. It is no use their saying that South Africa is happier than any other country in the world. We must look to our own people and we must not hold up other countries as examples.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I think it is high time we got an effective Opposition. I do not want to attack the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. When a man is down, one does not trample on him. He is having a difficult time. I just want to read out to him this excerpt from the Financial Mail. [Interjections.] No, this is quite a new one. I quote—

[Interjections.] As the hon. member will realize, one big problem being experienced by us in South Africa is rises in the cost of living. The hon. member has been doing nothing but nag at us all the time about a small number of bananas, but there are so many other problems. In a moment I shall return to the question of the bananas.

The hon. member for Newton Park attacked the Minister of Sport and Recreation by saying that we had used as a smoke-screen a trifling situation concerning a so-called problem which did not exist in the United Party. He used the word “lightning-conductor”, but I think the word “smoke-screen” sounds better. But, Sir, now I just want to read out to you what is stated in The Sunday Tribune, and then I want the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to tell me whether or not there is a problem in the United Party—

It is quite correct as regards ovation.

I quote further—

What I am going to read out now is very important, and we can prove that he did say it. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition can tell me whether it is correct—

Sir, I shall be glad if some initiative is shown on that side. This no-confidence debate has now been in progress since Monday. The hon. member said that we were trying to throw up a smoke-screen, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to say, “I say the hon. member for Bezuidenhout did not say that.” Sir, surely there is a problem in their ranks. I do not want to exploit it. If the hon. member for Newton Park had not said those things a moment ago, I would not have used it either. I had thought that he would put practical problems to us. Sir, this very same Financial Mail went on to say—

It is not we who say this—

It is interesting that they give the Progressives one additional seat. Then they mention 15 borderline seats and go on to say—

Is that your prediction?

Sir, I am neither a fortune-teller, nor a predictor or a prophet, but I could have added three more seats. The hon. member for Newton Park said that he could not understand why we were throwing up a smoke-screen. Sir, our cardinal problem is this: We are looking for an effective Opposition which can come forward with facts and solutions with regard to this cost of living problem. Mr. Speaker, do you know what sort of party the party on that side is? It is a post mortem party. They come along telling one about 500 million bananas, as the hon. member for Port Natal did …

Five million.

The hon. member came to me later on and told me that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District had given him the information. It was not 500 million bananas; it was 5 million. Sir, our whole crop does not amount to 500 million. Hon. members on that side can only hold a post mortem. This hon. member cannot rise and say to me, “Here is a solution for this or that problem.” He only scratches at things which happened in the past. The hon. member asked why those bananas had not been distributed under a school-feeding scheme. Sir, this is the amount of bananas which the Witwaters-rand alone consumes in a week. Unfortunately these bananas had to be destroyed. I do not like that at all; I do not agree with it, and we are going to do our utmost to see that it never happens again. But what are the circumstances? There is a group of farmers who plant bananas and receive no state aid, not a brass farthing’s worth. They plant bananas in Louis Trichardt and Levubu, a few hundred kilometres from Johannesburg. The situation that has arisen is for each crate of bananas packed by those farmers they lose 50 cents from their own stabilization fund.

Why do they lose it?

Because the bananas have to be ripened in Wadeville or in Her-manstad, in exchanges for that purpose which they themselves established at a cost of a few million rand. We do not have sufficient facilities and our crop had doubled itself as compared to last year’s.

Which bananas do you ripen there?

The bananas which come from 80% of our production area, namely Letaba and the North-eastern Transvaal, close to the National Park. I think it is Kiepersol. 80% of our bananas come from there. We consume it; bananas are not exported. [Interjection.] A minimal amount is exported, which is not worth mentioning. But let us not make capital out of nonsense. I want to bring it home to you that we, at this moment, are destroying potatoes in this country.

Disgraceful!

And do you know how we are destroying them? You do not understand it. Last week and this week on Wednesday the Johannesburg and Pretoria markets sent word to the farmers that there was no space for unloading their potatoes. Pretoria itself sent word to me that we should not lift any more potatoes. The price fell. The price of first grade large potatoes was 40c per pocket, and now one still has to try to sell small and medium sized potatoes, and just the production costs of a pocket of potatoes amount to 30c. The bag costs 10c and the transport costs amount to 13c. What does the farmer do now? He allows the potatoes to rot in the ground. Now, is that such a sin? Do you want to force me to lift those potatoes?

You must market them.

At whose expense must I market them? If that man transports the bananas from Levubu to the consumer point, and they have to be ripened and he has to lose 50c on a crate, because he has no market as the market is glutted, at whose expense is he to transport those bananas? I want to know this from the hon. member. I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to tell me at whose expense we are to ripen those bananas? The hon. member for Newton Park said they would never object when we speak of subsidies. Are we to ripen a week’s supply of bananas at Government expense and transport and present it to a school-feeding scheme which operates for one week only and then goes out of existence? Is that practical? Can one do that? The hon. member for Port Natal said: “The day before Christmas potatoes were R1-60 a pocket, and the day after Christmas it was 80 cents a pocket.”

A couple of days after Christmas.

But do you know what happened? We had ample rains. We could get into the lands to lift potatoes, but all of a sudden it started raining.

Where? In Natal?

We had rains before Christmas. But if you cannot lift the potatoes, of course the price must go up. That is the only time the farmers make money.

*I should like the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to tell me. The hon. member for Port Natal said, “There are 22 control boards to control what? It is a waste of money”.

†He also spoke about beans and said that two years ago you bought a bag of beans for R6 in Durban, but today you have to pay R42 a bag. Do you realize those beans are imported? The locally produced beans were R6, but we had to import these beans at R42 a bag. Do you realize that?

*The hon. member will not stand up here; a member of the U.P. will not stand up in this House and say that he feels genuinely sorry for the man who has to produce bananas and then plough them into the ground and receives no State aid. They want to make political capital out of it at once. The South African farmer produced beans at R6 per bag, but unfortunately we then had a dry year and we had no bean crop, and then we had to import beans at R42 per bag. However, the hon. member will not say that it is a fine thing that our farmers produced beans at R6 a bag two years ago.

Can the hon. the Minister tell me where the beans were imported from?

We imported beans from African States. Cow-peas—that is the old Kaffir beans which we now call cow-peas—were imported from certain African States and from Malawi. We even imported soya-beans from America and the Argentine for the manufacture of margarine. The price we paid our farmers for soya-beans last year was R9 a bag. At the moment we are landing soya-beans here at more than R20 a bag.

*Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is an efficient dairy farmer. One of these days we shall have to take a look at the price of fresh milk. Now I want to ask him: Should we, in view of all these cost increases, raise the price of fresh milk?

Yes! [Interjections.]

Should we raise the price of fresh milk? Hon. members know that problems are being experienced in having the milk delivered. Should the Government subsidize the price of fresh milk? As it is the Minister of Finance is giving us R100 million’s worth of subsidies for wheat, maize and certain dairy products. Should we subsidize the price of fresh milk as well, yes or no? Sir, I come to the conclusion that the motto of those hon. members is wrong. We should say, “You want it, we have it.” To all these questions we have answers. To all these problems we have a solution. It is very easy for hon. members on the other side to stand up and say that we are forcing up the cost of living. Let us take an example in this regard. The Wheat Board’s selling price is R84 per ton of wheat. At the moment we are exporting wheat at R120 per ton. We were blessed with a wheat crop of 19½ million bags, and we are in a position to export a little. Our consumption rose to 16½ million bags. We are therefore self-sufficient, but what did we do? We raised the price of wheat by 11%. However, this did not cost the consumer of bread one cent. Cake flour, which is not controlled, increased by 24% in price. Bread flour is controlled, it is pegged down, but it was possible for the price to increase by 11%. Let us just consider the price which we can get for our grain on the overseas markets today. There the price is R120 per ton. I take my hat off to the South African farmer who says, “Domestically you need 16½ million bags of wheat. We are satisfied with that price.” What is the reaction of the Opposition whenever we raise a price? Last year when we adjusted the price of maize, far below the world price, the leader of the Cape, the hon. member for Newton Park, had this to say, according to a report in the Natal Mercury—

Then the hon. member was shocked. Now, in this election campaign, the hon. member is going to hold meetings in the rural areas, and then he will not say this to the farmer: “I take my hat off to you because you produced maize for our needs at a price lower than the world price.” We have a crop failure, and we have consumed 60 million bags in this country. Our own farmers are getting R4-50 per bag, while they could have exported the maize at close upon R6 per bag. But what was the attitude of our farmers in the years when our price was higher than the world price? At that time the Government was supporting the farmers, and they did not complain then. That is why they are satisfied today with these prices.

Sir, concerning these matters, my mind is quite at ease, but now I come to the question of general cost of living increases. This is an aspect which I should very much like to emphasize. A survey, entitled “Guide to living costs around the world”, was made by the Financial Times. They took all the major cities in the world and examined the cost of living increases there.

†They took a shopping-basket of food and used this in their survey to compare food prices. The contents of the shopping-basket were the following: 1 kg best steak; 2 kg chicken; 12 large fresh eggs; 2 kg potatoes; 1 kg rice; 1 kg butter; 1 litre best quality cooking oil; 1 kg sugar; 1 kg white loaf: 125 g tin of Nescafe; 500 g ground coffee; 1 litre milk; 1 litre table wine; 1 can beer; 1½ kg tin peas.

*Then they took the average income of a construction worker, a clerk and a secretary as a basis. The price in dollars of this basket of food was as follows in the following cities: Amsterdam 34,73; Copenhagen 39,09; Moscow 30,04; New York 28,90; Paris 33,42; Rome 24,30; Tokyo 69,55; Washington 31,74 and Johannesburg 19,60.

†An evening out for four people in Amsterdam costs 185 dollars, in Copenhagen 143, in Washington 303, and in Johannesburg—I think they went to something special—101 dollars. Men’s clothing in Amsterdam came to 118 dollars, Brussels 222, Copenhagen 173, Moscow 273, and in Washington 210, while the same clothing of equal quality costs 156 dollars in Johannesburg. A bottle of real Scotch whisky costs seven dollars in Amsterdam, in Buenos Aires 20, in Copenhagen 11,94, in Helzinki 12, in New Delhi 53, while in Johannesburg the price is the same as that in Dublin, namely 6,33. The construction worker’s salary in Amsterdam is 200 dollars, in Copenhagen 198, in Washington 353, in Moscow 35,20 and in Johannesburg 141. I think this is the best way of making a comparison, namely by taking people’s salaries and the price of a food basket with the same items. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs dealt with the price of petrol.

*I honestly want to say that I am not happy with the cost of living increases. However, we are keeping an eye on the position. People stand up here and say that food prices must not rise further and that we must subsidize them without exception, but that is not possible. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is going to reply presently, and I now want to mention the case of a product such as rice. Rice is not produced by this Government; 99% of it has to be imported. In one year the price of rice has increased by 77%. Can the hon. member for Newton Park say that the Government is doing nothing with regard to the rising cost of living when the goods which we do not produce are imported? Since I mentioned the price of fresh milk a moment ago, let us look at the case of fishmeal. Last year this time the price of fishmeal was R98 per ton, while the consumption in this country was 140 000 tons. At the moment our fishmeal needs amount to 160 000 tons. Our total production of fishmeal is only 232 000 tons, while its price is rising gradually. However, the Minister of Economic Affairs says that we must first provide for the needs of the country. Today the price of fishmeal is between R163 and R165 per ton, while the world price of fishmeal is between R400 and R500 per ton. We need fishmeal for the production of dairy products. Broilers, poultry, etc., are all dependent on fishmeal. I now want to ask hon. members whether, if we raise the price of some of our agricultural products because the price of fishmeal has increased by more than 100%, and is still far below the world price, we should subsidize those products. If we did what the Opposition suggested with regard to food subsidies last year, these subsidies would cost us between R500 million and R600 million. The Opposition stands up and says we are perfectly satisfied with the budget for defence. They say we are satisfied with this and that, but we are to build dams and carry on “left, right and centre”. But when we ask whether we should increase taxes, they say no, we should reduce them. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker! After the election on 24 April, we are going to have fun here when we meet again. Remember, it is the Dallings, and the Enthovens …

I would like to ask the Minister to tell us what he has been doing to keep the cost of living down to the farmer in relation to the increased price of fuel.

I told hon. members that we are going to reconsider the prices of all agricultural products. The price of every commodity which we control, the increase in the price of spare parts, tractors and tyres, everything is taken into consideration, as well as the good crops we are expecting.

Answer the question.

The question was, what are we doing …

In regard to fuel.

Let us take fuel. Diesel went up by 1,5 cents a litre, which represents an increase of over 20%. Now there has been another increase of 2,7 cents. In total the increase in the price of diesel has been more than 40%. Of course we are going to take that into consideration.

*But did the hon. member want us to subsidize it? [Interjections.] I have never been afraid to state here frankly that, if an increase in price is justified and the argument in favour of it is a sound one, then it is accepted. But I have never been able to get a United Party supporter to tell me what the price of a bag of wheat or of a litre of milk should be. I have never been able to get him to tell me this, but when he walks out here and holds a meeting in the rural areas, he attacks us for it. But this time we shall string out their guts. We have too much proof that these people indulge in scavenging and are not prepared to help us by coming forward with practical suggestions as well, i.e., instead of criticizing only.

A big fuss is being made about the enormous cost increases as regards the price of meat. Hon. members have been advocating salary increases for labourers. Let me tell you, Sir, with this increase in the cost of living there is a certain group of people for whom I feel terribly sorry. Increases in the cost of living are hitting our pensioners and the people in the lower income groups very hard. These are all things which the Government looks at along the way. But now hon. members say that the farmers are making so much money.

Who says so?

The hon. member has said it before. I have picked this up everywhere. The Chief Whip says I must finish. Sir, did you realize that from 1970 to 1973 the abattoir fees for cattle payable by farmers at Benoni, Germiston, Springs, Bloemfontein, Newtown, Durban, Cape Town and Kimberley showed an average increase of 245%, and that because Bantu wages had been adjusted? Stock transporting fees showed an increase of 60%. There have been cost increases throughout, and not one hon. member can tell me how we are to put a stop to such increases. All they can do is criticize. I conclude by reading this short passage taken from what was said by the American Secretary of Agriculture—

In this statement by the Secretary of Agriculture of America, he also mentioned South Africa as a country whose production had increased. He concluded his speech by saying—

There must be an incentive for these people to produce. We are all grateful that we have had this year an enormous improvement on last year’s crop, but to say to the farmer now that we are deserting him because he has had a good year, that we are not going to see to his prices, because we want to make a few United Party supporters happy, would be a big mistake.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we saw the hon. the Minister of Agriculture in a somewhat new guise. He was apparently affected by his colleagues in using a part of his time to quote newspaper cuttings at the Opposition’s expense. He is welcome to do so, but then when he gets down to his portfolio, and I, who do not know much about agriculture, catch him talking nonsense, I should like to suggest that the hon. the Minister leave the cuttings and rather look to his portfolio. That might perhaps be better for the farmers and the consumers in South Africa. One of his last statements was: “You say the farmers get too much.”

Yes, the United Party men.

I am speaking to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister says “you”, i.e. “we” say the farmers get too much. Let us rather make it: “You say the farmers get too much”. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he knows we have never said that. This statement of his is completely without foundation, and he knows it. I shall tell hon. members why he does so. He does so because in that respect his case is as rotten as his case about the bananas.

Let us take a look at this case of the bananas. Hon. members know that this matter has two sides. On the one hand, bananas are being buried by the millions, but while the bananas are being buried or destroyed, the Capetonians are paying exorbitant prices for bananas, i.e. if they can get proper bananas. The question that arises is where the hitch is. May I remind the hon. the Minister that he is not only Minister of Agriculture. The hon. member was correct when he said that the hon. the Minister is also responsible for the marketing of the agricultural products. We now ask him how he can expect the South African consumer, particularly the consumer in Cape Town, to be satisfied with his statement that the bananas up in the north were destroyed for specific reasons, while we here in the Cape cannot get any decent bananas for love or money. No matter what he says, his explanation does not hold any water. He speaks of the cost of living; I am glad to hear that he is having a look at the cost of living. The hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs said the cost of living is “too high for our comfort”.

He also said it.

Did he also say it? That does not mean much to us, because “it is only too high for comfort”. I would say that certain people live in very great comfort, but I also want to say that there are tens of thousands in South Africa who are living under extremely difficult conditions. Before the hon. the Minister makes comparisons with overseas countries, may I just tell him that his comparisons hold no water at all. There is no sense in these comparisons? In the first place, it all depends on the degree of socialization in one’s country. From what I have gathered, at one stage one could get false teeth in England for nothing while one paid a devilish lot more for whisky in England than in South Africa. That is the simple explanation. Secondly, our wages in South Africa are certainly much lower than those in the overseas countries. Consequently the prices are cheaper. How can we now draw a comparison between New Delhi on the one hand and Cape Town on the other? It makes no sense and the hon. the Minister ought to know this. Another thing the hon. the Minister knows is that all prices have gone up. I am already afraid to mention a product that has not increased in price, because if one mentions it by name, then the price increases. It is as if we are looking for articles that have to increase in price. Every day one opens the newspapers to see that a new article is again increasing in price. The hon. the Minister cannot tell me that he is completely innocent in this matter. Let us come back to the renowned bananas. Has the hon. the Minister already determined what the railage on those bananas would be? Did he perhaps endeavour to tell the hon. the Minister of Transport that he could furnish a national service in that respect by helping with the transport of that commodity?

Let us mention a further example. The hon. the Minister spoke of potatoes that are destroyed. What do I pay for potatoes in Cape Town? Twenty-three cents per kilogram, i.e. a very small packet. Then I do not even want to speak of tomatoes. Because if one can get tomatoes at all they cost 10 cents each. I now ask how the tens of thousands in South Africa, who are living on or below the breadline must exist? There are tens of thousands of them. How must they live? For example, how must a White person in my constituency, who wants to maintain a certain standard of living, live if he has to pay these prices from the meagre wage he gets. I want to take the hon. the Minister to a family which perhaps earns less than R200 per month—and then they sit with five children whom they also want to bring up as young South Africans. Does the hon. gentleman feel satisfied? Is it also just a question of the cost of living being too high for his comfort?

I agree with you.

If the hon. gentleman agrees, I want to ask: What is the Government doing?

The hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs just happened to speak about economic affairs the whole time the other day. If the hon. the Minister of Labour were here, I would have liked to have reminded him that he berated my hon. colleague here because he did not speak about agriculture. Funnily enough, the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs did not say a single word about his portfolio.

Things are going very well for them; things have never been better.

The fact is that the hon. gentleman was trying to explain to this House: “Do not be concerned; just leave it in our hands. Everything will come right.” We have now been leaving it in their hands for 26 years and nothing has happened yet. Things are going from bad to worse.

Things do not want to come right as far as you are concerned.

Speak about tourism.

I prefer to speak about Indian affairs.

I shall speak about tourism.

I just want to tell the hon. the Minister: He has a knowledge of history. As a learned man he will know that if the Nationalist Party were to have implemented its original policy, half of his portfolio would have been overseas.

What was your policy?

Give me a chance I also want to ask the hon. the Minister: Does he agree with the statement of the hon. the Prime Minister who told us that the Indians are a part of the sovereignty which we acknowledge that there is over White South Africa? Does he agree with that?

You know exactly what our policy is.

All I know is that up to last year the Government’s policy was as follows: Our children will have to think about the matter.

Tell us of the repatriation of Indians which was your policy. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs is confusing his position. He is now thinking of his past when he was still a U.P. member. All he now remembers is that the policy of the erstwhile Government was repatriation; it was never our policy, but his. It was his Government’s policy. Can you understand, Sir, that an hon. Minister of the Cabinet of the Republic of South Africa does not even grasp his own party’s policy!

You must really do better than that. That is really too poor!

I am sorry, Sir, but the hon. the Minister must not make foolish interjections. The policy of the Nationalist Party in 1948 was the repatriation of the Indians; it has never been the policy of this side of the House. The difference is simply that the hon. gentleman was then on this side.

I am so glad the hon. the Minister of Labour is here now. We really have had a strange debate. The hon. the Minister of Labour put his case forcefully and mentioned one point after another.

[Inaudible.]

I only hope he will speak louder. I want to hear what he says. He put his case forcefully and enumerated all the points he was going to take to the platform. The hon. member for Durban Point dealt with that in part. The essence of the matter is that since the hon. the Minister of Labour spoke about labour, we have not yet received a single answer from that side of the House. There has been dead silence.

To begin with, I just want to engage the hon. the Minister now in dwelling for a moment on one matter. The hon. gentleman made a great fuss about his party’s wonderful idea, i.e. job reservation. It is supposedly an idea that has really been created for the future security of South Africa.

Of course.

This House and the hon. the Minister know that the economic efficiency of job reservation is about 2%. That is all. This means that in the economic sense it has virtually no value. The only value job reservation has today is propaganda value for the Nationalist Party. But what has it meant to South Africa? In the first place, it is probably one of the terms that has helped to make South Africa, in the words of Die Burger, the polecat of the world. Wherever one travels in the world, people cannot understand it, because they break it down to a simple concept: How is it possible that one race can say: I am reserving that work for me and you, the other race, may not do it. That is what everyone understands, and that is what has helped to make South Africa the polecat of the Western world. What has it meant for us in the moral sense? With it we have given every Brown man and every Black man a slap in the face. I do not believe that if you and I were sitting on the other side and judging the matter we would feel good about the word “job reservation”,

But you are going to abolish it if you come into power.

All I want to ask the hon. the Minister is whether he believes he has thereby promoted racial cooperation in South Africa?

That is the assurance of racial peace and feelings of goodwill in South Africa. [Interjections.] Without that we would not have had racial peace.

Sir, the hon. the Minister may have a point as far as the Whites are concerned. The hon. the Minister must remember that there are also other people in this country other than the Whites, and the question is, just how does the majority feel?

What has it meant for the Whites? Instead of the Government going to the people of South Africa and saying to them, as the people want to hear, that there is a challenge facing the Whites of South Africa and that they should pull up their socks, do their duty and work hard, this Government comes and tells the Whites: “Don’t worry, old chap; we will look after you; if you are not safe, we shall introduce job reservation and ensure that you will keep your job.” That is not how one deals with a challenge, and the hon. the Minister will have to acknowledge that this is one of the reasons which, in my humble opinion, has done great damage to South Africa, both as far as the non-Whites and the Whites are concerned. But what is more, now the hon. the Minister will come along and say: “Yes, but why are you not going to ask the trade unions? If you want to abolish job reservation, they will say No’.” I agree. But why would the trade unions say “No” today? Because, over a period of 25 years, the Nationalist Party has created an atmosphere of racial feeling in South Africa which today makes the Whites afraid of virtually every action from the other side. That is the atmosphere which that party has created in 25 years, and that is the atmosphere in which one should read the motives of a trade union when it says “No.” I am speaking of the security of South Africa, and I say that in that respect it means nothing to economic effectiveness, virtually nothing. But when it comes to human feelings, race feelings, which are at the root of the real security of South Africa, I say that the Government has done us tremendous damage.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

Yes.

I should just like to know from the hon. member whether he is thereby implying that when the United Party comes into power they will abolish job reservation? We just want a clear answer to that.

That is another problem we have with the Government. One has to give them an answer a thousand times. The hon. member for Yeoville has said dozens of times from this side of the House: We will abolish it. But I want to make this acknowledgment: In the racial atmosphere which the Government has created in the space of 25 years, this will not be easy, because one will have to convince people to forget the exploitation of 25 years and one will have to unlearn what the Nationalist Party taught them over a period of 25 years. That is the South African reality. We shall abolish it because in human terms it has absolutely no value, and as little in economic terms.

I now want to discuss another situation. The hon. member for … he has also gone again. They make a speech and then run away so quickly that one cannot square accounts with them.

There are only 20 of them in the House. [Interjections.]

I now want to direct a few words at the hon. member for Carletonville. He was so comical yesterday, but at the same time he was also serious. He was mixing the comic with the serious. One likes listening to a person who uses the Afrikaans language so choicely, and I enjoy listening to him. The hon. member for Carletonville is almost as well endowed with adjectives as the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation. The hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation is only a bit better than he is.

Look what happened to him.

Sir, the hon. member for Carletonville stated a fine case; he said: “Come, let men conjure up for you a future image of the year 2020; then there will be 62 million Bantu and between seven million and eight million Whites”. He then got to his big statement and said: “Remember, friends, whatever you may say, numbers play the chief role; numbers are the predominant factor, and this is where our problem arises; because numbers are the problem and there will be 62 million Blacks as against eight million Whites, we have a terrible problem.” Sir, this side of the House says unequivocally that we believe that the federal system would specifically neutralize one’s problem of numbers.

You are living in a dream world.

Sir, I now want to put this proposition to hon. members opposite and see to what extent they agree. I want to repeat to you here the statements of the hon. member for Carletonville. There will be 62 million non-Whites and eight million Whites. Let us now take it—something I do not believe will ever really occur—that the seven or eight or nine Bantustans will all be sovereign independent. Let us assume that; I do not believe it will happen. Independent yes, but in terms with which the Nationalist Party will always play around. But let us take it that they will be sovereign. Then you will find that at least half of those 62 million—probably more, but at least half—will still be left in White South Africa. Sir, what has now become of the danger of numbers? What is the Nationalist Party’s answer to that? Do they also want to neutralize the danger of numbers? No, their answer is this: We, the Nationalist Party, tell the Black man, “You must go and vote there, and because we say you must go and vote there, therefore the danger has been wiped out; nothing remains of the problem.” Is that correct? Sir, we can understand why the Nationalist Party newspapers shouted so much, after my party’s Bloemfontein Congress, that the Nationalist Party must please think further than they have thus far thought. They begged them to do so and told them: “You do not have an answer”.

Nonsense!

But the Nationalist Party still stands where they have always stood, and the hon. member for Carleton-ville comes along here, states the perfect theoretical position and gives us no answer whatsoever. Sir, I want to go a little further with the hon. member for Carletonville, and I come back to the hon. the Prime Minister when he told us last year: “Even if the Bantustans did not take independence, the position would remain exactly as it is now.” Does the hon. member for Carletonville agree?

I am not really listening to you … [Interjections.]

I know the hon. member does not want to listen, because now there is again doubt in his heart about his own case. Yesterday his case was crystal clear. Now he has some doubts again.

I have no doubts. Go on with your speech.

No, Sir, the hon. member does not want to agree, because he knows that if he agrees he will run headlong into his arguments of yesterday with a killing force. Sir, this is a very serious matter for the Nationalist Party. Last year the hon. the Prime Minister said that if the Bantustans refused to take independence, they would remain a part of South Africa. Sir, with those few words the hon. the Prime Minister completely wiped out the policy of the Nationalist Party because if they do not take independence, then the position specifically exists which the hon. member for Carletonville sketched here yesterday, i.e. 62 million Blacks and eight million Whites, and what solution has the Nationalist Party? No solution whatsoever. Sir, one has the same position as far as the Coloureds are concerned. That is tragic. The hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation comes and tells us that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is in doubt, that he never puts a matter clearly, that he is afraid to speak. Sir, it is easy to have no doubts if one is not worried whether one’s answer is right or wrong. I could answer any question at any time if I were not concerned about whether the answer were right or wrong. Speak of doubt, Sir! The hon. the Prime Minister’s predecessor, the late Dr. Verwoerd, gave the answer in connection with sport at Loskop Dam in 1965. The hon. member referred to that. He gave the answer without a blush and he gave it without any doubt. But his answer was so wrong that the Nationalist Party is still struggling with it.

We just wanted to prevent confusion.

I want to tell the hon. Chief Whip this. I am at least glad, as far as the Coloureds are concerned, that our children have now done the thinking for the Nationalist Party. I think we are making progress. It is a serious matter if, in respect of the Bantu and the Indians—even if the Minister of Indian Affairs is somewhat confused about that—and in respect of the Coloureds, the party in power cannot give any clear answer to the South African people. This is one of the most serious questions we are up against in this country, and then these people have the temerity to tell us they will go to the people specifically with these standpoints.

But your policy was the common voters’ roll.

Sir, I am glad to say my party is today taking the lead to such an extent that the Nationalist Party is now being called on by its own newspapers to do something, too, as a result of the steps the United Party proposes. The future will reveal this. My friends, who have had nothing to speak about this whole week, except to quote from newspaper cuttings, can go on reading the newspapers; we shall go on speaking to the people and we have no doubt about what the people will say.

Sir, prices and price increases have been discussed here and in the very short time at my disposal I, too, should like to air a few ideas on the subject. In the first place I should like to say this: Nowhere in the world has a panacea for curbing inflation ever been found. That is the first point I want to make, and it is a point with which the Opposition as they are sitting there cannot disagree. Nowhere in the world has such a panacea ever been found. The other countries of the world have not confined themselves, as we have done, purely to monetary and fiscal measures. A number of them have physical measures of control in one form or another, as Britain and America have done from time to time, and also France, etc. They, too, have not achieved any larger degree of success than we have done. Here there are reasons for price increases. A few have been referred to in this debate.

In the first place, food prices have risen here. That is to say, the consumer prices have risen. I am very pleased that it has been stated and acknowledged on both sides of this House today that it is not only the farmer who is getting more money; everyone along the line of distribution who handles the farmer’s products, whether it be the cartage contractor or the agent or the distributor, has had his share of this increased consumer price, and many of them have carried a far smaller risk than the farmer. For example, I need only refer to the higher margins of the millers and the bakers, the higher wages for milk distributors, to the increase in the prices of the trucks used, the parts of which are also more expensive, to the higher railway tariffs, etc. Sir, last year there was an increase of 17% in the food component of the consumer price index, and this component of the consumer price index comprises one quarter of the whole index, in other words, that is the weight allotted to that particular component. Now, we all know that there have been reasons for this. There was a severe winter and we had frost very late in the season and there was a hot summer without rain. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that the consumer price index in South Africa dropped last year from a high first quarter, through the second quarter to the third quarter, when the index was only 6,7% on a yearly basis. When the effects of the rising food prices began to play a part, the index again rose sharply. However, there were reasons for that, particularly as far as vegetables, fruit and meat were concerned. There are other factors which I do not want to dwell on since I do not have the time. We know about wool prices, which have risen, and that farmers have augmented their flocks. The farmers’ production costs have also risen as have the costs of the distributors. It is a simple fact that an ever-increasing number of people are buying food. The purchasing power of the population is growing and the production of food does not always keep pace with the higher demand for food, owing to circumstances of nature. Food prices rose throughout the world last year. Taking into consideration the larger world population and the vagaries of nature, one must expect food prices simply to continue rising in the long run.

Another reason for price increases has been the increase in the price of imported goods. From 1970 to 1973 the wholesale price index of imported goods rose by 32%. The following, admittedly, is not applicable, but during that period the consumer price index here rose by 23%. Last year alone, the wholesale price index of imported goods rose by 11,7%. These more expensive imported goods have a direct effect on our consumer prices; that is to say, those goods which are wholly manufactured overseas and which go straight to the shelves in the shops and are sold to the consumer. More expensive imported raw materials, components, machinery and equipment, on the other hand, cause our own production costs to rise and this in turn causes our domestic wholesale price index to rise. Then, as hon. members have often said in the course of this debate, there is also the increased oil price, and I do not believe that anyone will doubt the effect that more expensive oil will have on South African consumers as far as price increases are concerned. I do not believe that anyone can dispute the fact that the increase in the prices of food and of imported goods has had the effect of increasing prices on South Africa’s consumer price index—in other words, on the cost of the goods which the consumer in this country has to buy.

In addition there is the influence of higher wages. We all know that higher wages have the additional effect of pushing up the price of the articles which the consumer has to buy. Who agreed with us more heartily and, together with us, pleaded more loudly for higher wages than this very Opposition? The question of higher wages is not the kind of matter about which any of us could have done anything. Last year we conducted a debate on the question of Bantu wages. How Bantu wages have risen since then! Perhaps I shall indicate in a moment how those wages have risen. Is it not true that these higher wages have also had the effect of pushing up the prices of the articles which the consumer in South Africa has to buy?

There are, therefore, three aspects about which this Government cannot do anything, whatever accusations the hon. members of the Opposition want to level at the Government and however much they say that they are not interested in figures, it will not help them, because we have to do with factors which no one can argue away.

One aspect which plays a major role in connection with prices, of course, is productivity. Productivity is important, because a poor performance as far as productivity is concerned and a declining productivity make for rising prices in the same way as domestic price increases are held in check by rising or increased productivity by way of reduced unit costs or higher production. This, as we have often decided in this House, is a task for the Government as well as the private sector. I think that in many respects the Government has done its share. How have we achieved this? There has been education and training for the whole population. One can mention those aspects which the hon. the Minister of Labour mentioned the other day. I also want to remind you, Sir, that during the years 1960 to 1970, productivity in South Africa rose by 3% per annum per worker. Last year the productivity in our factories rose by 4,7% as against an EDP estimate of 2,3%, which is really an outstanding achievement. [Interjection.] After various measures had been put into effect, as the hon. the Minister indicated the other day.

In any event, these points I have mentioned are some of the reasons for price increases. Last year, as has already been stated here, we had a rise of 9,6% in the consumer index. That is high, and I admit it is high. The Government, as the hon. the Minister of Finance has already said on so many occasions, would like to have it lower and it is constantly working towards that. I have mentioned certain factors, however, which are completely beyond our control, but I have also mentioned one factor which is within the control of all of us. In conclusion I want to say that inflation here is still in line with that of the rest of the world. Although the hon. member for Port Natal says that he wants to have nothing to do with figures and although the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, after quoting figures for European countries, states that we should not take figures from Europe again, I should still like to quote a few. In the first place there is the rise in the consumer price index between 1963 and 1972, which I get from the October 1973 edition of the International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund. On the basis of a figure of 100 in 1963, the figure for South Africa in 1972 was 141, for Australia 139,4, for New Zealand 160,4, for Japan 162,2, for Canada 135,7, for Switzerland 143,5, for Sweden 154, for Norway 159,7, for the Netherlands 162,5, for Italy 142, for Germany 134, for France 146,6, for Denmark 169,1, for Belgium 141,6, for Austria 142,5, for the United Kingdom 158,6 and for the U.S.A. 136,6. The index figure for all these countries has been taken as 100 for 1963. The very latest figure available is that for September 1972 to September 1973, and it is fair to furnish that figure, which is the latest. The rate of inflation in South Africa for those 12 months was in per cent: 8,9, in New Zealand 8,9, in Australia 8,3, in Japan 14,6, in Israel 22,3, in the U.S.A. 7,9, in the United Kingdom 9,3, in Switzerland 9,5, in the Netherlands 7,9, in Italy 11,8, in Austria 6,5, in France 7,5, in Belgium 6,9 and in West Germany 6,3. To this I want to add that we should bear in mind the fact that when the price level in a country is already very high and it rises by 10%, the additional burden on the population is, of course, far greater than when it is low and rises by 10%. I just want to quote what I happened to read concerning what Mrs. Raphael, who went to Oslo to attend her daughter’s trial, had to say. They asked her how long she was going to stay there. She replied—

That is the position in other countries. If we look at these other countries, we see that the rate of inflation is higher in some and lower in others, but that all of them have approximately the same figure as we do.

But you must take the growth rate into account.

I shall say something about the growth rate in a moment, if time permits. As hon. members can see, prices are rising everywhere and not only here. This, however, is not the only and the final question. The question is also whether people’s remuneration is rising and one can say that it has been rising here. Let us take it over the long term—do not reproach me on that score because I shall furnish a short term figure as well. This Government has been in power for 26 years and in these 26 years, from 1948 to 1973, the consumer price index in South Africa has risen by 147%. As against this, the average wage of the White worker in South Africa has risen by 415,6% in this time. The average wage of the non-White has risen by 366,5% over these 26 years. Now one still has to discount and offset the price increases in these years. When this is done, one finds that the true increase, the increase in the buying power of the average White worker’s wages in these 26 years has been 108,6%, and 88,8% in the case of the non-Whites. Now let us look at the latest three years, 1970 to 1973. In these years the consumer price index rose by 23,7%. The average wage of the White worker in this country rose by 28,7%. The average wage of the non-White rose by 45,8% in these three years. I just hope that there will not be any member opposite who will be so politically poor as to misuse these figures. Hon. members know how we have argued about this in the past, and they know of the endeavour of this side of the House to narrow the gap. Last year we had an increase in the consumer price index of 9,5%. As against that, the wages of the Bantu employed in the mining industry rose by 33% last year, the wages of those in the factories by 19,4%, in construction by 17,5%, in trade by 10,5% and in the financial sector by 19,6%. In the three years I have mentioned, viz. from 1970 to 1973, when the consumer price index rose by 23,7%, the wages of the Whites rose by 33,2% in the mines, 31% in the factories, 26,5% in wholesale and retail and the motor-car trade, 29,3% on the South African Railways and by 29% in the financial institutions. You see, Sir, the following holds true: Prices rise, we have inflation; the world has inflation; it cannot get it out of its system. No one has been clever enough to devise a way of doing this. But what is the test? The average wages of our people have continued to rise by more than that. This Government has proved—surely this cannot be denied in the public sector—that it has done its share every time to accommodate the workers of South Africa. We acknowledge the fact, as the hon. member for Maitland has said, that there are people who are having a hard time of it. But this Government has done what it can and it will continue to do what it can in the future. That, however, does not give the Leader of the Opposition the right to make the statement: “White South Africans will become the poor Whites of the Western world.”

However, I do not have time to discuss that. I want to speak to them about the statement by the Leader of the Opposition, who repeated the other day that we should grow by 8%. I should very much like to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Is it the position that he has never heard of the EDP? This is not compiled by the Government alone, but is a joint effort in regard to the investigations and findings of both the Government and the private sector in this country.

Within the framework of the Nationalist Party policy.

No, Sir; they did it together. Two years ago the theme of the congress of the Economic Association in South Africa was the EDP and all those clever economists analysed it. In the end they, too, were unable to find anything else to bring to the fore. Last year I said to the Opposition that if they did not agree that 5,75%, as determined by the EDP, was a fair target for the economy of South Africa, I would be prepared to place at their disposal those of my staff who were working on the economic development programme. I invited them in all friendliness and promised that we would not make propaganda of the matter. We invited the Opposition to come and talk to them and show them where and how South Africa could grow by 8% and 10%. That invitation stands.

Any growth, of whatever nature, must, in the first place, be manned and, in the second place, must be financed. Skilled labour is really the deciding factor for growth. Now we have a certain number of Whites available … [Interjections.] No, wait a moment. I do not want to argue with hon. members now; I have only five minutes left. The stream of immigrants has already been taken into account in full in this growth rate, and a substantial introduction of non-Whites into the skilled labour market is taking place; this is also taken into account. Now let me tell hon. members that the South African Railways, after they had reached an agreement with their trade unions, as well as the Chamber of Mines, after they had reached an agreement with their trade unions, trained non-Whites, Bantu in particular, at as fast a rate as they were able to and they were unable to train them at a faster rate than that provided for in the economic development programme. After all, one cannot train people overnight with all these “crash training programmes” people talk about, and ultimately man the economy with untrained people. If one were to do that, one would get a lower productivity. Here we have the evidence of the S.A. Railways and the Chamber of Mines that it was not possible to train them faster. For that reason I now want to tell hon. members that the hon. the Prime Minister cleared the way when he said that the skilled labour force of South Africa could be supplemented by non-Whites as long as this took place in an orderly manner. The rate will be determined by the measure of agreement with and the co-operation obtained from the trade unions. I want to ask the Opposition: If that should not be the rate, at what rate do they want it to take place? Are they simply going to walk over the trade unions? That would lead to industrial unrest in this country and it would totally destroy productivity.

Now I want to say just a word about capital. The growth of the economy is dependent upon a second factor, namely the available capital. If we want a growth rate of 8% or 10%, we would require billions of rands in this country. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the other hon. members on that side of the House where those billions of rands must come from. We cannot find all of it in this country itself. I as a responsible person want to say today that it would be foolish to build one’s economy on capital influx from abroad because that is something one cannot depend upon. Some years there is too much capital in South Africa and in other years, too little. Some years the world has too much money and in other years, again, the world has too little. Look at the position in the world today. There is no money in the world today. Look at the rates of interest. How can one go and place one’s whole future, one’s whole welfare on the world’s capital market? In certain times there is an influx of money into a country and at other times, again, there is an outflow of money out of the country. Look at the rates of interest in the world during the past few months. In terms of the attitude towards growth adopted by the Opposition, our interest rate would also have to be 15, 16 and 18% for us to attract more capital to this country. This EDP has been compiled realistically and is within South Africa’s growth capacity. It takes the labour force into account and it takes capital into account. We have found that South Africa can grow at 5,75% and we have found that in the process, South Africa can solve many of its problems.

Before I resume my seat, I want to refer to the unemployment position. We have said that there is employment for all our people in South Africa. The unemployment figure for Whites, Coloureds and Indians in South Africa ia 0,4%.

And for the Bantu?

Now we are continually hearing about the Bantu. Do hon. members know how many unemployed Bantu there are in South Africa and in the homelands? There are 84 594 in South Africa.

Where do you get that figure?

That is the registered figure at all … [Interjections.] Hear how hon. members are laughing! That is the registered figure at all the labour bureaux and at all the Bantu commissioners in the homelands. This figure is the number of Bantu who have registered for work and there are roughly 85 000 of them. The hon. the Minister of Labour said here that more than 350 000 foreign Bantu were employed here in our country’s mines. And what about all the other foreign Bantu employed in our country? Let us take the Free State as an example. There is sufficient work in South Africa. Let me mention an example. If a truck stops at Lady Frere outside the commissioner’s office, those who are looking for work go to that person to hear what he has available. But what is their next move? They turn round and take up their old positions under a tree. Not all of them want to go and work. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if every man in South Africa wanted to work, there would be work for them in this country. You can ask any employer who goes to these bureaux. It just depends on the kind of work offered. For example, the Bantu does not like the agricultural industry. South Africa’s Bantu are also unwilling to go to the mines. As far as the factories are concerned, the position is a little better. I can tell you, Sir, that they, too, already want to do white-collar work. That is our problem.

In any event—I must conclude—I very much want to tell you that South Africa has a fine growth achievement. It was 6% per annum in the decade 1960-’70. Without the contribution of the agricultural industry last year—we had a poor year in agriculture—we had a growth rate of 6%. With the inclusion of the contribution of the agricultural industry, it came to just under 5%. But who can do anything about the circumstances of nature? Who can do anything about the maize crop? That I would like to know. Why, I want to ask, is the per capita growth in South Africa low? The only thing the Leader of the Opposition plays around with is the per capita growth. South Africa is growing more than all these other countries—unfortunately I cannot quote the figures now—but then South Africa has had a population growth of 2,5% per annum over that period while a country such as Holland, which is growing substantially slower than we are, has had a population growth of only 0,07%. Surely, now, it is understandable that although we are growing faster than Holland, our per capita growth is lower. That goes without saying. I really do not believe that the blame for this can be laid at the door of the National Party. We should be proud of our fine growth achievement in this country. We can be pleased about it.

Mr. Speaker, before replying to this debate I should like, on behalf of this side of the House, to convey our condolences to the relatives of those who lost their lives and to those who suffered damage as a result of the floods in Natal. I know that in saying this I am speaking on behalf of us all.

Mr. Speaker, we had quite an interesting debate over the past five days, but there were two unfortunate incidents. The first was the raising by the hon. the Prime Minister of a matter concerning credibility. The hon. gentleman has known me for many years, after all. He said that he felt I was not involved in this, but the matter was nevertheless raised.

It was raised by your people.

No, it was raised by you. The hon. gentleman referred to a report in the Rand Daily Mail which read as follows—

I raised this matter with Mr. Schwarz himself and here I have his reply, which came by telex—

There he has my sympathy, for if one denies any part of what was said or not said at a closed meeting, the Press is inclined to say: “Then you must say what was in fact said.” In this way they keep trying to find out what exactly happened at that closed meeting. Mr. Schwarz went on to say—

Then he quoted this paragraph—

Mr. Speaker, I hope that this matter will now be regarded as closed.

†Now, Sir, we come to the second unfortunate incident in this debate and that, Sir, was the speech by the hon. member for Houghton. You know, Sir, that in a debate of this kind, on a motion of no confidence in the Government on the eve of an election, I should have expected that there would have been an all-out attack on the Government, its failings and its blunderings, from every Opposition bench. That, Sir, is, after all, what the debate is about. But it was not to be. Instead, from the one official representative of the Progressive Party in this Chamber, we have had the sort of speech that has confirmed all that we have ever learnt or suspected about her party, and that is that its major purpose on the South African political scene is to oppose the Opposition and not to fight the National Government. Sir, she devoted almost her entire speech to attacking the United Party and that was why we had to witness the unedifying spectacle of the hon. member saying to the hon. the Minister of the Interior: “I do agree with a great deal of what he said this afternoon.” That is why she also failed to put her party’s policy to the House, as we have done, at this vital pre-election time.

Our policy does not change every year. I do not need to.

The hon. member says that her policy does not change every year. I have noticed that they are getting older and older and more and more stultified in that party.

Like you.

I say that she failed to put her policies and there was hardly a word of criticism of or rebuke for Government policy. I suggest that she had very good reason to avoid putting Progressive Party policy to the House.

I have done so several times.

I want to indicate by way of a few direct questions that they are going to have to answer during the course of this campaign, why that is so. I want to start, Sir, by asking the hon. member once again: Will the Progressive Party allow the Communist Party to operate legally and openly in South Africa?

Provided it obeys the law, yes.

The hon. member says “yes”. Does the Progressive Party believe, with her, that dagga should be made available legally in South Africa for personal use?

There is no party policy on that. It is my personal view.

If it does, Sir, can we assume that her party supports her on this issue when it comes to dealing in or peddling dagga?

No, you know that is not true.

Thirdly, does she and her party still regard the Prime Minister of Rhodesia and his Government as Ian Smith and his band of rebels?

Of course, they are illegal.

So it is Ian Smith and his band of rebels. Thank you.

Now, Sir, a word or two about the party’s franchise proposals. These are proposals that are so coyly omitted or glossed over in the bulk of Progressive Party election literature. Why, Sir, does she not stress more often that under the franchise proposals of her party a standard 2 education will be all the qualification needed by voters over the age of 18 to elect a substantial bloc of members to this Parliament?

Ten per cent.

Seventeen members of this House.

They talk of merit. What of the so-called marriage clause in the Progressive Party’s franchise proposals? Why are the electorate not told that in terms of this clause probably hundreds of thousands of people would qualify for common roll voting, not because of their own earnings or possessions, but merely because their spouse earns or possesses sufficient to qualify?

It is all set out in our policy.

Would she explain why her party rejects outright the one-man-one-vote philosophy, while she herself states publicly that that is the ultimate objective on an evolutionary basis under the policy of the Progressive Party?

That is absolutely right, since we are opening up opportunities for them to acquire qualifications.

And most important, Sir, why has she never explained satisfactorily why so much of her energies and the energies of her party are used yapping at the heels of the only party that has yet offered an alternative Government in South Africa? What do we find, Sir? Like in 1966, like in 1970, like in 1961, they are going to put up a number of candidates, not enough to be the alternative Government—I do not think they have enough members for that—but they are going to put them up in opposition to the official Opposition to waste manpower and money in having to counter political sideshows. That is what it amounts to. Every rand spent on fighting a Progressive party candidate, every man-hour devoted to fighting the Progressive Party, detracts from the time and the money we can spend fighting this blundering Government which should have been got rid of long ago.

Now, Sir, let us get down to the motion. One thing I want to say is that the Prime Minister’s reasons for not serving out his full time, for calling an early election, seems to me to be quite unacceptable.

Very poor.

He said—

He then goes on to give his reasons for the early election. He had a very different tune to sing last year, Mr. Speaker. Last year, when he was quizzed on the election, do you know what the hon. gentleman said? He said—

He was referring to me—

Of course I am ready, Sir, but I do not remember his consulting me.

Do they understand it now?

Of course they understand it; it is quite clear.

Why then grouse about it?

The hon. the Prime Minister was going to consult me about it. Now, Sir, his approach is quite different; now he is in a tremendous hurry. He speaks of the deteriorating international picture and the difficulties which lie ahead, of forces inside and outside South Africa wishing to being about change in an unconstitutional manner, of the fluid international economic and monetary position and of terrorist dangers. Sir, all this is old news; we have heard all this before. Every time the Prime Minister gets up in this House we hear the same old story. But, Sir, what has suddenly caused him to take fright? That is what we want to know.

That is precisely why Mr. Heath is going to the country in Britain at the moment. [Interjections.]

No, Sir, Mr. Heath is faced with probably the biggest crisis in British political history.

Extra-parliamentary pressure.

Exactly, extra-parliamentary pressure. Is that what we are afraid of here? There we have it from the Prime Minister. That is what the hon. the Prime Minister is afraid of.

I told you in my speech.

You just glossed it over. Mr. Heath is faced with the biggest crisis in British political history and the hon. the Prime Minister compares his position with that of Mr. Heath. There must be a very serious situation that has developed which the Prime Minister has kept concealed from all of us.

That is not what I said; you have my speech in front of you.

I have your speech, but it is what you did not say that I am interested in. That is exactly what I am interested in, because the conclusion that one cannot help coming to is that the hon. the Prime Minister is not being entirely frank with the nation. What is it that is going to come to a head within the next two or three years? He talks about “extra-parliamentary pressure”. Where? Of the kind they are having in England today, with the country virtually at a standstill through a general strike? Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister is either not being frank with us, or he has made a most unfortunate remark. But one is still left with the impression that the hon. gentleman is hiding something from us, that in fact things are very much worse than he has told us, and that we are not being taken into his confidence. I cannot help asking myself what information came on to his desk during the period of the last four months, from when we saw the first stir rings in the Transvaal in the direction of a general election to the present time, which has led him to believe that things between the present day and the date when the election was normally expected to come next year, are going to become so much worse that he has opted for an election at this time. That is what I want to know. After all the shilly-shallying, at a time when there is a shortage of fuel, the hon. gentleman is going to go to the country. I wonder what that is going to mean in extra fuel use during the election period. It seems to me that what is happening is that the hon. gentleman is showing a lack of confidence in the state of the nation between now and the date on which the election would normally have taken place. I asked on Monday, Sir, and you can take my word for it that many thousand of South Africans are asking, why there is this hurry. Not only is his decision suspect as a sign of undue haste, but his indecision prior to taking the final decision is worrying people as well. So, Sir, what evidence could have been put on his desk in the last four months? I believe it is evidence that supports every single argument that I have brought, and this side of the House has brought, in the course of this no-confidence motion. I think he appreciates that things are getting beyond his immediate control. He realizes the diplomatic bankruptcy of his Government. He realizes that we have no friends in the outside world on whom we can rely. No one is prepared to commit themselves openly to befriend us. That is the sort of information the Prime Minister has on his desk.

If that is the position, why are you squealing?

Why don’t you tell us?

Why does the Prime Minister not tell the public? I think the hon. the Prime Minister should tell the public what the reason is. You see, Sir, we need not labour the point about the cost of living and things of that sort. I can deal with these later. But it seems to me that things are getting out of control and the Prime Minister knows it. That is why he is hurrying to go to the country, and he is hoping to conceal it from the public in the meantime.

One of my charges against the Government was that while there were forces of destruction and conflict on the one hand in the world, there were also forces of reconstruction and renewal on the other. My complaint was that this Government had so alienated us, estranged us from the forces working in the direction of reconstruction and renewal that our influence in the outside world had become negligible. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs tried to reply to this charge and I must say he did it in a manner which was most unconvincing. He admitted that last year he had painted a dark picture of South Africa’s international position. He said that it had been his duty to do so. He also complained about the great uncertainty and fluidity of world politics and the techniques of international blackmail. He claimed that the Government had improved South Africa’s position since Gen. Smuts’ days setting out the degree of isolation as his test. Disregarding the contemporary criteria of 1948 he said that he was judging by the 1973-’74 standard. He dealt with relations with the United Nations. Selecting the special case of credentials, he said that that was a flagrant violation of the rules, but he got 37 votes. Why did he not compare our votes in 1948 with the position today?

On the question of South-West Africa he based his argument on the World Court, but he admitted that the United Nations’ attitude got worse. He spoke about visitors and visits to South Africa. He quoted numbers not names. Really, what heads of State, what men of real influence in the ten top nations of the world have visited us or have accorded us more than a normal audience when our Ministers have visited them? The hon. gentleman talks about formal relations—11 missions opened or received in ten years. How many of them are consular and of no significance at all? He should compare this with other countries in the light of the enormous expansion in diplomacy, trade and international intercourse over the last ten years. When he was charged with the failure of dialogue in Africa, what did we hear from the hon. gentleman? Dialogue was underground, but it was not dead; buried, but still living! Of course, we understand secret diplomacy; that I can quite understand, but if successful, it usually leads to visible results. What visible results have there been? So I could go on.

Then the hon. gentleman said: “Well, federation would not help us to improve the situation.” Of course, federation will not help us; a mere constitutional change will not help us. However, the fundamental change in the approach to race relations is a fact of which the world will take notice and a fact which will lead to changed relations with South Africa. [Interjections.] That is what federation makes possible while yet giving complete protection to minorities including White South Africans. The answer to my charge was a thin case, laboriously put together and quite honestly, it holds no water.

What did we have from the hon. the Prime Minister? We had a long series of statements quoting sundry 1946 newspapers about Smuts. That really was to me a masterpiece of irrelevance. The hon. the Prime Minister remembers 1948. I am quoting from an article by Prof. Hobart Walton in Optima—

What is the position today? Then the hon. gentleman used the Business Environment Risk Index. That was also largely irrelevant. It is mainly a business rating relating to our human and natural resources and our investment security. It looks at the Government’s attitude to foreign business, but it does not pretend to assess the longterm wisdom of Government policies. Is this honestly the best the Prime Minister can find?

It deals with political risk.

All I can say is, if that is the best the hon. the Prime Minister can find, perhaps he should not have spoken at all. As far as I can see, that is no answer whatever to the charge which I made against this Government that in the diplomatic sphere we are virtually bankrupt today, and, what is more, we are unable to assist the right side when it comes to the forces of renewal and reconstruction in the outside world.

Then, Sir, I raised the question of our defence policy.

*On this question of defence the Prime Minister did not respond to my charges at all, except by saying that he had full confidence because he had left the matter in the able hands of the Minister of Defence. I need hardly say that we are not at all reassured in this connection. But the hon. the Minister of Defence also spoke. He tried to indicate how bright the outlook was and that we really had nothing to be concerned about.

But you are talking nonsense now.

But that was what the gentleman said. What he said was in fact a repudiation of the hon. the Prime Minister’s point of view, because the Prime Minister clearly indicated that he was calling an early election precisely because South Africa was under pressure and because matters were going to deteriorate within the next few years. Surely these two points of view do not correspond. The hon. the Minister of Defence tried to indicate that the acquisition of arms was not creating much of a problem for us. But is that so?

It is clear that quite a number of restrictions have been placed on our acquisition of arms. After all, we all know—we have a long history in this regard—that several countries have on several occasions refused to supply us with important weapons. The Minister will present a false picture to the House and the people if he alleges that we have such good dialogue on defence with the outside world that we are not largely isolated in the military sphere. Regarding my statement that we should have a firm agreement for the acquisition of arms and that lines of supply should be kept open for bringing these arms to South Africa, he gave us no assurance, and could in fact give us none.

There are a few more points I want to deal with. In spite of the standpoint consistently adopted by this Government over the years that the Bantu are not to be armed, it is now clear from what the Minister said that the possibility of the creation of Black units in the homelands is now under discussion. However, he owes it to the House and the country to tell us what would be preferable. If those people are trained in the homelands, would it be preferable for them to show loyalty to South Africa or to seven or eight separate homelands falling within the framework of Africa? The homelands policy of this Government will probably make our borders ten times as long as they are at present. Who can give the assurance that such forces will only be used against terrorists and that further troubles will not be created for us? With the world as it is composed today I stand by the point of view I expressed on Monday, that strong and reliable alliances and the respect and confidence of the Western world are absolutely essential for our survival and that this Government with its absurd colour policy has already undermined this confidence in us to a large extent. Finally, in his entire speech the hon. the Minister gave us no proof either that he is aware of the necessity for the full integration of our economic and production effort with requirements of national defence. Without this planning and co-ordination, after all, the whole effort will fail.

†Now we come to the question of economic affairs. Since I spoke, we have had replies from the hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Planning—we have also had the Minister of Agriculture on his feet—all trying to justify the fact that the cost of living is going up and that they cannot do very much about it. If I were to sum up the speeches and include the one of the hon. the Prime Minister himself, replying to me on this issue, I would say that they have been based more on what these hon. gentlemen would like to see happening in South Africa than what is actually happening. Listen to what the hon. the Prime Minister said—

Sir, you know, I do not believe that is true today, and I am certain it is not going to be true tomorrow and the day after. The hon. the Prime Minister is relying on statistics, but these statistics are becoming more out of date every minute with the sort of cost-of-living explosion we are having at the present time, and hon. members opposite know it. I believe that the 10% increase in the cost of living over the past year has already wiped out 75% of the increases granted at the beginning of 1973 to workers in the public sector. A spokesman for Tucsa pointed out over three weeks ago that because the cost of living had leapt into double figures, there would be widespread demands from trade unions for interim compensation. Railway workers, as the hon. Minister of Transport knows, are already geared for further pay demands. Would this be happening if the hon. the Prime Minister’s summing up of the situation was correct? Surely he does not regard the workers of South Africa as irresponsible? But the shoe is pinching, and they know it.

And now, what do we have from the Minister of Planning? There has been a tremendous emphasis on imported inflation. Gracious me! There has been a tremendous emphasis on the increase in productivity over the past year. But what about the three or four years before that? Why is our average so low? That is the whole trouble with this Government. When you take this a little further, I think I can say without fear of any contradiction from any housewife in this whole country, that never have people been so appalled and so staggered as at the price increases they are facing now. Never have they tumbled so fast, one upon the other, and over so vast a range of articles. I want to warn the Prime Minister. I want to give him a friendly warning. If he is going to make election speeches about “hoe almal dit eens is, soos die syfers ook toon, dat die gewone salaris-en loonman 1,5% beter daar-aan toe is”, let me tell him that it just will not wash.

Those are the figures.

The housewives know. They do not believe him and those people with a fixed income, the pensioners, are having a very hard time indeed.

But then, what do we have from the Minister of Agriculture? He reads out to us the price of a bottle of whisky in various countries of the world in dollars, a very undulating currency. He reads out to us the cost of a basket of food in various centres of the world. But, Sir, as the hon. member for Maitland has pointed out, what does he say about the standards of wages in those countries? Are they the same in New York as in Cape Town?

[Inaudible.]

Yes, he gave us the standard but his comparison did not have any regard to wages. Those figures mean nothing. He knows very well what the differences in wages are.

But he gave the figures to you.

Costs are exploding in every direction. I warned on Monday that I believed we were going to have a cost-of-living explosion this year, that it would virtually turn the economy in the home of every citizen into a battlefield, and that that battlefield was being made more uncomfortable because of the economic “efficiency” of this Government over the past 25 years. What is the basic weakness? The basic weakness is that the hon. the Prime Minister will not come to grips with the fundamental question. He boasts of our economic stability …

I hope you do too.

I am very proud of what stability there is, but I am very disappointed to find that as soon as growth exceeds 5%, he taxes the skills of the labour force beyond those possessed by the White population. Then you find the hands of industry dipping into and groping around at the bottom of the barrel and finding nothing but millions of unskilled workers because this Government has not taken the trouble to train the necessary labour force. The hon. the Prime Minister talks about stability, but I am afraid he confuses stability with stagnation very often.

The hon. the Minister of Planning spoke about the difficulties of an economic growth rate of 8% and about the economic development programme. Of course, that programme is set up within the framework of Nationalist Party policy. A man like Dr. Franz Cronjé has told us time and again—hundreds of businessmen agree with this opinion, among whom I think Dr. Jan S. Marais—that if existing legal and traditional restrictions on our labour resources were phased out and the non-White people were equipped to take their rightful place in a modern economy, the growth rate in South Africa could well double.

I told you how we are doing it.

The hon. the Minister told us how he is doing it, but he is lagging so far behind that because of the growth in our population the improvement in the living standards of our people is falling behind that of the other countries in the Western world. I repeat that nothing he has said here by way of his figures today can alter that situation.

That is completely incorrect.

I say again, despite the interjection of that hon. one-time professor of economics, that if this Government stays in power much longer without changing its policies, the Whites in South Africa are going to become the poor whites of the Western world. The problem with which this Government is faced and which it is not prepared to face up to, is that the poor white problem in South Africa was solved by industrialization and they are not going to solve the poor black problem in any other way than by further industrialization and economic growth in South Africa. May I say here that I have never come across a more blatant abuse of statistics than that indulged in by several Ministers who dealt with unemployment in South Africa at the present time. The Minister of Labour told us that there was no unemployment. Another hon. Minister—I think it was the hon. the Prime Minister—said that there was virtually no unemployment. The hon. the Minister of Planning came out with a figure of 85 000 unemployed Bantu in the towns, cities and the homelands.

That is the number registered in the whole of the Republic at the various labour bureaux.

I would recommend to that hon. Minister that he study certain of the papers that have been read by economists and professors of economics at certain of our Afrikaans universities, notably at the University of the Orange Free State where the professor of economics estimated that the increase in Black unemployment annually in South Africa was of the order of 100 000. He produced the figures to prove this. [Interjections.] Not the total unemployment, but the annual increase in the number of unemployed Blacks in South Africa is of the order of 100 000. Now what do you get from these hon. Ministers? They are going around sporting figures which mean absolutely nothing and bearing no relation whatever to the situation as it exists at the present time. What security have we for our future in South Africa—I know the hon. the Prime Minister feels strongly about this—if we have Black unemployment growing at that rate or a rate at all approaching it? That is why I say this Government’s economic policy is a security risk for South Africa.

I laid the charge that, in the field of race relations, this Government’s policies were failing and that they were becoming a risk to the country. I believe that just as they failed in the course of this debate to disprove my case in the economic field, so we are faced with a similar situation in respect of their non-White policies which, to me, are a cause of ferment and friction in South Africa at the present time. To start with the Coloured and the Indian people, they are disappointed, rejected, more frustrated than ever and are drifting further and further away from the White community.

That is not so.

The hon. gentleman says it is not so. He should go around the country with some of my people who are trying to consult with the political parties amongst the Coloured people and who are talking to them in the various towns and villages in South Africa.

Did you consult with their leaders?

Yes, with a number of them.

They say not.

I do not know what they say, but a number of them have been up in the caucus room upstairs. Perhaps they were shy to tell you of it. Have they spoken to your caucus?

They say they have not been consulted by you.

This really does not bear examination. Here you are.

Then there is the question of the urban Bantu. They have now achieved what is called temporary permanency. Despite the attempts by the Press and the hon. the Deputy Minister to lighten their lot in a very different way from that which was followed by the former Deputy Minister, Mr. Blaar Coetzee, they remain with the same complaints, the same grievances, the same frustrations and the same disabilities as they have had over the last 25 years under this Government, complaints, grievances and disabilities that we have brought to the attention of this House on innumerable occasions. When I say this, I am not speaking from guesswork. Once again I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that that is the experience of the members of the Bantu Affairs group of our caucus, who have gone from township to township in various parts of South Africa, who have met these people and have discussed the situation with them. They come up with exactly the same compliments that we have had for the last 20 years that this Government has been in power. I do not want to mention those grievances and disabilities again—they have been mentioned too often in this House—but they are the root of the dissatisfaction which exists amongst these people and which can flare up at any time because these urban townships are, without any doubt, the flashpoint in respect of race relations in South Africa at the present time. I have no hesitation in saying that the Government is either doing nothing to improve this position or that what it is doing, it is doing too slowly to get control of the situation.

Then we sit with the whole homelands situation which is complicated by the Government’s consolidation proposals which seem to have earned the disapproval in Natal not only of the overwhelming majority of Blacks, but of almost every White person in the province, and which have earned the rejection of nearly all the farming organizations as well. From these proposals and those in other parts of the country it is quite clear that there are going to be vast population movements. Even if carried out with the greatest tact and understanding, they are extremely explosive and can create extremely dangerous situations. Meanwhile, economic development in the homelands and in the immediate vicinity of the homelands is not providing one tenth of the work opportunities needed by those coming onto the labour market, and any suggestion of the viability of these homelands is nothing but a myth after 26 years of rule by this Government. The result is that more and more of the homeland leaders are rejecting the Government’s policy absolutely, rejecting it in a manner they would never have dreamed of doing ten years ago, and would not have been allowed to do ten years ago. Confrontation is in the open and the weaknesses of Government policy are being exposed at every turn. Yet, the hon. the Prime Minister speaks unctuously of granting to every people the right to exercise sovereignty over their own citizens. But, Sir, more and more homeland leaders are rejecting independence on the Government’s terms. The hon. the Prime Minister seems to have no answer to this dilemma. Does he still stand where he stood last year? He said that if they rejected independence, the position would remain unchanged and in a state of stalemate. Let me tell the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon that that is one thing that will not happen. Events are overtaking him and one thing that will not happen is that the position will remain unchanged.

You have said that to both of my predecessors.

And the position has not remained unchanged. The hon. the Prime Minister has been changing his policy from year to year and, what is more, the danger of the whole situation is that the essential groundwork for this new vision of the hon. the Prime Minister, this power bloc, that essential foundation is not being laid. Unless the hon. the Prime Minister is prepared to go out to meet the challenges of the political situation he may very easily find that control will pass out of his hands.

You said that 15 years ago.

That is why we on this side of the House urged the hon. the Prime Minister to accept the reality of inter-dependence and to take urgent steps to create machinery for intercommunity co-operation and consultation. We offered him our assistance and our cooperation if he were to move in this direction. We emphasized the fact that his had the support of intellectuals in his own party and of an increasing number of homeland leaders. Despite that offer, despite the gravity of the situation, the hon. the Prime Minister did not even deign to deal with this situation in his reply. He did not even mention it and yet he sees crisis conditions for South Africa within the next two to five years! Must I assume, Sir, that the hon. the Prime Minister has rejected the proposal? Will he tell us? Why has he not made up his mind or is it that he thinks that in some peculiar way this might lay the foundation for the federation of which he is so afraid? Those are the only possible conclusions I can come to.

There is no doubt in my mind that one of the most serious consequences of this debate is the added proof supplied by speakers on that side of the House that they follow the hon. the Prime Minister in rejecting the idea of federation and a federal policy in South Africa. Never before, Sir, and most tragically, perhaps never again, will South Africa have the opportunity to turn the minds of people of all races to thinking about federation in a spirit of cordiality and goodwill. I believe that we stand at the cross roads in South Africa at the present time. We stand at one of those great divides in our history where people have to decide which road they are going to take, the road to fragmentation or the road to federation. That is the choice we are going to have to make. The country is still in the enviable position of being able to make the choice but for how long is it going to be in that position? I wonder how future generations are going to view the decisions that will probably be taken in this direction because it seems to me that there is an air of reckless irresponsibility in the Government’s haste to take the road towards fragmentation. They give the impression of people who have hot coals in their hands and they want to get rid of them at any cost as quickly as they can. Sir, you can drop hot coals, but the trouble is that they go on simmering and they sometimes cause enormous conflagrations. Sir, with this road to fragmentation, with the creation of independent Bantustans, I see no end to our problems; I see the creation of a number of new problems. We must make up our minds that we still have an opportunity to influence the outcome at the present time. After fragmentation we in this Parliament will no longer have any say over the future of those areas. Let me take one example, Sir. Look at what is happening in Botswana at the present time with the present oil crisis. They have quite rightly chosen to protect their own country’s interests; they have taken advantage of Arab sympathy for the Black states to embark on negotiations with Arab representatives for the supply of oil. Basic to the agreement is the understanding that such supplies will by-pass South Africa.

That cannot be done.

The hon gentleman says it cannot be done. Well, Sir, we shall see. It can be and will be difficult for South Africa to interfere with this agreement. But this is an example of the sort of thing that can happen in the future.

They know it is not economical and it is not practicable.

The hon. the Prime Minister says it is not economical and not practicable. That is no doubt what the State President referred to in his speech. But, Sir, this is just the beginning of the sort of thing than can happen. You see, Mr. Speaker, you are faced with this fact that nobody can deny at the present time that there are very obvious and practical advantages attached to continuing friendship between our land-locked Black neighbouring states and ourselves. But can we go on separating and hoping that they are going to stay near to the mother tree from which they fall? I believe that you will probably find that many of them are debating even now, however tentatively, the relative advantages of allegiance to and alliances with South Africa and alliances with other countries free of the sigma that attaches to our country in the international sphere. Sir, we have been singularly unsuccessful in gaining the wholehearted and unqualified support of the erstwhile protectorates, dependent as they are upon our co-operation and goodwill.

The hon. the Prime Minister talks about this “magsblok” that he is going to form. He was asked why nothing is being done about it now. He tells us that the climate is not ripe. I believe, Sir, that while he continues with the policies he is following in South Africa at the present time, the climate will never be ripe for it and he will never form that bloc. Why should the attitude of an independent Transkei be any different? It must be remembered, Sir, that independence must be complete before you can negotiate treaties of any kind. I want to warn today that with the Transkei being pushed towards taking its independence, this election may be the last time that the country can think again. The hon. the Prime Minister is pinning his hopes on a commonwealth-type of arrangement, after fragmentation. He knows very well that South Africa and southern Africa can only be weaker without some machinery for coordinated activity. But I think what we have to ask ourselves is something else: Will the independent states voluntarily choose to be associated with South Africa when world opinion is against us? Are we not going to find ourselves perhaps again in an untenable position in such a commonwealth? We opted out of a commonwealth once before. We opted out because our domestic policies were unacceptable to the other members. Sir, what is to become of this new commonwealth which the hon. the Prime Minister is thinking of forming if the members of that commonwealth reject our policies and bring constant pressure for change to bear in South Africa? Hon. members on that side of the House who attack federalism so quickly on the basis of false analogies should take time to reflect upon this very real analogy of recent history that is available to us. It is not extraordinary, Mr. Speaker, that where other peoples, other groups, are seeking closer associations in the world and stronger bonds in the interests of economic security and welfare, this Government should be seeking to tear apart those elements of cohesive inter-dependence with which a benevolent Providence has blessed us? I wonder if the hon. the Prime Minister listened yesterday when some words of Dr. De Kiewiet were quoted here?—

I would have thought that as every year goes by our experience in the new industrial environment which Black and White have helped to create in South Africa would show that the sum of our common interests and co-operation is growing steadily greater than the sum of our differences. Sir, history abounds with examples of this sort of thing. Perhaps the most striking of these was the U.S.A. at the time of the War of Independence, where the forces favouring separation were reversed and the common federal structure was reimposed. I wonder if the hon. gentleman has ever thought of the wise words of Abraham Lincoln …

They were quoted yesterday.

Yes, they were quoted yesterday—

The hon. the Prime Minister, apparently disagreeing with Lincoln, obviously thinks otherwise. He places the inevitability of confrontation above the likelihood of cooperation. That, in constitutional terms, is the essence of the difference between his side of the House and mine. Even in his policy of fragmentation we run into baffling inconsistencies.

*The noble gentleman pretends, and his argument is understandable, even though we cannot accept it, that he has to fragment South Africa because, as he himself puts it, the sovereignty over our country and our people will not be shared with anyone, but will be exercised by the people represented in this Parliament, and will be exercised as far as their own people are concerned. Then he says—

That is my standpoint.

Yes, that is the hon. gentleman’s standpoint, but he will also admit—and this is indisputable—that the Indian and Coloured communities, both of which he regards as separate peoples, are living amongst us permanently and that they have no homelands and not even the prospect of homelands.

We have debated this so many times.

Yes, and we are going to debate it again, until we get an answer, for we have new information now. Yesterday the hon. member for Carletonville pointed out that, according to official projections, these peoples will number 11 million within 50 years, as against 7 million Whites, and those 18 million will all live together in one common homeland. On Monday I pointed out that the majority of the professional and managerial cadres in the economy will have to be supplemented from the ranks of our Brown and Indian neighbours. Let us take another look at the words of the hon. the Prime Minister—

But what has then become of the right of the Coloureds and the Indians? Where did it go? Is he going to share the powers and the resources with them or is he going to divide them? [Interjections.] If he wants to share them, he stands before us as a revealed federalist. But if he decides to divide them, he must now start fragmenting the White homeland further, something which he declared to be impractical long ago. Sir, one who could drive a team of oxen through this political wishful thinking. This hon. gentleman will have to start thinking anew. Eventually he will arrive at the federal idea in any case, and it would save a lot of time and trouble if he would accept it now so that we may start building the future of South Africa together. But in the meantime he is creating a situation which spells danger for peace and quiet and for national security. I am very grateful to the hon. member for Carletonville today. Figures which he quoted yesterday indicate that there will be approximately 40 million Bantu working and living in our industrial areas during the same period.

Who said that?

You did.

I never said it.

If the hon. member did not say it, he should have said it, for surely it is a fact. [Interjections.] However, I think the hon. member did say it.

The Government continues to ignore the growing permanence of these people, the development of common interests and the influence of our civilization on them, which is wiping out the age-old ethnic differences between them. We shall leave this argument at that; Government supporters can go and see for themselves what is happening in the urban areas and can hear what is being said.

Will you allow me to put a question to you before you stop off the subject of federation?

I shall be talking about federation for a long time.

Have you still not finished with it?

No, not at all. As far as permanence is concerned, it is an indisputable fact that there will be neither money nor room to accommodate them, physically or economically, either in our industrial areas or in the homelands. History has taught us—and it will undoubtedly teach the Government again—that political satisfaction cannot be separated form the conditions where people are living and working, at least not in the long run. In fact, it will appear that the political dissatisfaction of these people, to whom absolutely no local political rights are granted, will become even stronger than that of the Indian and Coloured communities and will become an even greater danger to racial peace in South Africa. So much for the hon. the Prime Minister’s flights of fancy on sovereignty. However, while he is thus occupied, the unfortunate, discriminating actions of the Government continue, especially against these sections of the population. I do not believe that there is any doubt that our future relations with the sovereign states which the hon. gentleman wishes to create will depend on the experience of the migratory labourers from those states and on the experience they gain in South Africa. It may well determine whether they will be friends or enemies of South Africa. Even if we should, hypothetically speaking, accept the promise of eventually independent, self-supporting homelands, it is nevertheless still true that the present treatment received by their fellow-nationals in our country will be a decisive factor in our future relations with them.

This brings me to the statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister on petty apartheid this afternoon. He warned that it should not be used as a political football and that no expectations should be raised. I am in complete agreement, but I would like to point out to the hon. the Prime Minister that the constant humiliation of these people could definitely destroy future relations with those sovereign Black states and that, if steps are not taken in good time, it could do much to weaken those relations in future.

†Our federal plan, in which the hon. the Prime Minister is so interested, of course avoids all these dangers and provides South Africa with a framework within which our different communities can grow together in peace and prosperity with security for all. The only real argument we have heard from that side of the House, and that includes the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech, is that federation will permit a majority to impose its will on a minority. Does the hon. the Prime Minister really think we are so naïve as to propose such a solution to the voters of South Africa? Is he not aware that the purpose, the function and the achievement of federalism is precisely the reverse? Federalism has been adopted as a constitutional system in many countries precisely in order to ensure that the minorities will not be dominated by a majority. That is what federalism is all about. In Switzerland you have the French minority supporting federalism so that they will not be dominated by the German majority. The essence of our federal plan is that government in South Africa should be in the hands of each community in so far as its own particular interests are concerned, and that the communities should work together freely in matters of agreed common interest and to their joint advantage. By definition the rights and responsibilities of the federal assembly can only be those which do not impinge upon the separate identities of the various communities. They are those which the separate communities themselves have agreed they can safely share with others in the common interest.

Such as?

It will be the duty of this Parliament to ensure that the federal system evolves according to that strict principle and to no other. Let me say it again in a different way.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Will this Parliament then retain the veto over the federal parliament?

I will deal with that in a moment. In this way we create a community of communities, a new way of governing South Africa, in which a common endeavour, a common loyalty and a common security can be achieved. This community of communities will succeed and it will succeed precisely because there will also be those other places, the community governments, in which each community will protect and cherish those things which are exclusively its own. That is my answer to the Government critics who give out garbled interpretations of our policy, because they can no longer interpret their own. It is my answer also to those other would-be leaders who can find neither a party nor a policy of their own and therefore attack ours instead. They say they will never consent to our plan because it will permit a Black majority to interfere in the affairs of the White minority. Let me say that they are either wilfully or ignorantly attacking a faked concept which is the very reverse of the federal purpose. Our federal plan aims precisely at giving each community such a degree of independence and authority in the handling of its own affairs that it will have the confidence to work together with other communities in those other affairs which are for the joint benefit of them all. Then comes the cry from the hon. the Minister of the Interior of “such as?” I have told the hon. gentleman that these are matters which will be negotiated by agreement. He heard yesterday from the hon. member for Durban North that what will be required will be an entire restructuring of the various portfolios because they will devolve upon the legislative assemblies of the various community groups with the maximum powers possible. Therefore what remains of those portfolios will be subject to discussion and negotiation. I think it would be extremely unwise for us to attempt to foretell at this moment what the result of that negotiation and agreement will be. But you were given a list yesterday by the hon. member for Durban North of a number of things which it seemed to him were likely to be agreed upon as being matters to be handed immediately to a federal assembly. They included restructured departments—not like the present portfolios—like Education Co-ordination, Manpower Co-ordination, Economic Planning, Transport Co-ordination, Water Affairs, Health Co-ordination, Research and a host of others. This is a matter for co-ordination and agreement among the various races. Now the hon. the Prime Minister asks, will the White Parliament have the right of veto? The White Parliament is the sovereign body in this constitution. It acts as the initiator and regulator of the entire federal scheme.

For all time?

The hon. gentleman asks whether it will be for all time. That depends on this White Parliament. It can decide itself whether it wishes to continue to exist, whether it will continue to retain powers or whether it will not. While it is the sovereign body in the constitution, it will have the powers of control over the federal assembly. The lead that I will give to that Parliament at the present time is that their first job is consultation. The second job is negotiation and the transfer of powers. The third job is to satisfy themselves that that federal assembly is working properly. I have given a guarantee in this constitution that no powers concerning the safety of the State will be transferred from the existing Parliament to the federal assembly otherwise than with the approval of the White electorate by way of a referendum. I go further. I believe that you cannot rule out the possibility that a White Parliament may one day feel that that federal assembly is working so well, that it has such confidence in it, that it is functus officio. That is something for the future to decide. The hon. the Prime Minister is a great one for saying: “Our children will decide.” Our children, Sir, possibly will decide this. In the meantime, you have a framework, you have security, you have co-operation and you have consultation. You can work together in the common interests of South Africa.

But we are not looking for just a federal framework. We hope thereby to achieve certain of the great aims of this party. These include a number of things: Undivided loyalty to one South Africa, respect for and protection of the dignity and freedom of the individual—something on which we differ so widely from this Government—the creation of a compassionate society in which social justice will be ensured and the interests and wellbeing of all individuals and groups will be safeguarded, White leadership in the interests of all our peoples and as the sponsor and guarantor of orderly progress, and the development of a free-enterprise economy with job opportunities and high living standards for all. When all those are summed up, we come to the sixth aim which is perhaps the most important: The maintenance of a free and independent South Africa, secure against internal subversion and external aggression. That is something this Government cannot offer. It cannot offer it, because of the breakdown of its policies, because of the false hypotheses on which those policies are based and because of its failure to come to grips with the realities of the South African situation. That is the message that we are taking to the electorate on 24 April.

Question put and the House divided:

Ayes—43: Basson, J. A. L.; Baxter, D. D.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Cillié, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. M. Sutton and J. O. N. Thompson.

Noes—116: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Baden-horst, P. J.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager, P. R.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toint, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux and G. P. van den Berg.

Question accordingly negatived.