Mr. Speaker, when we took the adjournment last night, I was referring to certain problems and questions raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Some of these questions are matters of grave concern to all who have the interests of South Africa at heart. He referred to matters such as inflation, to labour unrest, to the Coloured Representative Council and to matters of discrimination. His complaint was that the policies of the Nationalist Party are too rigid to deal with these problems and the changing circumstances in South Africa. I hope to illustrate in the course of my address that that is an ill-founded suggestion. The National Party is fully conscious of all the problems besetting South Africa. From its inception it has been a party which has always concerned itself with the problems and the peoples of South Africa. It evolved the policy of “South Africa first” and the National Party is up to this present day still a party which concerns itself with all aspects and every aspect of the problems of South Africa. Whilst others were still basking in the twilight of the British Empire, the National Party had evolved policies to lead South Africa through a very crucial epoch in its history, namely that of the decolonization of the African peoples and in the process of doing so it applied immutable principles of truth.

The hon. the Prime Minister also has shown his awareness of these problems besetting South Africa inasmuch as he called for an early election, and his action in doing so has been thoroughly vindicated. Even the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has granted him that. His action has been vindicated by the occurrences in the countries on our borders. Moreover, the policies promoted by the National Party, the policies of the hon. the Prime Minister, have been vindicated completely by the result of the election which we have just had.

Sir, I go on to say that this House of Parliament is also aware of these problems. I refer specifically to this House, this Parliament, this council, because all concerned are expected to make a positive contribution to the solving of those problems that do exist in South Africa. And now that we have a new Parliament we have a new period in which to apply our mind to South Africa, and not to the interest of the parties concerned.

You have had 26 years. [Interjections.]

I seem to perceive among members a consciousness of situations developing both within and without our borders which require delicate handling, astute diplomacy and great statemanship, and I seem to feel an urgency to do those positive things that need be done in South Africa, to change those things that have to be changed and to remove those frictions that are of no value to South Africa. But now, change in itself has become a mystic word. To the Progressives it is another one of their hollow clichés. To those entrusted with government, change means responsible adaptation to changing circumstances, not the discarding of principles which are a sine qua non of orderly development and evolution in this country. It would be wrong to elevate change to a mystic principle in itself.

The implementation of principles, yes, that could be adapted and changed from time to time. Methods applied to govern, yes, that could be adapted and changed from time to time. But basic truths, basic principles, are never ignored without violent convulsions. Therefore, in effecting change, let us be aware of the bases of political power in South Africa, namely the existence of the various South African nations.

Mr. Speaker, I make bold to say that Providence and the electorate have entrusted South Africa to the National Party in this period of change, and it has done so because this party is able to cope with the situation with which it is being confronted. The picture often drawn of the National Party, rather maliciously at times, I think, is that it is an ultra conservative party, that it is reactionary, that it is repressive, that at times it is tyrannical, and that it is, shall we say, the last outpost of Colonialism. Of course that is not correct. The National Party has done much to adapt to changing circumstances in and outside South Africa. But of course there is some element of truth in the criticism, that it is an element of truth which I regard as not being proof of failure on the part of the National Party.

The National Party is one which has certain elements of conservatism in its ranks and in its policies. It has respect for wholesome traditions; it does adhere to immutable principles, one of which is the absolute right of the White man to maintain his identity. Of course, the National Party is reactionary and repressive in dealing with subversive and irresponsible elements and actions in South Africa, but on the whole in dealing with the changing situation in South Africa and on its borders it has shown an ability to adjust to those circumstances and to deal with those circumstances effectively. It is to the credit of the National Party that it has been able to lead South Africa through the very crucial period of decolonization in Africa, an epoch of decolonization which has not passed without bloodshed in other parts of the world; and this positive roll of the National Party in dealing with changing circumstances is not often appreciated by its critics.

One must think back to the year 1948. What did the National Party inherit? It inherited a colonial South Africa, a heritage of the British Empire. When the winds of change blew through Africa it was the National Party which conceived the idea of the liberation and decolonization of the Bantu peoples of South Africa. It was the National Party which adapted itself to these new circumstances whilst, as I have said, others were still basking in the twilight of the disappearing British Empire. Up to this very last election the Opposition still clung to the idea of one united colonially inspired South Africa. They had only one idea: of the White man governing the Black man in South Africa.

*And then I am not even speaking of the Progressive Party. The United Party at least showed after the last election that it is prepared to effect certain changes in recognition of the concept of multinationality and to make a policy adjustment in this regard. The Progressive Party is the only group of people in South Africa that is capable of dishing up cold left-over pumpkin as a hot potato. Their cold pumpkin dates back to the ancien régime, because it is the writers of the French Revolution that are still their mentors and that have done their thinking for them. It is still their policy and their concepts that the Progressive Party is trying to realize in South Africa. It is their thoughts which the Progressive Party is now employing. This cold pumpkin that they are bringing forward has become somewhat mouldy over the years, and does not fit into the South African situation at all.

†Mr. Speaker, the concept of decolonization was a revolutionary one. It was the National Party that accepted the challenge which was before South Africa. It had inherited a South Africa stratified horizontally, with Whites, Browns and Blacks in horizontal lanes. This we have changed. In terms of our policy and in terms of the implementation of our policy we have changed to a South Africa which is being shared vertically. The ceiling has been lifted. The decolonization process has been tackled successfuly. In other places in the world it was done with bloodshed and was accompanied by the removal of millions of people. In this connection one thinks of Algeria, the Congo, East Africa and South East Asia. One thinks of all the eruptions which took place in this whole process of decolonization in other parts of the world, but here in South Africa we have been able, through the application of the policies of the National Party, to go through that crucial period without bloodshed and without disruption. In addition, this has been achieved together with the maintenance of law and order. Sir, that is and was no mean achievement. This orderly development has been possible because the National Party was able to adapt itself to changing circumstances and to the changing face of Africa. No other party, with the policies they offer today, would have been able to do the same. The United Party, steeped in its colonial approach to the whole situation in South Africa, would never have been able to achieve this object. Perhaps I am wrong; I should not say “the United Party, steeped in its colonial approach”, because there are two wings in the United Party. The one is more progressive than the other. I would say that if we had left this same problem to the Progressives, we would have seen the creation of a Black Power movement in and around the great metropolises of South Africa, which could not have been checked by any power under the sun. That would have been the consequence of the application of the policies of the Progressive Party. We have avoided that by the creation of our Bantu Homeland Governments and we have been able to go through this process of decolonization without the eruption which would have been the consequence of the policies of the Progressive Party and the United Party.

Mr. Speaker, we have achieved a great deal along this road in these past 25 years. Much has been done, but much still remains to be done in South Africa. The challenge of the development of Black and Brown peoples has been accepted by the National Party. It has been accepted by White South Africa as a whole I suggest. There are approximately four million Whites in South Africa, as against approximately 17 million Brown and Black people, who are dependent, to a very large extent, for their development on the capital, the enterprise, the know-how, the energy and the drive of the White man in South Africa. When one thinks of that, one realizes that we are developing that Black people at a ratio of about four Black people to each single White man in South Africa. To my friends from Europe I often say: “If you would just accept the challenge of developing one Black man for each White man in Europe, and there are 300 million in the Common Market, we would solve the problems of the Third World.” The problem of the Third World is not political rights, but the very basic necessities for existence like bread and butter and employment. That is the challenge which we in the National Party have accepted for the future of South Africa. But the onus for the development of South Africa and the Black and Brown peoples of South Africa does not rest only on the Government. There are other forces, groups and people in South Africa that are able to and should make a contribution to this development. There is commerce and industry, there is the Press, certain public institutions and, of course, the opposition in this Parliament. All of us will have to make a contribution in the very serious times lying ahead of us.

That is the reason why I say we are happy to be here as a new Parliament which can now give its attention to this very important aspect, viz. the development of the peoples of South Africa. For this we need the physical, financial, mental and spiritual contribution of everybody. Indeed the co-operation of those important powers which exist in South Africa is vital in this regard. We cannot afford groups of people, whether they be English or Afrikaans speaking, whether they be industry or commerce, whether they be educational institutions or cultural bodies, to have them think of themselves alone. We cannot afford to have them standing on the side-lines any longer. We have accepted an enormous task, a task which is growing with the increasing number of Black and Brown people. Such threats as there are against the security and integrity of South Africa not only threaten the so-called “Afrikaner” Government sitting on this side of the House. The threat of terrorism is directed against the freedom of us all, including the Black peoples of South Africa. It requires that we adopt those policies of development which will protect South Africa and all its peoples. South Africa needs the drive and energy of everybody, whether he be Afrikaans- or English-speaking.

There are areas of political activity where we are almost in agreement with each other. There is no time for squabbling as to who is following who in this whole process of determining these areas of nearness, if I may call it so. It is the Government’s policy which has been vindicated at the polls. It is the Government’s policies which will be at issue during the next five years. That is so. But there are certain aspects of the policy and the approaches of some of the members on the opposite side which indicate that they could now accept or come to terms about certain important issues of the Government’s policy of development. I realize that I cannot think of getting the support of those members who are cow-towing to the English Press editors in South Africa. I do not think that I could get the support of the Progressive Party, but I am sure that there must be people patriotically inspired on the other side of the House who would be able to define with us those areas of consensus in which we are very near to each other. We should be able to canvass those areas and do what must be done with all the power at our disposal. Let us think of some of them. There is the area of inflation. It is a very difficult task, one which cannot be tackled alone and without the co-operation of everybody concerned in South Africa. Commerce and industry needs to play its part. The opposition needs to play its part, or rather the two opposition parties. There is the area of dialogue between the various peoples of Africa and ourselves. That, I would suggest, should be dialogue on behalf of South Africa and not on behalf of a particular party. When the Prime Minister meets the homeland leaders, he does not meet them as the leader of the National Party; he meets them because he is the Prime Minister of South Africa. I would say that if any member of the Opposition should approach their task in this regard and along those lines, he would be making a contribution towards dialogue in South Africa.

There is the question of the improvement of race relations in respect of which we could reach consensus; there is the question of the development of our Bantu territories, politically, economically and educationally, on which we could reach agreement and have the support of the opposition; there is the question of the improvement in the living standards of our Coloured people in the Western Cape on which we could get the support and agreement of the Opposition; there is the question of the meaningful strengthening of the functions of the Coloured Representative Council on which we could get the support of the Opposition; and there is the question of the protection of the integrity of our State, on which we could get the support of the Opposition. [Interjections.] Sir, I am sure that these areas could be canvassed. If a person were reasonable, he would be able to find common ground with the Government on these issues and make a contribution towards reaching consensus on these matters without pulling them back into the political field. I think that these things could be done without loss of face by any patriot in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the speech of the hon. member for Bellville, particularly in the way he blandly wished away the real harsh realities of modern multi-racial South Africa and the way in which he based casually drawn conclusions upon arguments which disregard the modern industrial economy of South Africa, an economy which cannot be operated without a multi-racial labour force and which cannot survive without a multi-racial consumer public. In the course of my address I should like to comment on a few of his misassumptions both in respect of the problems of the past and those of the future.

This is the first occasion in 13 years on which the hon. member for Houghton is not the sole spokesman of the Progressive Party on a no-confidence or a censure motion in this House. I believe it is appropriate to refer to her performance in opposition in this House over the years. Whatever the hon. members from other parties may think of the policies she has advocated, I think they respect her for her consistency, her courage and her competence. I believe that by the quality of her performance she had added stature to this Parliament and has helped to made the deliberations of this House more relevant to the needs of the wider South African community. Foremost amongst the issues in which she has fought in this House over the years has been the defence of civil liberties. I should like to make it clear to both sides of this House that civil liberties remain an area in which there can be no compromise for those of us who are in the Progressive Party. We shall oppose every attempt which this Government might make to restrict freedom of speech, freedom of the Press, freedom of protest, freedom of association and every attempt to invade the fundamental tenet to the rule of law. We believe that no citizen should be deemed guilty until found guilty after a fair trial by an independent court of this country.

South Africa in this year will have had a Nationalist Party Government for 26 years, more than a quarter of a century. A whole new generation was born and an old generation has died. Perhaps it is important on an occasion like this in this House to take stock and see to what extent this country’s major problems have been solved and to ask ourselves where we go from here. Of course, it would be trite of me to say that over the past 26 years nothing has been achieved. Much has been done either because of or in spite of the National Party Government. Much has been done in the field of technology, communication and construction—South Africa has definitely moved ahead. There have been major projects like Richards Bay, Saldanha Bay, the Orange/Fish River Scheme. I am sure history will show that “Republiekwording” was a necessary step along the road of constitutional development. In an era where colonialism was combining to an end, it was necessary to ensure that White South Africans were not part of a colonial dispensation but that they were part of Africa and that they were here to stay. I believe that our claim to be a permanent part of the African scene is nowhere in dispute, but this very claim that we make focuses attention on how we White Africans treat other Africans with whom we wish to share the southern portion of the African continent. These have been features in the past 26 years, and there have also been others which were less satisfactory.

So much for the past. What about the present and the future? The harsh reality is that after 26 years of National Party rule, 26 years of ideological legislation, 26 years of mounting bureaucracy, 26 years of restrictions, of removals and of growing authoritarianism, South Africa’s major problems today remain unsolved. Indeed, problems of human relationship, problems of economic growth, problems of political co-existence are as far from being solved today as they were when the Nationalist Party came into power over 25 years ago. I want to look at a few of these areas.

This Government and other Nationalist Party Governments before it have failed to create the conditions in which our economy could achieve the growth rate of which it was capable. Successive Nationalist Party Governments have restricted the growth of our economy either as a deliberate act of policy or as the consequence of their policy. As a result millions of South Africans—White, Brown and Black—are being denied their share of the prosperity which could have been theirs. You all know the story of South Africa’s sorry economic growth rate. Over the 12 year period from 1960 to 1971 it was 2,7% per annum on a per capita basis compared with Canada with 3,6%, Israel with 5,1%, France with 4,7% Greece with 7,1% and Japan with 9,6%. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to appeal to hon. members to give the hon. member a chance to deliver his speech.

We believe that this country could have been today one of the most powerful and prosperous industrial countries in the world. Instead this Government has deprived people of this country of the standard of living which they could have enjoyed. This Government has failed to provide employment for those people who are coming onto the labour market each year. The unemployment figures in the cities are growing each year. In the homelands a situation has been reached approaching disaster level. On the admission of the officials of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development some 60 000 to 70 000 African males come onto the labour market and have to be absorbed in the homelands every year. Against that only 10 000 jobs have been provided per annum over the past ten years. The Decentralization Board’s objective is only to produce 14 000 jobs per annum by the year 1916-’77. Therefore, on this Government’s own admission, the unemployment rate in the homelands of South Africa is rising to the level of 46 000 jobs per annum due to the increase of the population in those areas. This Government, like successive Governments, has failed to close the gap between the haves and the have-nots, the rich and the poor in South Africa. In 1946-’47 the ratio of the income of Whites to Africans incomes was 12,1: 1; in 1956-’57 it had risen to 13,3: 1; in 1967 it had risen to 14,9: 1; and in 1970-’71, according to a Sanlam publication, it had risen to 15,2: 1.

This Government has failed and successive Governments have failed to provide the adequate social services and educational facilities required by the peoples of South Africa. I think that hon. members on the other side will admit that pensions for the aged in South Africa are miserably low—R52 per month for Whites, R26 per month for Coloureds and R9,25 per month for Africans is no pension on which people can live under modern conditions. Housing for the Coloureds in particular is desperately inadequate. The latest figures show 54 908 units short in the Western Cape. 41 % of the people housed in Greater Cape Town are not properly housed at all. Schooling for the Africans has lagged far behind requirements. There is still the pupil to teacher ratio of 60: 1. Expenditure on African education is still only R25 per annum per pupil compared with an average of R461 for White pupils. By limiting both productivity and production this Government is directly responsible for prices of commodities rising in South Africa. It has added to the inflationary spiral which is affecting the lives of the people living on fixed incomes and creating a sense of hopelessness and helplessness amongst the millions of people who are living on or below the poverty datum line.

So much for the economic situation after 26 years, but what is the political situation? I believe that after 26 years of apartheid, or parallel development, or separate development—call it what you will—South Africa’s major political problems remain unsolved. Indeed, if the object of a political solution is the resolution of conflict and tensions within a society, then our South African society is today further from a solution than it was when the Nationalists took over in 1948. Indeed, all the evidence shows that this Government appears to be heading straight in the direction of increased conflict and increased tensions. After 26 years of Nationalist Party rule the Government has still failed to resolve the critical issue of the future of South-West Africa. This Government has failed to resolve the tensions that have developed between ourselves and almost the whole international community. This Government has failed to secure peaceful co-existence between ourselves and the rest of the African continet. This Government has failed to provide a basis either for the redistribution or the sharing of power within our own country. Mr. Speaker, this Government has failed to resolve the areas of conflict which are developing between itself as a Government and the instruments of government which it has created for the Black and Brown people under the policy of separate development. The failure of this Government to find solutions to the political problems is reflected in the speeches of homeland leaders. I should like to recall one or two comments made by some of these homeland leaders. This is what Paramount Chief Kaizer Matanzima had to say—

Only last year, in 1973, Chief Minister Lucas Mangope had this to say—

This is what Chief Gatsha Buthelezi had to say—

These are the comments of South African leaders of the Black community who head the homelands governments.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. the Prime Minister is aware of the absolute failure on the part of the Government to find a political solution which has been dramatized by the collapse of the Coloured policy in only the last few days. Why, only three years ago, on 23 April 1971 the hon. the Prime Minister had this to say—

I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he still agrees with that statement.

Yes.

All I want to say is that leaders of the Coloured people acting through the institution created by the Prime Minister to represent the Coloured people, have roundly rejected the policy of separate development and the political solution which he had proposed.

Mr. Speaker, there is another field which I know concerns all of us in this House and that is the field of human relationships. I say in all earnestness that the relationships between the Whites on the one hand and the Black and Brown South Africans on the other are perhaps today more delicate and potentially more dangerous than they have been at any time during the past 26 years. Go to the town, go to the Cape Flats, go to Langa, to Guguletu, to Soweto, to Kwa Mashu, to New Brighton, to Gelvandale, to Mdantsane, let the hon. members of this House go to the homelands, let them talk to the people, let them listen to the people, let them listen especially to the young Black and Brown people in and around the cities of today. Let them listen to those people talking of “die Wittes”, hear them talking of Black and Brown Power. Mr. Speaker, there is frustration, there is resentment and bitterness, whether we like it or not. There is a lack of educational facilities to cope with the people living in these areas. There is a lack of employment opportunity both in the cities and in the rural areas. There is also the lack of the ordinary facilities for leading a reasonable life.

I think that the hon. the Prime Minister is aware that the migrant labour system, which was once described by the Synodal Commission of the Dutch Reformed Church as a “cancer” in the life of our society, is after 26 years, still busy destroying the family structure and gnawing away at the moral fibre of the Black people of our country. The Group Areas Act is destroying the stability of the Coloured and the Indian communities. Above all this, there are the constant daily affronts to their dignity as human beings.

Again, Mr. Speaker, let us here in this House hear what other people have to say, what the Black and Coloured leaders have to say. Let us listen once again to the words of Chief Lucas Mangope in only July of this year. He said:

Chief Gatsha Buthelezi said—

Mr. Speaker, I will quote another speech made by a member of the Coloured Representative Council, a supporter of separate development, a Mr. Jacobs, the Federal member from the Orange Free State—

This was stated in the Coloured Council, Mr. Speaker. This was stated by a representative of the Coloured people. But, Sir, here perhaps is a more sombre warning because of whom it comes from—

Sir, this is Mr. Tom Swartz, the man whom the hon. the Prime Minister appointed as Executive Chairman of the Coloured Council. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that whatever separate development was intended to be, whatever it may look like to the people who may be administering it, to Brown and Black South Africans it is in fact discriminatory and offensive. This is the picture as I would see it after 26 years in the field of human relations, political solutions and the country’s economy. But perhaps it would not be so sombre if this Government had a policy for the future. It would not be so sombre if this Government had a policy upon which it could resolve its problems. The speech of the hon. member over there indicated that he did not have a policy; in fact, he was looking for support from someone else to devise a policy.

You heard quite wrongly.

The hon. the Prime Minister, without any doubt, has a very strong and overwhelming mandate from the White voters of South Africa to govern, but he has no policy for governing in the future. There was a time when people believed that the National Party Government had a policy. That was in the days of the hon. the Prime Minister’s predecessor, in the days of Dr. Verwoerd. In those days, if words had any meaning, the National Party had a policy, or if it did not have a policy it had a vision, it had a philosophy, it had a direction, it had a cause, it had an inspiration, and the inspiration for that cause, that policy, lay in the single word “separation”. Separation could lead to the solution of the human, economic and political problems of South Africa. Separation, according to the National Party of those days, could provide the moral basis on which we could build for the future. Speaking in this House in 1960, it was Dr. Verwoerd who said—

Speaking in this House in 1963, he said—

But what has happened since those days of the early ’sixties, Mr. Speaker? I believe that responding to the realities of a multi-racial South Africa, to the demands of the modern industrial economy, to the pressures of an outside world, the Prime Minister, with his own peculiar brand of pragmatism and “kragdadigheid”, has governed by making a series of adjustments and concessions. Mr. Speaker, I am not complaining at the Prime Minister’s making these adjustments and concessions, save to say that in my opinion and in the opinion of this side of the House they have been so little, they have been so late; they have been so begrudgingly made, and they have been so totally inadequate to meet the demands of the changing world. But what I do wish to point out to the hon. the Prime Minister is that he has been steadily dismantling the basic premise of the policy he inherited from his predecessor, and that is that only in separation could one get away from race discrimination. So, Sir, we have a situation that every concession that is made, every adaptation, every adjustment to his policy, merely serve to show up how shabby and impractical are the bits and pieces of the policy that still remain.

Let us look for a moment at this Government’s proposals for the constitutional development of the various groups in this country. Surely the hon. the Prime Minister recognizes that there can be no meaningful economic development within the homelands unless there is even faster economic development outside of the homelands, and this means more Black people in what he prefers to call “White” South Africa. Surely the hon. the Prime Minister recognizes that there can be no independence on the basis of the land apportionment under the 1936 Act. Surely he recognizes that if there is going to be independence there cannot only be a re-allocation of land but there must also be a re-allocation of South African’s wealth and material resources. Surely the hon. the Prime Minister realizes that nothing could constitute a greater danger to all of us in South Africa than giving so-called freedom to Blacks in the homelands while requiring the majority of black South Africans to live on in the rest of South Africa under a policy of race discrimination. Surely the Government realizes that it will not even begin to find a solution for the urban Black problem unless it acknowledges the permanence of those people living in the industrial areas of South Africa. Sir, is not the hon. the Prime Minister shocked at the collapse of his Coloured policy last week? Does not the Prime Minister realize that in regard to the future of the Coloured people there is confusion and chaos within the ranks of his party? I do not want to read out the long history of confusion and discord, of the arguments between the “tuislanders” and the non-“tuislanders”. I do not want to argue with the hon. member for Moorreesburg who says that the Coloureds and the Whites should be together while other hon. members say that they should be further and further apart. I do not want to argue about when parallel lines will ever meet or where they will not meet. But I do want to refer to the hon. the Minister of Defence, who when he was Minister of Coloured Affairs, in a moment of enthusiasm said that the sky was the limit for the development of the Coloured people. It was a noble sentiment at the time. But the reply to questions put to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs at a meeting at Pinelands a couple of years ago went like this—

This is the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs speaking at a meeting in Pinelands. The Prime Minister himself speaking at a meeting in King William’s Town said—

I think it is correct to say that that is how he described the United Party’s federal plan, but in this House, in the beginning of this year, he said that the place which the Coloureds and Indians would occupy under the National Party policy was the same which you now say the Coloureds and Indians would occupy under the United Party policy. So, Sir, what he is saying is that the United Party’s policy is a monstrosity, yet he says that it is the same as his policy as far as the Coloureds and Indians are concerned. No wonder the Coloured people are turning their backs on the Prime Minister and his policy.

I believe that in the statement made by Dr. Erika Theron, the chairman of the Coloured Commission today, she referred to a discussion which it is said she had with the Prime Minister. While the statement made by the chairman of the commission was unexceptional ...

She did not refer to a discussion; she referred to the statement I made.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the statement should be made in this House. I believe the Prime Minister owes it to this House because while it might be alleged that the hon. the Minister of the Interior prejudged the commission, so did the Prime Minister prejudge the commission when, earlier this year in this House, he said that he would not be prepared to share the sovereignty of the White people with any other group, whether it be Black or Brown [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, what if the Theron Commission were to suggest to the Prime Minister that we should share this House with Coloured South Africans? Is he prejudging this? Is he saying to the commission that we reject this out of hand, or will he be prepared to consider it on its merits?

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Government must do three things. I believe first of all that this Government must remove the inequalities, remove the unfairnesses, which are driving Black and Brown South Africans to the point of frustration and anger. I believe that the Prime Minister is sensitive to the urge of people for human dignity. I have read his speeches and time and time again he comes back to human dignity as an important aspect of our society in his own philosophy. But the fact remains that the policies of his Government offend against the dignity of millions and millions of Black and Brown people. The fact is that apartheid, or separate development, applied in practice is discriminatory in South Africa against the majority of the people.

Secondly, I believe that this Government must take bold steps to expand our economy by making the fullest possible use of our labour, capital and mineral resources. This will mean the introduction of free compulsory education for all South African children; the establishment of vocational, technical and higher educational facilities in the urban areas where the work has to be performed; the phasing out of the migrant labour system; the scrapping not only of job reservation, but of the whole industrial colour bar; the introduction of equal pay for equal work and the right of workers to promotion on merit; the extension of trade union rights to all South African workers. This will require the employment of our capital resources on a priority basis to provide the basic infrastructure for our economic development.

Thirdly, we must evolve a means of sharing power in South Africa between Black, White and Brown. The Prime Minister said he repudiates the sharing of sovereignty. But when we share one economy, one country and when we share one defence force, when we share one future, when we are dependent upon each other not only for our prosperity but for our very survival, we are in fact already sharing our sovereignty and we should express this in terms of shared political power.

Perhaps some of the steps I have outlined can be taken within the frame-work of Government policy. Notwithstanding this, provided that these steps are taken in the direction of greater dignity, greater opportunity and greater participation in effective government, we in the Progressive Party will support them because we are more concerned with people than with ideologies. Against the broad sweep of history separate development will be seen as just a passing phase.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, much has been said about patriotism in recent days. Let me say to the hon. the Prime Minister that if by patriotism he means the promoting of the common good of all South Africans, irrespective of race, language of creed, and if by patriotism he means the defence of South Africa against armed aggression, then the members of the Progressive Party and millions of other South Africans, Black, White and Brown, will be prepared to work together in the challenging days ahead. But if there are people in our country who equate patriotism with a commitment to maintain domination or to maintain race discrimination or to maintain White privilege in our country, then, Sir, they go into the future alone.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I think it is appropriate that I welcome the hon. member for Sea Point on his return to this House after 13 years. Outside Parliament one often becomes frustrated and resorts to political actions which, though not necessarily unconstitutional, are sometimes off the beaten track. I think that the burden of responsibility in this House prevents any action like that on things about which we did not agree in the past. I bid the hon. member a hearty welcome. I think we will have many good and vigorous debates over the floor of this House in years to come. However, here my congenial approach ends. I think the hon. member did not start very well, but I also think that one must be very sympathetic towards him, because after 13 years without practice in a council like this, one must become a little bit rusty and forget many things. One is inclined to repeat too many things which over the years have been heard so often in this House, things which have been so well expostulated and put to us by his more able female companion. If there is one impression I can form after listening to his speech it is that it stands out as an exercise in mediocrity. It was a mediocre contribution although I have great respect for his eloquence.

*I now want to pass to another matter and speak about a certain man. All of us have learned by now that things happen quickly in the times we are living in. We have also learned that we need to adapt ourselves rapidly. In recent times things have been happening so quickly to this particular man that over a period of six to eight months he has lost both his right and his left hand. Not only has he lost these, but of his friends who had to fight with him on the political battlefield, he lost six out of a total of 47—in other words, half a dozen of his fewer than four dozen colleagues. In this hopeless anatomical condition, he also lost his last battle against the Turks. Whereas he has so much advice to offer the Government, I have some advice for him, too, namely the same advice which he gave the hon. the Prime Minister, and this is that it is time for him to think of retiring.

When one observes the defeatist and panicky shifts towards the left which I noticed in the speech by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and when one has to listen to the continual harping on one string by other members of the Opposition, one feels that they have already shot their bolt as far as bringing about orderly change in South Africa is concerned. They are even no longer able to state objectively the internal and external problems of South Africa. In a White Parliament they attack the first meaningful governmental body which we have created for the Coloureds and which has scarcely begun to stand on its own two feet, and this is done in an attempt to prove that the Government’s policy has collapsed entirely. If the history which I have just related, i.e. that of a man who also has a policy which he put to his voters and who finds himself in the state in which he and his party are today, does not signify a hopeless collapse of policy, then words have no meaning. All the blame is being laid at the door of multi-national development, at which we have been working for years, and at that of this National Government. There is also hurried huckstering so as to offer new things to people who are not sitting here. If all the problems are laid at the door of this Government, and if it is said that these people are frustrated and may resort to non-constituional methods, is one not getting rather close to the dangerous things which the South African Council of Churches has said? Do you realize what conclusions may be drawn from this? Do hon. members realize that if they say that in this White Parliament, then this may in fact serve as a guide for people outside who are militant and are not always capable of having a balanced approach to these matters? I want to read to you what was said in this morning’s Burger by Prof. A. M. Hugo, someone with whom the Progressive Party is most certainly well acquainted (translation)—

They say it is “institutional” violence in South Africa—

We must take care not to create a psychosis of violence, while we, under a democratic government, are engaged in guiding peoples to responsible government, ultimately next to us. Let it be so. That is for this generation and this Government. Hon. members must take care not to cause frustration of that nature, while there is no violence or suppression here, to make people resort to extra-constitutional action. Now I want to say the following in a more responsible sense, after I have initially joked a little, as we sometimes do. We in South Africa, as groups, as political parties and as leaders, represent the ordinary people. We all share this country. It is true that this country is being threatened, but there is no guarantee of security for any group of people, owing to the fact that the communist revolution, which is the motive concealed behind this threat, will continue to exist. That is why our problems must be solved here. We give the guidance for solving those problems, and hon. members can join us in doing so. However, we cannot do so by pursuing policies—and here I am not being original, but the truth bears frequent repetition—which have not proved successful in the rest of the world, however “sweetly reasonable” we may be. Nowhere in the world has the idea of a liberalist unitary community led to any harmony or ensured the security of groups such as we have—because man is a gregarious being.

We have just had an election. It was a democratic election. We can differ on that point. In any event, the Whites decided about it, and the Whites sent hon. members here. They will also decide about the changes that are coming. Although changes are in any event taking place continually, these are only changes which are allowed by them. The Government received a mandate with an overwhelming majority, and hon. members cannot bluff me into thinking that it was a conflict amongst the members of this or that group which caused the United Party to be returned with six members fewer. It was policy which caused the conflict among them. It was policy differences among them, differences which still exist and which will come to the fore again and cause further differences. It was their policy, and the mere fact that people were uncertain about that policy is the cause of the Progressive Party having seven members today. It is, admittedly, being suggested that this was not due to their policy either, but because specific people were voted for. But if hon. members think the people voted for them because they are good-looking fellows, they should rather turn to the film industry.

Two and a half years ago I said something about the Coloureds and about Coloured policy, and now I, too, should like to quote something in this connection, just as the hon. member for Green Point did. I said—

That we must not forget. I continued—

In 1971 they discussed Coloured policy as much as and even more than they do today. I quote further—

†I just want to pause here to remark that a Government founded on a Christian or Western democratic basis was not acceptable to most of the emerging and developing countries of Africa—and we are part of Africa—for the past 15 to 20 years. I do not think I am mistaken when I state that seldom if ever was there any move to entrench the rights of a minority in the one revolutionary take-over after the other. I remarked further—

*I am willing for us to make this, too, a point of debate. I quote further—

I went on to say that it was granted that there were still many shortcomings. Many things are said and done in the name of separate development while that is not the intention. If that was the intention in former years, in other times—after all, hon. members do say that times change—then it is not the intention now. Now, it is your and my duty to ensure that these errors are eliminated. Hon. members must not tell me now that it is only the Progressive Party or the official Opposition on that side of the House who encourage their people to take the human dignity of other people into account. From this side of the House one has far more positive directives, far more positive speeches from platforms, in which human dignity is described as being of the utmost importance. Hon. members opposite will say that it is legislation, but the State has the right to bring about social ordering if it believes that something may give rise to friction.

In particular we also have a great deal of progress to make in the sphere of recognizing human equality. I quote again (translation)—

We are moving from one well-proven step to another, but the following is of importance—this was said two and a half years ago (translation)—

The election is now past and White voters have returned a verdict—these are the people who at this stage still have to determine the future of South Africa democratically by means of elections, whether you agree with that or not. I think that Die Burger put it very well, if I may quote a newspaper at this stage. This was said in an editorial (translation)—

If you calculate this on a basis of votes, you will see that 60% of the people are still in favour of it. It is not to be passed off through fiery debate in this House or motions on the part of the Coloureds alone.

Meanwhile events took such a turn in the Coloured Council that it was possible to effect a majority, by whom the abolition of that council was requested, and so the vacuum to which some have referred was created. It is not really a vacuum, because the administration is continuing. These people are asking for representation in this Parliament, and all people in South Africa are now to be represented in this Parliament. That has never been your policy, or has it now become your policy? It was the Progressive Party’s policy in a qualified form, and we can come back to that. They are asking for direct representation without spelling out that motion in its entirety. That implies a number of things. It implies, too, that that body which you supposedly want to make more meaningful and which we have made a great deal more meaningful over the years, must also disappear, and that those people must come and sit here. Perhaps that resolution requires to be spelt out more clearly, but we shall not go into that now. What is important is that what I asked for two and a half years ago is finally being realized now by those who did not want to come and never did want to come and who shouted from afar, from the rooftops. I asked that they be prepared to come to the Government and, in an atmosphere of calm, discuss the things that troubled them. How else can one know what is going on in the hearts of others? Although they were the minority party, they obtained more votes than the governing party, and we have a moral duty to accommodate them, but how can we know what is going on in their hearts if they are not even prepared to come and talk? The Government is willing to talk to these people.

Today I want to make an appeal to the mass media in South Africa, which have become more influential in recent years. The mass media can also bedevil race feelings in this country tremendously by printing certain reports and comments on reports and by continually striving to play ping-pong between Whites and Coloureds with the aid of what they prompt people to say in the newspapers. I do not want to tell my friends of the Press what they should do, but I just want to ask them not to throw the baby out with the bath-water, because South Africa is the baby in the bath-water being thrown out in this case, and South Africa is your country. It is the country you want to save. To sing in harmony with the wolf choir, which does not understand what is going on in our country and which does not understand how we have to struggle with this problem from time to time, may be very popular and boost your circulation, but it is not in the interests of South Africa. I am, what is more, not going to discuss this motion any further. We are going to talk to these people. I now want to address a warning to hon. members opposite. You must remember that you have a responsibility which goes beyond the mere scoring of political points here. The things which are said here, are sometimes used to hamper those discussions. I do not want to deny hon. members opposite any right. Let them come forward with suggestions. Let them try and help us, but if they do not want to do so, then please, for heaven’s sake, let them hold their peace. Then they would be doing the best thing.

Give that advice to the Minister of the Interior.

I do not want to become a bore on the subject of the policies offered to those people by hon. members opposite. Over the past 14 years the United Party has had so many policies for these people that they were cheated seven times even before the policy could be implemented. The 1960 model differed from the 1966 model and the 1966 model differed from the 1970 model, as it is in the case of motor cars. Thus the 1970 model was totally different from the 1972 model after a heavy defeat in Oudtshoorn.

And how does your 1961 model differ from your present one?

Basically our 1961 model is the same as the one we have today, and, as it stands, it is put before the people by our leader. Everyone has the right to put it like that. This party is not hidebound as to require a commission to tell it that the time has come to put a number of Coloured members in the Council of the University of the Western Cape, or that the time has come to start giving these people local governments or that the time has come to give these people their own rector. This party is not so hidebound as not to have learnt in the course of the years, after evaluation of the position and because it believes in festina lente, that the time has almost come to introduce compulsory education for these people.

Hon. members are saying now: “There was a collapse of policy.” I could almost say to them: “Look who is talking!” Hon. members opposite are trying to denigrate this body. Not all the Coloureds have decided that it should go. Oh no! Half of them—and I say half of them because it is half of them—have decided that they still want to retain this body. In other words, what they asked for is still separate development. Honestly, I cannot take it amiss of these people if I, who have to maintain relations with them, detect frustration among them from time to time, if they become so confused as a result of White politicians who promise them the earth. I cannot take it amiss of them, nor shall I.

I should very much like to know whether, when we had these disturbances, it was seemly for the United Party to have sought all of a sudden, in an anxious and hysterical way, to have talks with the leader of the Labour Party. Was that seemly in the South African situation? Was it seemly for the Progressive Party to seek to have talks with members of the Labour Party? Was that seemly? What kind of climate did that create? How much political capital do hon. members opposite think they are going to make out of that in the long run? They have just had the verdict of the White voters of South Africa. What impression do hon. members think did that make on those voters? Hon. members opposite say that this body is worthless. These people struggled to get this body to stand on its own two feet, because they could have passed such a resolution five years ago if they had wanted to. They could have passed such a resolution two or three years ago. We do not poke our noses into these people’s affairs.

The hon. the Prime Minister and I hold very regular talks with them. Hon. members opposite made mention of the fact that the Coloureds were not getting everything they asked for. But does it ever happen in the case of any association, body or subordinate political institution that everything asked for is granted? Answer me that. This is simply not the case. But we must hold talks with these people, and they are willing to hold talks and the others are not. We had reached the stage where we had to take the interests of this Parliament into account, where we took decisions, and not all of these decisions were negative. If the United Party were to consider those decisions, they would find that they would approve many of them. But they know that it is politically profitable to incite people who are in a less privileged position; that is always the best kind of politics and that is why the hon. member for Houghton said: “How pleased millions of Blacks would be if a few additional Progressive members were sitting on these benches.” It is their endeavour to bring about mixed political institutions. I ask the hon. member whether that is correct ...

Why wait for your time to expire if you are not going to say anything? You can sit down now.

I have a great deal more to say, and the hon. member is wasting my time now. Sir, the Government will do its duty by the Coloured population of South Africa. On that point the Opposition need not feel anxious. It is easy for the Opposition to promise everybody the sun, the moon and the stars, because they know that they will not come into power; we are in power. We have to deal with this situation and we will deal with it.

Now I just want to put a few questions. Sir, the Coloureds cannot live by politics alone. In the days when, under a previous United Party, he had to live by politics alone, nothing was done for him. I want to ask whether it is correct to refer to “a collapse or failure of policy” when the CRC, which came into being in 1969 handled in that year a budget amounting to R46 million and is now handling a budget which will amount to approximately R120 million? Is it correct to refer to “a collapse of policy” when the Coloured staff employed by the administration of these people has increased to 94% of the people working for it? Does it amount to a “collapse of policy” when the Government has in the course of the years narrowed the wage gap at the request of these people?

Hon. members opposite will shortly be amazed to learn how we have been placing it on a better basis from year to year, after initial anomalies. Mr. Speaker, does it amount to a “collapse of policy” when we implement a policy of compulsory school attendance for the Coloured youth? Does it amount to a “collapse of policy” when the number of Coloured pupils increases from 493 000 to 616 000, the number of Coloured students from 2 000 to 4 007, and the number of technical students from 4 000 to almost 8 000? Does it amount to a “collapse of policy” when our policy, as far as technical instruction is concerned, leads to a new centre for these people where they can be trained as motor mechanics? Does it amount to a “collapse of policy” when, at local management bodies, we have consultative committees controlled by these people? Does it amount to a “collapse of policy” when we have succeeded, in the face of opposition, in being able to give these people, after an initial figure of 41,90 management committees? Does it amount to a “collapse of policy” when they have their own rector today? Does it amount to a “collapse of policy” when within the foreseeable future they will take over their own university, a university with standards comparable to the best in South Africa? Does it amount to a “collapse of policy” or is it a case of wishful thinking?

Sir, the Government does not believe that it has all the solutions, but hard work has been done here and a fine body has been established and the Government is prepared now, to subject itself to the so-called rule of law. What does it matter if we wait for it another year? We were prepared to subject ourselves to the so-called rule of law and appoint a scientific, well-equipped commission to investigate these matters even further—while, in the meantime we would not be idle—and then to give a decision. The Opposition can then pass judgment on the Government if it has not at all times carried out its policy as it should have been carried out, for various reasons, and one of those reasons is the country’s economic position. Then and only then can the Opposition accuse this Government, but until and when we have a final pronouncement on what this Government has done in the past few years, since its announcement of its socioeconomic training process in 1960, the Opposition must not come along and accuse this Government. If the Opposition, when discussing matters of this kind, are trying to score a try in the game of political football between Whites, so as in fact to prejudice the Coloureds, then I have little hope for this Opposition: then nothing will be left of them one of these days.

Mr. Speaker, I must confess to rising to speak this afternoon with a feeling of some puzzlement ... [Interjections] ... not puzzlement as to why I am here, but a sense of puzzlement after listening to the two speeches that have preceded my standing up, namely the speech of the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations and the speech of the hon. member for Sea Point with which I shall deal a little later on this afternoon. Sir, we are well into our second day of this debate. It is a debate which takes place in stirring times for us here and for this country, stirring times if you have regard to our position on the southern tip of Africa and if you have regard to what is taking place in the territories of our near neighbours to the north, events which are likely to bring the pressures and tensions of what is called Black Africa on to our very doorstep. These are not only times of that nature, but times when an important group of people within South Africa itself show every sign of dissatisfaction with their lot under this Government’s administration at the present time.

We have been criticized by the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations for having consulted with the various political organs of the Coloured people, for reasons unspecified, but one is led to believe, Sir, by what he has just said, that we were wrong in so doing. Had we not done that, Sir, and had we come into this House to await the information we seek as to what is going on here, at this stage, this afternoon, how much could we have learned from any speaker who has risen from the Government benches? Indeed, Sir, how much would we have learned as to what the cause of the problem is with the Coloured people and as to what the Government’s proposals are to remedy it, from the Minister himself? Precisely nothing. Sir.

The hon. gentleman, who is both able and courteous—and indeed I felt sorry for him—was put up to present an untenable case. He was put up to present a smokescreen, to deal with every issue under the sun save the one which is of the greatest concern to us at the present time, and that is for us to analyse and ascertain what the cause of the trouble with the Coloured people is at present, if we do not already know it; and, more particularly, Sir, to hear what the Government’s proposals are as to how this can speedily be put an end to and rectified in a proper manner. But in the second day of this most important debate, having heard one of the best and most constructive speeches that ever passed the lips of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a speech filled with proposals as to how we believe the situation could be met, we have had from the serried ranks of the Government absolutely nothing at all.

I have attempted to devise a standard by which this Government, and any Government, can be judged, and to ascertain objectively whether it is worthy of censure of whether it is worthy of acclaim on its record up to the present time. I think it should be accepted that every Government, and our Government as well, can validly be judged by the extent to which it meets the legitimate aspirations of the majority of people living permanently within the area of jurisdiction of that Government. I believe that that is a universally accepted criterion of judgment and that it is a universally accepted test. I propose to apply this test at the present time, after 26 years of National Party rule, and looking at the Government’s policies on the assumption—and it is a big one—that they have been fulfilled.

At the present time this Government is sovereign over the whole of South Africa. It is the sovereign authority over the Blacks, the Browns and the Whites of Southern Africa, some 20 or 21 million people. What are the legitimate aspirations of these various groups at the present time? In so far as the Brown people, the Coloured people, are concerned, Sir, you have listened for a day and a half to this side of the House presenting in detail and in moderate terms the legitimate aspirations of the Coloured people at the political level at the social level and at the economic level, but with particular emphasis on the economic and social levels. Now, Sir, in what respect has this Government met those aspirations at the present time? The answer to that is clearly: In almost no respect at all. The evidence is there for all to see and to read, and the evidence was delivered from this side of the House yesterday afternoon.

In so far as the Black people of South Africa are concerned, to what extent have their legitimate aspirations been met at the present time? The answer to that is probably to be found in this question: Why is it that after all these years of endeavour by a Nationalist Party Government in respect of that community, the Black people of South Africa, there is an almost total rejection of the philosophy and the implementation of the policy of separate development? Why is it? It is because that policy embodies a philosophy of rejection. It is designed to exclude from what is called White South Africa the aspirations and the influence of the Black community.

It is designed to exclude from what is called White South Africa a share in the privileges and the prosperity and ultimately the power of the authority over that area and over the communities in that area. It is that refusal to share which typifies the policy of rejection and the philosophy of rejection which this is. This was, in a manner of speaking, the way in which that philosophy was described this afternoon by the hon. member for Sea Point. He also described it as a philosophy of rejection if I understood him. Sir, you can understand my astonishment when I heard that sentiment coming from him this afternoon because for the last five or six weeks I have been observing the close association with, and the active support for, precisely this philosophy of the Government, by the Progressive Party.

In Umhlatuzana the Democrats, whose policy and philosophy as far as the Black man of South Africa is concerned is virtually identical with that of the Nationalist Party, were supported by the Progressive leadership in the form of the national chairman and the Natal chairman. The Progressive leadership came out openly in support of the Democratic Party candidate, Mr. Gerdener, standing for precisely the policy of rejection of the Black man in White South Africa as stands the Nationalist Party. Their policies are almost identical.

But they say they are the only people who stand for high principles.

That is right; they are the people who stand consistently for high principles. And what happened then? On polling day every leading Progressive from the coastal region of Natal openly wore the rosettes and actively worked for the Democratic Party, a party, I say again, espousing a policy in regard to the Black man which is identical to that of the National Party. When prejudice overcomes rational thought, these are the difficulties in which a political party lands.

Political hypocrisy.

When your prejudice against the United Party overcomes your reason ...

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

But, Mr. Speaker, I used the words “political hypocrisy”.

It does not matter; the hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

On a point of order, Sir, the hon. member was talking about the efforts of the Progressive Party not in this House but in Uhlatuzana.

The word itself is unparliamentary.

But surely, when it is applied to somebody outside this House ...

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Well, I hope we have heard the last of these high-sounding calls to principle and the second type of call which one gets from that quarter to eschew expediency after the events of the last five weeks. I would have thought too that on this important occasion, when the Progressive Party has come in some numbers to this House, we would have had not merely a criticism of the Government’s administration of affairs, but also an exposition, as you have had from the United Party in this debate and in previous debates every year when they have taken place, of how the constitutional problems which beset South Africa, and particularly those which beset the Coloured people at the present time, are to be solved by the device of the qualified franchise and the Senate proposals of the Progressives. After all, this is the cardinal difference between themselves and the other political parties represented in this House. But not one word have we heard in that respect. Perhaps it is understandable. I have here a letter written by a gentleman, Mr. Price, who was the Natal Coastal Regional Chairman of the Progressive Party and who, a month or two ago, had this to say about his own party’s policy. He is therefore an important office-bearer. He said—

This was in connection with the qualified franchise. He continued—

Then he goes on—

When one has that from an office-bearer of the Progressive Party itself, perhaps it is understandable why we have heard so little about it in the first essay in this House by the hon. member.

Let us go back then to the test which I proposed earlier to apply to the Government. The test of good government is whether the government concerned meets the legitimate aspirations of the majority of those people who inhabit its area of jurisdiction. I have indicated that there is at the present time, in respect of the Brown people and the Black people of South Africa, a rejection of what the Government offers. Sir, what are the legitimate aspirations of these people at the present time? I believe that you can analyse this question in respect of a number of points: Political rights, economic rights, civic rights, family rights, education, training for jobs and work facilities. I shall analyse those aspects in respect of the most important group of people under the jurisdiction of this Government, both now and in the future, viz. the urban Bantu, the urban Black man. But, Sir, at this stage, so far as the Government’s administration at the present time is concerned, it can safely be said that in respect of no community—and I shall deal with the Whites in a moment—does this Government meet the legitimate aspirations of the majority of the people living under its jurisdiction.

There are aspirations, too, among the White people. We tend to think that a Government that has been returned with a majority at an election, and a substantial majority at that, has met the aspirations of those people. But, Sir, has it? There are aspirations which this Government has not met, and under its policy has no prospect of meeting. I speak of the White community. As regards South Africa’s position in the world, we would like to be accepted, as we once were. We would like to feel that we are honoured people in the world, instead of people that are despised. We would like to feel that there is a measure of acceptance of us amongst the other racial groups in South Africa. We would like to feel that there is an all-pervading sense of security for all our peoples, including the White people, both now and for the future. Certainly, Sir, under this Government at the present time, the answer to every one of those questions is that the Government has failed.

How do the Indians feel about your policy?

I should say the Indians prefer my policy to that of the Government; because, as chairman of the Indian Affairs group of the United Party for the last two years, I have taken the trouble with my committee to meet some 40 prominent Indians in Natal on the very point of policy of the United Party and its federal approach, and I have done the same thing in the Transvaal. I am able to say to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs that in respect of both those groups of responsible and representative Indians in Natal and the Transvaal, there was a broad acceptance of the United Party’s approach, and there was general condemnation of the approach of the hon. gentlemen sitting opposite me. But let us not dwell further on that point.

Now, Sir, let us look to the future. I want you to envisage, Mr. Speaker, our having arrived at that situation where Government policy has been fulfilled, in the sense that all the homelands have asked for and achieved their independence on the hon. the Prime Minister’s terms, which is on the present basis of fragmentation, according to the Government’s consolidation proposals, and on the basis of the 1936 legislation. It is a big assumption, but let us assume that that has been achieved and that constitutional blue-prints will have been established. Now, to what extent, in these circumstances, will the National Party have fulfilled the legitimate aspirations of the majority of people living in what we call White South Africa? In the first instance, let me come to the Coloured people. To what extent will their legitimate aspirations be any better off and any better met than they are at the present time? The answer is none, on the showing that we have had up to the present time. The same applies to the Indian community. Now what of the rest, Sir? White South Africa, as it is called, will be that part of South Africa which has all the development and all the wealth, both industrial and agricultural, and it will contain the majority of the Black people of what is at present South Africa, permanently living under the jurisdiction of the National Party Government. So far as the legitimate aspirations of the majority, the overwhelming majority, are concerned, how will they have been met in the political sphere? They will have been given representation in governments—on the Prime Minister’s hypothesis, governments friendly to South Africa—which will have no influence at all on the lives of those people or the areas where they live. They will be in reality politically disenfranchised. That is the majority of the Black people of Southern Africa. Economically, judged by the present showing of this Government, they will be subject to the racial barriers which exist at the present time such as job reservation and matters of that kind, which we know are matters of immense concern to these people. In the field of differential wages, of the lack of education, of the lack of training facilities in the urban areas where these people live—that goes of course with their inability legitimately to get jobs for which those training facilities do not exist—we shall be in the same position. Once again the legitimate aspirations of the majority will not have been met. At the level of civic rights such as the ability to own a house in an urban area, to have one’s family, one’s wife and children living with one as of right, the right to have one’s children educated in that area and not in a homeland, we find the same position. Whether you look at it from the point of view of political, economic, social or civic rights, the legitimate aspirations—not airy-fairy notions—of ordinary people, once the policy is fulfilled, will not have been met.

As far as the homelands are concerned, there will be a measure of fulfilment in the sense that those people will have a government elected by themselves with sole responsibility for that minority of Black people who still live in the homelands. However, there will not be a sense of fulfilment because in terms of the Government’s proposals, they will know that they have those areas in South Africa which are depressed and undeveloped. The rest of South Africa which is developed and which creates the wealth in which we are all sharing at present they will have lost for all time. Where, then is the sense of fulfilment?

I believe that if you look merely at the United Party’s proposals in respect of the urban Bantu—the hon. Leader of the Opposition has spelt them out—you will see the preparedness to accept the urban Bantu as permanent, the preparedness to give him family life as of right, the preparedness to grant him freehold tenure of the cottage he at present rents in those areas, the preparedness to allow him education for his children where he lives so that they do not have to be sent back to a homeland, the preparedness to train him in those places where he lives for the job which he does at the present time, but which he is doing illegally and as an untrained person. If you were to do away with job reservation and if you were to adjust wage rates realistically, if you were to do merely those things which the United Party advocates should be done, you would go a long way to meeting the legitimate aspirations of the largest group of Black people in South Africa, the urban Bantu. One cannot merely deal with these problems at the level of administration, and that is my criticism of the hon. member for Sea Point. You have to give your constitutional proposals as well, and the constitutional proposals of the United Party have been added to this and have been spelt out by the Leader of the Opposition. He spelt out a federal arrangement which we have discussed on many occasions and which we discussed yesterday. With those two proposals, the proposals in the field of administration and the proposals in the field of constitutional development, political outlets, which we of the United Party are advocating—and I dealt with only one community, namely the urban Black community—I believe one can fairly say that we have a fair chance of meeting the legitimate aspirations of these people in our lifetime, now, and not in the dim and distant mists of the future. These things, I believe also, are matters which we can ask to be debated in this House. We can say that we are a little tired of the fact that proposals and constructive thought come only from the Opposition. We are getting precious little from the Government in this respect.

What about the aspirations of the Whites, which I said I would deal with? I have said that, superficially, the aspirations of the Whites have been met, and the Government’s success at the election would suggest that that is so. However, we are entitled to have and do have pride in ourselves and I believe we would wish to have an honoured place in the world instead of being the polecat of the world. I believe we would wish to have friends in the world. I believe we would like to be accepted in the world and I believe we would like, particularly, to be accepted amongst reasonable people of the other races in South Africa. There is danger of our moving away from that position. I do not say it is irretrievable, not for a moment, but unless we move a little more quickly, it may become irretrievable and that, Sir, I would regret.

There is, finally, the legitimate aspiration of the Whites to a sense of security. Nobody can pretend that that exists at the present time—there are doubts in people’s minds at the present time—and I believe that that too can be remedied by a more realistic approach along the lines of what the United Party proposes. What is our ultimate security? Our ultimate security is our ability to engender among the other races of South Africa a respect for and a preparedness to defend those things which we regard as of value to us. Until that can be generated there can be no security for anybody. I do not believe that that security is to be found along the road of separate loyalties, of telling people that they shall have no loyalty to the administration which governs us, but that those loyalties must be diverted elsewhere. I believe you can develop that respect for and preparedness to defend what we believe is of value by drawing common loyalties to something at the centre. That is another reason why we of the United Party believe that it is only a federal approach which provides the security within the group that everybody wants. I concede to hon. gentlemen opposite that a wish to maintain your identity as a group exists. It exists amongst the Whites, the Zulus and everybody else in South Africa. However, it is not an end in itself. There must be a greater loyalty if there is to be ultimate security in South Africa because the economy and everything else which would be required to defend this country demands that those loyalties override the sectionalism of the groups. So I believe, Sir, that if you are to create a climate where private property is to be defended, where the rule of law is to be defended, where there is to be an adherence to the desirability of defending person and property and if there is to be a maintenance of Christian standards and principles, then you must go about your government of this country in such a way as to develop in the minds and in the hearts of all races a loyalty towards those things which are dear to us. Otherwise all the constitutional devices in the world will do nothing to breed security in South Africa. That is why I believe that if you compare separate development with federation you must ultimately come to the conclusion that an acceptance of the federal principle, such as my leader has outlined on so many occasions, alone will provide that security which all races in South Africa, I believe, ultimately desire.

Mr. Speaker, at the commencement of my speech I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Umhlatuzana on his election as a member of a new constituency. When I last saw him in Natal, in the vicinity of Eshowe, he was hard at work fighting an election there, but since then he has been compelled to fight another election. We can therefore understand why on arrival here he should be so tired, and it does not surprise us that he has chiefly linked up his speech to the argument of his hon. Leader and that he has tried to stick as close to him as possible.

Mr. Speaker, from this debate it is clear that population relationships are strongly to the fore here and that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and hon. members opposite are making a special point of the situation in connection with the Coloured persons Representative Council. They present it here as an important motive for the Government to take certain courageous steps forward or, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition put it, significant steps. The hon. member for Durban North said: “The breakdown of the CRC is absolutely symptomatic of the Government’s inability to adapt to the needs of South African realities.”

In wishing to express a few ideas in connection with the situation relating to the Coloured population and the Coloured Persons Representative Council, I want to make a few general statements which are basic to my view and to the view of the Party I belong to. It is wrong and unbalanced to be stampeded by events in the CRC, to wrench the political aspect of its existence out of context and on that basis to plan or carry out certain actions over-hastily. In the first place I want to state that the Coloured population, broadly speaking, is still an underdeveloped population group, a population group with a small percentage of developed and educated individuals, who could only with difficulty lead the masses on their course of development. In addition I want to say that it is a population group with too small a percentage of individuals who are economically progressive and who can take upon themselves the economic progress of this population group. In other words, we are dealing here with a population group that essentially needs help along the road of its development, and it would therefore be wrong to take its political aspirations out of context and pay sole attention to them as if they constitute the only matter of importance. I want to make a second statement, i.e. that the rate of increase of the population amongst the Coloureds is so high that it overreaches and overloads the Coloured population’s physical, economic, social and educational capacity. The Coloured population is that sector of the population in our country with the greatest rate of increase, one of the greatest in the whole world. It is only countries like Mexico and the Philippines which more or less equal this rate of increase. This means that this rate of increase places a tremendous burden on the leadership group in that community, and a tremendous burden on the administration of Coloured affairs and, last but not least, a tremendous burden upon the Government.

If one listens to hon. members opposite, one finds their whole approach to be that what the Coloured population has not yet achieved, and the bad conditions that still exist, are blamed on this Government. This is being done in error. I should like to ask hon. member opposite: “What did you do during the long years you were in power, when your predecessors were in power and in a position to plan things and do things?” I want to make a further statement, i.e. that the Coloured population is not able to maintain itself in open competition with the White, Bantu and Indian groups. We are all aware of the fact that the Bantu population is a majority group in South Africa. We are aware of the fact that the Whites are not only in a position of power, but that they are also, economically speaking, the most advanced group. We are aware of the fact that even the Indian group, which is a small population group, is to a large extent able to help itself to guide its own development. If we want to see the situation in perspective, if we want to work at the development of the Coloured population in a balanced and responsible manner, we must take these facts into account, because to be able to lead a people or a population group along the road of development, that community itself must have a sufficient capacity to accept and carry that development; it cannot be dumped onto the community.

Mr. Speaker, I now want to make a further statement; I think this is my fourth statement: A large portion of the Coloured population’s leadership group is very strongly influenced by a liberal Press which gives scant attention to other facets of its progress and development, but places all the emphasis on the possible realization of a political ideal which they set for the Coloured population. They are being prompted in that connection and are not able to distinguish what the essential elements in this political situation are. They are presented with a picture indicating that when the political door to this Parliament is opened to them, all possible prosperity, development, civilization and what have you will fall into their laps, and that is why hon. members opposite actually appear happy at the so-called “breakdown” in the Coloured Persons Representative Council. Let us emphasize, Sir, that a proroguing of the CRC does not bring South Africa to a standstill.

Sir, let us now take a look at a few of the basic facets of Coloured development, and let us for a moment test the ideas and plans of hon. members opposite in the light of reality. Let us look at the socioeconomic sphere. What has the policy of integration, which after all has been in effect in South Africa for many years, established for the Coloured population? Let us look at a few of these things. What land area has it reserved for the rapidly-growing Coloured population? What housing has it systematically created for a population increasing so rapidly?

There have only been slums.

Fortunately, here and there, certain far-sighted Government parties and church societies did reserve a small amount of land for Coloureds, but nothing more than that has been done for them in this connection. Sir, let us look at the work of our big municipalities in South Africa. Let us look at Johannesburg, Durban and Cape Town. Up to the present day one has in power there those people who advocate a policy of integration and, what is more, these bodies have at their disposal considerable funds with which to do something if they should want to. It is not the village management board of Koekenaap and of Pofadder that must do something; it is Johannesburg, Durban and Cape Town. Today I want to say here, without fear of contradiction, that in spite of that the worst slum conditions today still exist in these urban areas. What is more, for many years past, for decades past, the Government has, along the road of separate development, made funds available, through the Department of Community Development, for purchasing land and for making housing available. And where is the greatest backlog? Ministers who preceded the present Minister of Community Development had at times even to use coercion by telling some of these big city councils that if they did not want to build, the Department itself would do so. What I am saying, Sir, is where is the inspiration of integration, U.P. or Progressive to a greater or lesser extent? Where is its animation? I am not saying with respect to the creation of separate group areas, but merely in respect of the establishment of the essential and basic aspects, a decent plot for someone to live on with a decent roof over his head? No previous Government in South Africa, in a period of two decades, has done nearly what the National Government has done with its policy of separate development. In other words, it has furnished proof to the effect that what hon. members on that side advocate, and what is Progressive Party policy, is an illusion and a fairytale, because the White economy and the selfishness of the entrepreneur does not reserve land for Coloured housing or residential areas. The entrepreneur does not do so because in the Coloured market it cannot get the same high price for the land that it can get from Whites. And now hon. members quietly go ahead and tell the Coloured population: “Along this road your salvation lies”, but without land, without a place to live, without a house to live in, without opportunities. Must this all come out of thin air? [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Green Point refers to District Six. I should like to ask him what has prevented the Cape Town City Council, throughout the years, from converting District Six into a respectable Coloured residential area? [Interjections.] They are surely the people who take the broad view, who supposedly want to clear the way for those people. If they had created something there, other than the slum conditions that still exist there, it would not have been necessary for the Government to do anything and there would have been no problem. But essentially this was land which still belonged predominantly to Whites and where Coloureds were exploited.

I should like to go further and just express a few ideas about development in the economic sphere. Can you imagine, Sir, how we, according to hon. members who are again prompting the labour group in the CRC, can today place the Coloureds on the road to development in competition with the large White business interests? Has a Coloured entrepreneur any chance if he must compete today in the Coloured area with the O.K. and other large business undertakings? What chance does he have? He does not have the slightest chance. The only chance he has is to be an employee in that undertaking. [Interjections.] I claim that the harsh realities of the competition in ordinary economic life offers an underdeveloped population group like the Coloured population no opportunity to develop independence and, last but not least, self-respect. [Interjections.] The hon. member is terribly nervous. He apparently feels himself somewhat responsible for the conditions that exist; he feels guilty. In other words, Sir, the offer of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his Party, having, as they do, a lot to say about frustration, itself creates frustration, and there are probably very few people who do not suffer some measure of frustration; we are all in the competition struggle in the economic sphere. The Coloureds must simply be drawn, without protection, into the economic competition already taking place in the White community. If that were to happen, the Coloureds would have no future.

Let us look at the political sphere. Today I want to state that the CRC is definitely an opportunity for the Coloured population, not only for the exchange of ideas, but for participation in governing themselves. Basically it is the Government’s point of departure that we do not, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has said, essentially proceed, from a philosophy of rejection, whereas we do proceed from a philosophy of protection in the development of an individual community. Although the CRC is at present a subservient body, it is there as an opportunity for the Coloured population to play a meaningful role in their own government and political life.

Give us an example of “meaningful” participation.

The hon. member has only to listen; he will learn something. I am saying that by means of the CRC the Coloureds have an opportunity for meaningful participation in their individual government.

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

I am not willing to give the hon. member an opportunity to put a question. In explanation let me just say that the hon. member and I have sufficient opportunities to ask each other questions.

I am saying that basically our point of departure is that a people or community has the right, and must have opportunity, to govern itself, to develop its own governing bodies and to participate in them. If there is frustration amongst many of the CRC members, they do surely have a good opportunity. They get a lot of publicity in the Press. They have the opportunity of freely criticizing not only their own Opposition, but also their own Government. This is not an opportunity to be scorned. I said initially that the Coloured population is chiefly still an underdeveloped population group. Specifically because they are being indoctrinated by an overwhelming Press, they believe that if the political door opens for them, all doors will open for them. That is why, in their political approach, they are unbalanced in more than one respect. There are competent men. I do not have the slightest intention of belittling them; there are very competent people. There are people who can debate intelligently.

It bothers me, however, that politicking is in the forefront while the essential problems are given very little attention and discussion there. Have we yet heard them urgently debating the rapid growth of the Coloured population? Have we yet heard them in serious and concerned consultation about housing, and have we heard them suggesting measures in connection with how they can make a contribution to improving that situation? These are great shortcomings that exist. Specifically because those shortcomings exist in their approach, it is so dangerous, and it would be over-hasty to give too much attention to their political aspirations.

Hon. members of the official Opposition have said that if their policy were given a chance, peace would prevail. Where or when has the Coloured community or its leaders intimated that the concept or offer, because it is actually an offer on the part of the United Party, meets with their approval? Are there any indications that even if they were to accept the offer, they would not also reach a “breakdown” in five or ten years time and say: But we are not satisfied, and we have no intention of accepting what the United Party offers? I predict that their offer will likewise be unacceptable. The Progressive Party is trying to make a better offer, and their ideal is a common voters’ roll and joint representation in the same Parliament with a qualified franchise, if I have understood the hon. member for Houghton correctly throughout the years. The question as far as I am concerned is: How long will the Coloured Community be satisfied with that? I understand that according to the present qualifications very few Coloureds would qualify for such a voters’ roll. Perhaps the hon. member could give us a bit more information about the electoral qualifications in future. The question now is how long they will be satisfied with that and what the offer would then be. Where do we go from there? In the past the Coloured population’s political situation has chiefly been an arrangement made for them by White parties and White political leaders. The National Party and this Government give them the opportunity to govern themselves. At this stage there are still shortcomings, and the CRC is for the present still in a subservient position, but there is no doubt that they can move forward along this road. In the words of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition they can make a meaningful and courageous move forward. But one cannot move forward politically while ignoring other facets of the existence of one’s people as if they did not matter. The average Coloured is more concerned about a residential plot where he can establish himself, about a roof over his head, about a good wage and about food and clothing. To him that is of fundamental importance. I therefore think that our approach to the needs of the Coloured population—I take it that we are all geared to their future progress and development—will be enhanced if we can calm them down so that they regain their balance and if we can point out to them those things which essentially affect their existence and progress. I want to emphasize that the hon. the Minister and his Department are continually creating opportunities for these people and demonstrating that if they are prepared, they can move forward. But what is the present-day position? In respect of education the position is such that at the primary school level there is still a considerable shortage of qualified Coloured teachers. They must surely come from that community, and that is a matter we must impress upon them. Along that road lies progress, because better schooling leads to better earnings. The position is also such that at the high school level there are not nearly enough qualified teachers to man the high schools for the Coloured population. This delays the establishment of new high schools. Whites must still help them to a considerable extent. Are those not the aspects of fundamental importance? Must we give them political status in this Parliament or, as the Labour members of the CRC request, give them the opportunity to speak here? While that population group is left behind in the educational and social spheres. Let us take a better look at this matter for a moment. It is the sensational aspects we read of in the newspapers. In the existence of these people there are, however, more fundamental needs. We would do well to likewise pay proper attention to these. I am convinced that on the road of separate development the Government is doing this. By no other government, in no other period, has so much been done in respect of housing, and even the provision of land, as has been done by this Government. I know that in the past two years 5 000 ha. of land have been purchased behind the scenes, by the Department of Coloured Affairs, for the Coloured population. We are not only building schools to establish educational facilities, but we are creating living space, in spite of what the Labour members, in their political rearsightedness, are saying in the CRC. I am convinced that on this road, even if there were to be dissatisfaction—because people’s political aspirations in this world have no limit, so much so that they even exceed the limits of their responsibility—we shall establish a basically happy and progressive community and do good, since we are anxious to help them, to help them in such a way that they can help themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down, which in common with the other speeches that have come from the other side, is nothing more than a smoke-screen. We have heard from that hon. member all kinds of things that have been done, among others how they have been purchasing land, but this is a normal, commonsense procedure which any understanding administration would follow. We have heard from the hon. member that the Coloured community are, in his view, underdeveloped. But we have not yet had from one single member on the other side any kind of an answer to the charges made against this Government by the hon. Leader of the Opposition that their policy has come to a complete and total standstill. As far as the Coloured community are concerned, they are involved in a confrontation, not only with the elected members of the Coloured Representative Council, but also with the members whom the Government itself nominated. How total a breakdown can you have, more than that, that the members that are nominated by that side of the House are themselves involved in a complete rejection of the whole system of the Coloured Representative Council. I want to ask hon. members whether they agree that the Coloured people are dissatisfied. Are they dissatisfied with what is going on? Are they dissatisfied with the system that has been provided for them, after 26 years of Nationalist Party Government? Have they rejected it completely, or have they not? Not one single member, not even the Minister, has reached the point where he has accepted it as a fact.

You did not listen.

I listened to him very carefully, because I made it my business to try and understand what he was getting at. Having listened to him for half an hour. I found he said absolutely nothing on this one particular point. Does the hon. the Minister admit that the Coloured people have today reached a complete impasse in their relationship with the Government?

Nonsense.

Why then is the policy of that side rejected by them, even by the nominated members that the hon. the Minister’s own Government have put there over the elected members, people who were nominated by this Government in order to support its own policy in the Coloured Representative Council?

They are instigated by your party.

They are not being instigated by anybody. Together they have come to this Government to say that they do not accept the policy which the Government has imposed upon them in past years. They are now looking for something new. They want a new initiative. What have we had from the members on the other side? Not one up to 5 o’clock this afternoon—and we started this debate yesterday afternoon—has said one thing that indicates that there is any new thinking, that there are any new ideas for new initiatives, or that they are recognizing that there is in fact a serious situation in relation to the group of people that one of their own members has called “die Bruin-Afrikaners”.

Now you give us some creative thinking. Come on!

We have a Government with 123 members sitting here without a single ideal in their heads, 124 collective heads, including that of the Minister of Economic Affairs, who is a member of the Senate. There is not much in his head, either, as far as I can make out.

The hon. member for Piketberg speaks of the Coloured people as though they exist in a vacuum, as if they are a people who have a totally separate development, who are not part of the development of South Africa, or part of our economy. He talks about the “Coloured man’s economy”, the competition between the Coloured man and the White man in the field of industry. Sir, the Coloured man is involved 100% in the common economy of the whole of South Africa today. Without the Coloured man in our economy, the whole situation will grind to a halt. That is the simple truth of the matter. That hon. member can speak here as though their economy is something totally separate, as though here we have two groups of people who hardly touch at all, and as though we are concerned with the Coloured people as a separate community in our country. His attitude is that they are separate from us and altogether different. I believe that one of the features of this debate has been that not one single hon. member on that side of the House has admitted that anything is wrong or that they have any kind of message, or even that the Coloured people are justified in being dissatisfied with what is offered to them. Are they justified? Is there any member on that side of the House who would say that the Coloured people are justified in being dissatisfied with and in rejecting what is offered to them by this Government? Is there any hon. member who would say that they are justified in seeking for something else and in asking for something new, for a new approach, for a new recognition of the part they play here in South Africa? Is anybody on that side prepared to say that they are justified in asking for a new approach?

Treurnicht is watching them; they cannot talk.

Yes, every now and then the hon. member for Waterberg nods his hood. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of the Interior speaks about these parallel lines. One would imagine that the Coloured community and the White people started on parallel lines in centuries past and that they never touched at any stage because it is a property of parallel lines that they never touch. Did we start on that basis; did we start on parallel lines in the old, old days; did we never touch these people or were we never in communication with these people? I regard the situation which we have reached as a very serious one. I have had the experience of mixing with some young Coloured students. They look me straight in the eye and say to me: “Whitey, you are gone; you are finished.” [Interjections.] If hon. members are able to laugh about it. I would say they are laughing in the face of adversity. They say to me: “Look, we and Buthelezi, we are going to fix you; you are irrelevant; you do not matter.”

It seems to me you were given a fright.

No, I was not given a fright, because I know Buthelezi and the Zulu people very well. I want to say to hon. members ...

What do you think of the remark?

I will come to that hon. Deputy Minister in a minute. He must just stick around. [Interjections.] That hon. Deputy Minister is going to have to say something during this session about the growing Black solidarity that is taking place in this country. It is a very, very serious matter and for hon. members on that side, and especially that hon. Deputy Minister who is so intimately concerned with the affairs of the Black people in the urban areas, to think that that is a joke and that they will get away with it like that, is something totally ...

I have never regarded it as a joke.

I am very pleased to hear that, but that hon. Deputy Minister is about the only one on that side who does not regard it as a joke.

To the hon. member for Bellville who spoke about the policy of the Nationalist Party as being a policy of decolonization and who said that the Nationalist Party was the party which was going to free these people, I want to say that one of the features of decolonization in Africa where there was no development, has been that one merely wished upon the people one was setting free a succession of military coups, a total lack of development and a total lack of any kind of stability. For this Government and especially for the hon. member for Bellville who spoke about decolonization to say that they are setting free the Black people in the homelands is, in any meaningful sense of the word, sheer balderdash! That is what it is; it is nothing else because not one of the essential prerequisites mentioned by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has been fulfilled by that Government. One wonders, when one thinks of the past history of this Nationalist Government. Decolonization has implied instability. There is not one country where that has not been a permanent threat. To talk of decolonization in this country, without a tremendous amount of development undertaken under the guiding hand of the White man, is merely a sham and nothing else.

I want to say something today about the relevance of political parties on the contemporary political scene. As regards the Nationalist Party, I think it is true to say that we have there a massive manipulation of the thoughts of Afrikanerdom by the Nationalist Party organization. I think it is a party which lives on the sentiments of a section of the population which that party is exploiting to its own political advantage. That is exactly what is happening: There is a massive exploitation of the thought processes of Afrikanerdom which has resulted in 124 members being returned here, but not one of them is English-speaking [Interjections.] The point I am trying to make is whether there is any relevance in a governing party which represents only one section of the White population and which has total power in South Africa? The governing party has massive power and all the initiative in its hands, a party which nevertheless does not have a single idea as to what it is going to do. There is a party in power of which it can be said that every single initiative it has taken over 25 years ...

... did not come from the United Party.

No, it did not come from the United Party because every one of them has been a failure. Had they adopted some of our initiatives, it might well have happened that some of the things they have tried would have been a success. What we face now is a total break with the people who are the closest to us, the people who share so much of our own civilization and our system, namely the Coloured community. We are faced with a situation that in the case of the Indian community their future is totally undefined. As far as the Black community is concerned, we are faced with a situation that there will be independence for a certain number of them in certain homeland areas which offer them nothing, while to the majority of them, permanently settled in the urban areas, nothing whatever is offered. Yet, even yesterday, when the hon. member for Green Point mentioned in the course of his speech that these Black people are permanently integrated into the economy of the White man, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development shook his head and said “Oh, no, of course they are not.” He is confirming it now again. My friend, the hon. member for Rissik, nods his head. He does not have a hood on his head, but he nods his head.

Does he have a hood?

No, they did not let him in. I want to ask him this: If they are going to say that the Black people in the urban areas are not permanently a part of South Africa and the economy which supports the efforts of every single one of us, what alternative does this Government offer those Black people? Not a word have we heard from them! While we have the majority of the Black people permanently in our areas, Black people whose efforts turn every wheel that turns, they still shut their eyes and say: Well, if we just do not look at them, they will all tiptoe quietly away, and we will not have a problem to solve. When are we going to face reality in South Africa? We have a party in power with a massive majority which can do anything. I want to say to the Government and to the hon. the Prime Minister that they can move in any direction they like, because they will be followed by the people—they can take any new initiatives. Mr. Speaker, in terms of the motion of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, the world is changing. Every single member who was with us on the Schlebusch Commission will know how rapid is the process of change. South Africa is changing. People are changing. The thoughts of the members of that Nationalist Party are changing. The thoughts of the young people are changing. We are beginning to realize that there is far more that we have in common with all the peoples in this country, the non-Whites, than ever the things are that divide us. We are looking at a world in which hostility towards this country of ours is not only growing but coming closer and closer to our borders. We have a party in power which can take the initiative if only it had the courage to forget about the “verkramptes” in its midst, those “verkramptes” who are sprinkled here and there in that party, and the ones outside who keep biting their tails every time they move.

I want to ask hon. members opposite one question: What does that Nationalist Party offer the Afrikaner people today?

You need not speak for the Afrikaner.

I am entitled to ask the question because as an English-speaking White South African I am tied hand and foot to whatever that Nationalist Party does on behalf of the White man. I am part of the scene and I am entitled to ask what that Government intends doing. On behalf of the Afrikaner I am also entitled to ask what that party has to offer the Afrikaner today. One of the greatest ironies of history is that that party which regarded itself as the vehicle of liberation—this was mentioned here today—has come to be regarded throughout the world as the instrument of oppression of every other single racial group in South Africa. Why is this so?

What do you know, Bitterbek?

I am not a Bitterbek.

*Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the English-speaking community and I go out of my way to try and understand what is going on in Afrikaner ranks. I am not a Bitterbek at all; I have a very, very high regard for the Afrikaner and a great deal of sympathy with what is going on in the Afrikaner soul. I have a very great regard and admiration for so many of these values the Afrikaner cherishes because he is the Afrikaner.

†Mr. Speaker, I want to say to that Nationalist Party that they have done every single thing they can ever do for the Afrikaner people. They offer them today nothing at all. In fact, if the Afrikaner is going to fulfil his mission in the world—and he has a part to play—then the first thing that has to happen is that that Nationalist Party has got to get out of the way. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, what has the Afrikaner got to offer today? He has a great deal to offer the world because the world today is looking for something; it is looking for leadership; it is looking for an intense concern with Christian values, it is looking for an intense concern about permissiveness and that kind of thing; it is looking for the sort of approach one does find in this country. However, because this country is being led by a group of people like that who can only see their own selfish advantage, every single thing that this country has got to offer the world is discounted and denigrated and attacked simply because.

Do you think the electorate are so stupid?

Mr. Speaker, if they vote for that party, then I think they must be stupid! If one looks at what that party offers them, if one looks at the deeper things that are involved, if one looks at the fact that that party fought an election without knowing what was the next step that it was going to take, when one thinks that that party fought an election merely to take from the Afrikaner people everything that it can get for itself, then I am entitled to say, if people persist in voting for something which is so totally negative, that I regard them as being stupid, because we have lots more to give to the world than that party can ever offer. That party, looking out on the world, never sees beyond the inside wheel of the laager; that is as far as they can go. Mr. Speaker, let us look at some of the things that the Nationalist Party has done. Let us look at the development of the homelands through the White man and the White man’s capital and the White man’s knowledge—something which this Nationalist Party denied when it first started with that policy, something which was called economic colonialism; it was a dreadful swear-word. We on this side of the House, because we pleaded for the White man to be allowed to develop the Bantu homelands industrially, were accused of being economic colonialists, and years went by before the Nationalist Party eventually got around to realizing that without some kind of aid and assistance from the White man, those areas could never become anything at all. Mr. Speaker, what are the conditions there? You want development there; you allow a man to go in and to develop there but he is always under the control of the Government of South Africa. [Interjection.] Sir, they talk about “uitbuiting”. It is the biggest lot of rubbish that I have ever heard. If that hon. member will put his fingers in his ears, he will feel the wind blowing through his mouth. Sir, think of the lack of job-training undertaken by that Government; think of the years when they refused to give training to the Black people. Think of the years that we have been held back; think of the wealth that this country could have generated. Mr. Speaker, when somebody was talking here yesterday about “sharing”, one of the hon. members over there said, “Yes, you want to take it away from the Afrikaner.” But, Mr. Speaker, surely the point about it is this: If this country develops in the way it ought to develop, we will create enough so that the White man can have what he has today; we can create enough for everybody; we can create enough to satisfy the people. We have been blessed with riches beyond compare. All we need is people of vision to run this country; we need people who have the vision to see beyond the inside wheel of the laager, something which that Nationalist Party will never be able to do.

Mr. Speaker, think of education for the Black people.

It progressed very rapidly during the last few years.

The Government started years too late. Think of the years that have been wasted; think of all the progress that could have been made. The Nationalist Government pegged the amount for Bantu education to R13 million a year and they found themselves in such a position that they had to borrow money from themselves merely to keep the thing going, and after a number of years they wrote off the debt. Sir, development or education means affluence, and affluence means contentment, and if there is one thing that we are going to need in South Africa now and very much more in the future, it is the contentment of all the peoples of this country, the contentment of all the people, of people who will be thoroughly with us, who will be South African who will be prepared to stand for South Africa, and to die for South Africa. In all the years that this Nationalist Party have been in power, they have refused persistently to see all the people of this country as part of the community of South Africa, while this party of ours has gone out of its way to create a machine which out of the diversities of the people of South Africa will create a unity of purpose, and what more do you want than that? The Nationalist Party is faced today with an absolute, total failure to engender and to garner support among any of the different racial groups in this country for the policies that they have been following over these many years.

I believe that with the United Party there are no problems of identity, if you regard people as being part of your scene as being South Africans and as being part of the system that we have set up here in South Africa. They are part of the whole set-up. They have something to share; they have something to divide with us; they have something to defend. They are the people on whom the future of White South Africa is going to depend.

Shame!

Yes, whether the hon. member likes it or not. I refer to that member for Parys, lately for Odendaalsrus, who spoke of the Prime Minister as being the most marvellous Prime Minister we have ever had, and the Government the most marvellous Government, the Government which is rejected in every single corner of the world, a Government which is denigrated and which calls down upon the head of the Afrikaner the term “the skunk of the world”. That is the marvellous Government that does so much for South Africa. [Interjections.] I think the point is simply this. Are the Nationalist Party prepared to share? Are they prepared to share economically? Are they prepared to say to the Black people that they are part of the economic life of South Africa? Are they prepared to recognize the share that those people have, to recognize what they contribute, and what they ought to get? Are they prepared to say they are permanently here and have their foundation here with us? Is the Nationalist Party prepared to say that? They have never said it up to now.

Sir, if ever there was a time when new initiative was called for, if ever there was a time when this Nationalist Party was called upon by history to meet the challenge of the day, it is now when they sit here in a new Parliament with the massive majority they have here. Unless somebody gets up and says something instructive and realistic and if they go on like this for the rest of this week, really and truly I despair that they will ever be able to provide leadership of any sort here in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should just like to say with sincere appreciation that I am pleased the hon. the Leader of the Opposition found the time in the course of his speech to state, unequivocally, the standpoint of the United Party in respect of the resolution adopted by the Council of Churches. I wish to add that I was pleased to know that the Progressive Party, through its mouthpiece, also expressed disapproval of this resolution. For my part I am convinced that there is a great deal of common ground in South Africa between people of various political parties on which we can build if we would occasionally forget the kind of things which are also, unfortunately, being drawn into this debate, as was done again a moment ago by a member for whom I have appreciation. I think we could debate across the floor of this House to very good effect and in the best interests of South Africa and all the people of geographical South Africa if we would be prepared to listen to the standpoints of the other person and not give voice to the cries we so frequently hear from the opposite side when a motion of this nature is being discussed. It is easy to point an accusing finger if one is not at the helm. It is easy to enumerate a list of faults and not have the responsibility to suggest solutions.

Now, to return to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, I think that there are many statements which he made in his speech which should be considered and pondered over by every sensible South African. I think it would be foolish and irresponsible to dismiss everything he said as pure politicking. In particular I think that each one of us should take personal stock of what he had to say about the dangers in the world in which we are living and in the times which are coming. Having said this, I must unfortunately add that where the hon. the Leader of the Opposition used these facts and statements to launch his attack on the Government, it was nothing new.

It is stale news to the Government and it is stale news to every person who is interested in the welfare of South Africa, not only today but also in future. For that reason the House may rest assured that the Government is devoting and has already devoted, the necessary attention to these matters, and is fully aware of the dangers confronting us. In fact, I think it was conceded by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to the hon. the Prime Minister that he had been unable at the time to disclose to the country the reasons for calling an early election. The wisdom of that step has been proved quite conclusively.

I said there are statements of which we should take cognizance and of which we should take renewed cognizance every day. However, when the hon. Leader of the Opposition subsequently suggested solutions, I am afraid that our paths diverged completely. For that reason I am going to let this brief reply which was precipitated by the previous speaker suffice. He was going to make an attack on me, but apparently never got that far. I consider it unfortunate.

I shall now confine myself to a few of the things which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said.

†I think that I should agree with him wholeheartedly when he said in his introductory remarks—

I agree wholeheartedly. I do not even think that we may be—we will in fact be. Let us have no doubt about that. Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said—

I should like the hon. members to listen carefully to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had to say. I quote from his unrevised Hansard—

I want to repeat these words—

I think there is one word in this quotation to which we must pay a little attention. I should like the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to tell me whether I am wrong if I say that when he refers to “our people” and “ultimate survival” he is referring to the White people of South Africa.

The hon. the Deputy Minister is correct.

If that is so, then I want to say without fear of contradition, at least contradiction from any man who uses his brains, that if it amounts to the survival of the White man in this country, then I cannot for one minute understand how the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in that very same speech could say something which I should like to quote. He was speaking about the Coloured people of South Africa and the problems with which we are faced in this regard and he quite rightly pointed out certain problems. Then he gave us as an ultimate solution the following—

Now let us look at the practical implications of what has been said here. I take it that we will move along in all sincerity and I do not doubt the sincerity of hon. members on the other side, even if they do doubt mine. I take it that this will not be a qualified vote. I take it that we will go the whole hog in proving to these people that we mean it sincerely and that we will give a vote to every man in the same way as we will be giving it to the Whites, otherwise we will be dishonest. That would not mean just 60 representatives with the Coloured population as it is. It would mean more.

You talked of five million hearts that beat as one.

I would like to reply in a little detail to what was said by that hon. member’s leader, for whom I have great respect. I have respect for him too, but he must give me a little time. I want to go a little further with this argument. The hon. member will then have an opportunity to reply to it. In the past this hon. member also spoke about the 13% of South Africa belonging to the non-Whites, the rest of the country belonging to the Whites. He made that out as being so unfair to the non-White population of this country. Let us go along these lines of argument and let me ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Hillbrow that if they do this to the Coloured people and give them these rights which they envisage should be given in the future, what moral rights has the Opposition of refusing these rights to the Black people of this country?

What moral right do these people have of saying to the Black people—and this is not my argument, but that of the hon. member for Hillbrow, who said that it was unfair to them—that we will merge into one legislative assembly with the Coloureds while about the Black people they say nothing? Is that morally right? Can you prove it to be morally right to the rest of the world about which you are so worried? What happens if you give it to the Coloured people and the Black leaders come to you and say you have given that to the Coloured population why not give it to them? It could be a request from the same Mr. Buthelezi who spoke to the hon. member for Mooi River.

Where is the morality in your Coloured policy?

Do not let us talk about the morality of our policy. I will explain to the hon. member when we come to that point if he would bear with me. At the moment I am referring to the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition goes even further and says to this House and to the country that as far as his party is concerned—after all, he is speaking on behalf of the party—they want to pose the Government this question: “Does it really believe that if it persists in enforcing its policy in the face of clear and explicit repudiations by the people concerned that force and the weary submission to force will eventually combine to make it succeed?” But what force was needed or was used? What force did this Government use? That, under the present dangerous circumstances, is what is being said by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I want to say, so that we can take note of this too, that I know we have done many things wrong in the past and that there are many things with which I did not always agree, but if this whole cry of “Swargevaar” in the past was used and abused, then I think it has now become a crescendo which must be stopped here and now by all people who love this country and by all people who are, with the Leader of the Opposition, concerned about the survival of our people in this country.

I am getting just a little bit tired—and I do not doubt the good intentions of members on the other side—of symposiums being held and views being aired for the rest of the world and for local leaders to hear. We are talking about paternalism as being something evil. I regard a paternalistic approach as something evil too. But what can be more paternalistic than when we go begging to homeland leaders and all sorts of leaders in the local field with our views of what we have to offer. I have become a bit tired of people rushing about, one ahead of the other, trying to get to the homeland leaders first, to impress upon them their goodwill. I have nothing to hide from the Black people of this country, and I have no sense of guilt. There are many things with which I do not agree and with which I am not happy or satisfied. I have said that I am not satisfied with the status quo, and we have to change and combine efforts in trying to improve conditions. There are many things which are not right. But very definitely, the solution, if we believe what the hon. Leader of the Opposition said, namely that we have as a task the ultimate survival of our people, lies not in the direction which has been indicated by the Leader of the Opposition.

Just in passing, Sir, may I refer to the hon. member for Green Point, where amenities are not to be provided for the Black people if they are too close.

Sea Point.

I am sorry, I apologize.

You missed the point!

Yes, I missed the point. At Sea Point, Sir, you will remember, amenities cannot be provided for the Black people. You will remember that story, Sir. These very same people tell me that we have to share power in South Africa, and that South Africa belongs to all the people. I want to put this as a question to the hon. member for Sea Point: “Why exclude the territories of Lesotho and Swaziland? And why stop at the Limpopo? Why not go beyond the borders? If people want to correct matters over the rest of Africa south of the Sahara, why not go further afield? I believe some have already gone there to get the opinions of President Kaunda and others on how to solve our problems in this country. We are going a long way to find solutions to our problems. We are travelling many, many miles. But we are not solving problems; we are creating problems, more and more. We are going to create problems even worse than those which were pinpointed by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I did ask him to tell us about the Black people of this country if he merely wants to give these rights to the Coloureds. I warned against this new cry of what the Black people are thinking about us. I am also perturbed about the turn that events have taken, and I think that we should seriously think of what we should do. But we cannot solve a problem merely by saying: “The Black people hate you; therefore you have to change your policy.” Let me tell hon. members on the other side now ... [Interjection.] If this interrupting hon. member from Hillbrow would merely listen, he would perhaps learn something. It will take a bit of time, but he will learn eventually.

Sir, may I put a question to them? We have learned a lesson from Malawi and Zambia. Why did those two countries not become one country, or remain one country? Why, if an inspector of schools who is a North Sotho, is appointed as an inspector in a Zulu school, do we have complaints? Why? Perhaps the hon. member for Mooi River can tell me, why do we have faction fights, not as an infrequent occurrence, but regularly? People are fighting, clans are fighting each other. Sir, can you imagine what would happen if the White Government should take away tomorrow the Police protection from many of these Black people?

That is your policy, though.

Yes, indeed so, and do you know why? I think the Whites in this country have a stake in this country too and they can also ask questions. Why should the White Police go into a faction fight at a mine at Welkom and be accused of murder whilst two weeks later another faction fight breaks out at Welkom without a word being said about it? In the last instance the Police were not there and the Xhosas and the Sothos murdered each other. Why was not a word spoken about that? However, the Police are blamed and questions are asked in this House when White policemen give their lives, risk their lives, for the Black people as well.

A great deal has been said about the Black people not wanting to give their lives for South Africa and for the people of South Africa. When Sergeant Kuhn was taken, was he there on the border for the protection of the White people of this country alone? Why must what we are not doing for the Black people always be stressed? Those White policemen and those soldiers die for the Black and the Coloured people of this country as well. What is more, they will be prepared to die and they will be fighting side by side as they are doing now.

I know that there are things that must be changed but it cannot take place overnight, but gradually. We must change things and I want to mention a few to hon. members.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned the question of education. I know there is still much wrong in the educational system. I know that we should have compulsory education and we are working towards compulsory education and we have gone a long way towards achieving it.

*I want to put a question to our English-speaking friends and particularly to those who have indicated, as many of them are in fact doing, that they want to understand the Afrikaner. We hear with great appreciation of the work which “Teach” and other organizations are doing, and I want to associate myself with the expressions of appreciation for that. But who among the hon. members has ever blazoned it abroad that more than a quarter million Black children have over many years been educated on the farms? Who has ever stated that it is the farmers who are constructing and maintaining the buildings and doing the work for the Administration? Here is something positive which is being done; I can tell it to the world and I need not even ask the advice of any homeland leader on it, although I have great respect for the homeland leaders. We still have a long way to go but hon. members can advance this cause by telling others to follow that example and not merely to look to the Government to do so. I also want to tell the Black people of South Africa today that after the Anglo-Boer War and after the depression, the Afrikaner nation arose from sackcloth and ashes with the C.N.E. schools. It is necessary to instil the desire, the will among our Bantu leaders as well, to serve themselves and not merely to ask for this, whether personally or through representatives speaking on their behalf here.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. the Minister. Will full amentities for high school education also be made available now in the urban areas?

We have said that we are going to try, for the most part, to concentrate the educational amenities in the homelands as these are required from time to time. If the hon. member would come to my office I could furnish him with a list of the number of high schools which have been built in the urban areas, in White areas.

I want to know whether these will now be freely available.

No, not freely. Nor will there be free education, because we do not have the funds for it. I am not going to tell lies about this; we still have a very long way to go in creating a situation which will be satisfactory not only to the Bantu but also to us who know that we are obliged to do so. Then, too, I just want to repeat what the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations and the hon. member for Piketberg said, viz. that we are dealing with one major difficulty. We are training our teachers to educate their own people, but what happens? Commerce and industry take those teachers who have studied on our bursaries. Let us encourage them to train their own people.

I want to mention a second matter which irritates people and on which we have recently been working, namely the question of influx control. I am not going to say that influx control is an ideal thing. I want to tell you candidly, as I have also said before, that I do not like migrant labour. There are evils attached to it; no one can deny that. But sometimes these are necessary evils.

†We cannot solve all these problems, but if one cannot solve a problem, one must at least cope with it. That is what we are trying to do although we are not always successful.

*Last year and the year before last I told the Administration Boards that we must have a new system of influx control. Now, however, a new cry has been raised: “Influx control is the cause of all the irritations”. When the amenities in Sea Point were at issue—and I do not mean this sarcastically; I only mean it honestly because I think that those people also have a right to say their piece—the Progressives and the United Party vied with one another in saying where those amenities should not be established. I understand the standpoint of those people; I would perhaps also have felt that way if such amenities had had to be provided next door to me. No I want to ask, however: “If there had been no influx control, with all its irritations, in South Africa, what chaos would there not have been here in Cape Town, what chaos would there not have been in Johannesburg and other places?” I want to mention certain figures to the House, and this is not confidential because I hope to make these figures available when my Vote is being discussed. In the urban, in the White areas, there are thousands of Bantu who have streamed to those areas despite influx control. I want to make an admission this afternoon, and if the hon. member for Houghton were here, I would have said this in her presence as well because I am not going to lie to people: “At Doornkop over a period of three years—and that was outside Middelburg where there was such an outcry, there had been an illegal influx over a period of three years—and that was because one dealt leniently with this matter—an increase of 322% in the number of people who were squatting there illegally in the most deplorable slum conditions. That is what happened there from 1967 onwards, when the number was 4 478. As the hon. the Minister said this afternoon in reply to a question, we were unable to calculate it precisely, but when we took steps at Doornkop there were more than 20 000 people who were living there under the most deplorable conditions imaginable. This happened despite influx control measures.

I want to ask White South Africa please to try to understand that we are, with these influx control measures, trying to protect Whites as well as Bantu who come to these areas so that it is not possible to apply for work far and wide or enforce wages. Our intentions are sincere in this respect as well, even if people do not want to believe it and even if they try to cast suspicion on it. We must protect these people.

It is easy to talk of training the Bantu so that we would only need a few where we now need many, but if we take a factory in which there are 100 workers and we train them so that we only need 30, we must bear in mind that the other 70 still have to eat and must have a place to live. It is easy for the industrialist to say that we must act in this way because he will then need fewer Bantu, but what do I do with the other 70? Should a few have cake and the rest die of hunger? This is the problem which is confronting us. I want to add to that that this provision of employment should be dealt with in such a way that it can take place in an orderly fashion. We want to eliminate these irritations for the sake of the employers as well. I just want to state that we tried, with the aid of a computer which was to have eliminated a great deal of this work, to have these matters finalized before this session of Parliament, but were unsuccessful. I am not apologizing for this; I am simply mentioning it because I want to get to know, with the aid of that system, what housing shortage there is and how many people, projected, will have to attend schools so that we can work out a programme for the next few years and can plan in advance. That is why we are trying to feed this information into those computers. Rather than come to light with something that is ill-conceived, we are trying to accomplish something respectable.

But you accept that they are there permanently?

No. I would really ask the hon. member, in an important debate such as this, rather to leave this petty scoring of points until later. I have told hon. members before that they need not be concerned about the distant future. I said last year, and the hon. the Minister also said last year, that these Black people will continue to be here for many, many years. I cannot say whether they will decide to go back or that their homelands will be sufficiently developed economically. But they will continue to be here for many, many years and if they are not living here, they will come here. Why make an issue of it now as if it were at this stage a matter of life and death? What is in fact of importance is that when they are here, they must have a house; that when they are here, they must have work and that they must be kept happy in as far as this is practicable. We have tried with housing, we have tried with the creation of amenities, and I have said that we are moving in this direction and that we will, of necessity, because there are some of these people who are idle and do not have these recreational facilities, have to provide these things.

Mr. Speaker, let White South Africans, of whatever party, appreciate one thing and let us reach agreement on it. Under the present circumstances a Bantu cannot live on a wage of R15 per month. No one can do it. I think it is time we encouraged our people of all communities, of all sectors, and of all parties to pay higher wages by asking them: “Can you expect that man to subsist if he is not paid a livable wage?” But what do we unfortunately find among our Whites? I am addressing myself to our Whites, not with a recrimination but with a request. I am asking them please not to help the Bantu person to break the law; help him instead to earn money so that he can make a living. Increase his wages and increase his standard of living and we shall be fostering happy communities and creating happy relations. Relations are not fostered by legislation; they are fostered by an attitude of the heart and mind. The homelands are helping to develop this and the provision of employment is helping to bring this about. A hundred outcries will not help to any appreciable extent.

†Mr. Speaker, I should like to say this in conclusion. We might make much of our recent victory at the polls, the Progressives may have a great deal to say about their gains and the others might try to explain things away, but one thing is certain. Present, although we may not see them here, are the people for whom we will be responsible, and I am referring to those unborn children of South Africa who in 20, 30 or 40 years time will have the vote. We have to look to their future as well. We have to see to that.

I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that it will not simply be a case of what he referred to as the “survival of our people”, but it will be a case of the happiness of our people, all of our people. That is what this Party and this Government have bound themselves to do and that is what we will implement also in the next five years. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, no one would doubt the sincerity of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. No one would doubt his bona fides. We on this side of the House appreciate the fact that of all the hon. members on that side of the House who have participated in the debate, he is one of the few who has taken the care and trouble, intelligently to examine the policy of the United Party as set out by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He has raised questions in this regard. Let me assure the hon. gentleman that before this debate is over he will be given the answers to those questions by people more competent than I to give them. But, Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister talks about being able to cope; I agree with him; this is the operative word when we stand on the threshold of developments in South Africa, but where I differ from the hon. the Deputy Minister is that I do not believe that the ideology, the rigidity of his party, will be able to cope with the events which are moving so fast in South Africa and in the world around us.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to follow this Deputy Minister. I have had the opportunity on past occasions of debating certain matters of Bantu education with him. I know that he is sympathetic. He is prepared to help; he understands the problems that exist, and I hope here today, in the course of my speech which is intended to be based on race relations affecting all groups, to raise certain problems, which I wish to put before the hon. the Deputy Minister, concerning certain aspects of Bantu education—a little heard of aspect, that of Bantu night schools and continuation classes in the urban areas. Sir, when the Nationalist Government came into power these schools and continuation classes were discouraged. They became fewer and fewer in the urban areas because it was contended that it was against Government policy to have such schools in White areas. In the old days the position was that domestic servants who work all day—and there are hundreds of thousands of them in the cities—were able to attend these schools. Considerate employers would see to it that their chores were finished early on certain nights in order to enable them to attend these schools, which operated within a reasonable distance, where they could, go and learn. Sir, we had in our own employ a young man who was learning on that basis. He got as far as Std. 5 and then the Government guillotine fell and that was the end of his education, because he is still an urban Bantu and he still lacks the opportunity to go and improve his education, simply because Government policy has decreed that there shall be no schools of this nature in the White areas.

Sir, what do we find? We find in a Bantu school population of 3 million—and this is the figure given in the latest Bantu education report—that there are a mere 5 000 Bantu attending night schools and that there is the trivial figure of 1 335 who are able to attend continuation classes. Why is this, Sir? Because a previous Minister with whom I discussed the matter was not prepared to give one inch. He said that the domestic workers, take Durban as an example, would be able to attend the schools in Chesterville, Lamontville and Kwa Mashu. Mr. Speaker, anybody who knows the geography of Durban knows that it is impossible and completely unfeasible for an African working in Westville, who finishes his daily work at possibly seven o’clock or half past seven, to get to a school in Chesterville by bus and to return home at some reasonable hour of the night; it is also impossible for him to afford the bus-fare to enable him to get to the school. My sincere appeal to the Minister is please to review this position, in the interest of the harmony and contentment of the urban Bantu domestic servant, because irrespective of what Government policy may decree, they will be in our midst for a long, long time. They live on our premises and they deserve just this opportunity to better themselves rather than have to spend night after night sitting on the pavements in the streets with nothing to do and nowhere to go. Sir, I leave that to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I trust that he will give it his serious consideration and a favourable response.

Sir, I said initially that I wished to deal with race relations. There have been frequent statements by Government members that race relations in South Africa are running on a more or less smooth keel. Many signs reveal that this is more superficial than real. I want to deal with some of the facts behind this. What are some of these facts? Among all the races there is a sense of frustration and anger. There is this sense of frustration and anger especially among some of the younger Whites. Sir, I do not like what I have heard from some of these young people. Two years ago, after a report-back meeting, a political meeting, it was reported to me that one of my young opponents was heard to say, “After the revolution we will be the Government”. The operative words are “after the revolution”. In the recent general election, this very election in my own constituency, when the count was being conducted in the hall there were radios playing outside. We, too, were getting the results. There was an announcement that in a Transvaal seat the Nationalists had increased their majority. There were cheers outside our polling booth. When one of my workers, an intelligent, professional young man, walked up to some of my opponents, he said: “You cheer? That was an increased Nat, majority”. “Yes”, they said, “we know”. The next question came: “Is that what you want?” They said: “Yes, that is what we want”. The next question was, “Why?” The answer came: “Becaus the stronger the Nats get, the sooner the revolution”. The next question framed was: “Is that what you want, revolution?”, and the answer came: “That is what we want, revolution”. Mr. Speaker, it gives me no joy to record such facts, that these young people have accepted, or appear to have accepted, the inevitability of revolution and the inevitability of confrontation between Black and White. It is hardly a sign of better race relations.

Now let me quote another example. Only last month I had the opportunity of speaking to a leader of the Coloureds from the Transvaal, and what did he say? He said: “Mr. Wood, it is good that you and I can still have dialogue, but the young Coloured people are no longer prepared to talk”. Is this a sign of good race relations? You see, Sir, many South Africans of all racial groups are calling for change, but we in the official Opposition do not believe that the Nationalist Government will be able to effect the change in the minimum time that is available. Time is not on our side, Sir. We have to look at it this way. Just take the history of certain developments. After the discovery of photography it took 112 years for photography to come into general use. After the discovery of the telephone, it was 56 years before the telephone came into general use. But what about the 20th century? Radar was in use in 1940, a mere 15 years after its discovery. The development of the atom bomb took only six years. Sir, can we in South Africa predict what will happen in South Africa in the next ten years? How long can the non-White races continue to suffer the indignity of seeing the doors of South African hospitality flung wide open for visiting non-Whites, diplomats, pop-singers, sportsmen and businessmen, when basic facilities are not provided for them in our cities? After 26 years of Nationalist rule there is talk, and some attempt, to provide eating facilities and adequate toilet facilities and to allow the use of libraries and the limited use of White facilities.

A great deal has been said about the Coloureds, mainly those in the Cape; I wish to deal with some of the problems of the Coloureds in Natal, a small group, a respectable group, but a neglected group. Before I do so, I wish to quote from an unknown author who said—

No wonder he is anonymous!

Let me take the House back 13 years to 1961 when the late Dr. Verwoerd made certain promises in his address to the Union Council for Coloured affairs. I quote what he said—

Then he went on—

That was 13 years ago and the Coloured Representative Council, a creature of Dr. Verwoerd’s ideas and ideals, has been prorogued and is not functioning. One can only conclude that Dr. Verwoerd was wrong once more.

As far as the Coloured situation is concerned I quote briefly from the editorial of Rapport of 28 July, in which it said that the situation presented “a pretty dismal picture”. Let me highlight some facets of this dismal picture. Many Coloureds in the professional and skilled artisan sectors have become so frustrated with conditions in South Africa that they have left South Africa, the land of their birth, for good. They have emigrated to Canada, Australia, and Great Britain, to places where they can live decent and normal lives.

There has been a brain drain.

There has been a brain drain because many of them are in possession of top teacher qualifications.

How many of them returned?

An hon. member asks: “How many of them returned?” Unfortunately, there are no figures. I wish hon. members on that side could give the figures of how many had gone and how many had returned; it would be very enlightening. I want to take a specific case. Take the case of the Brown family. It is not their real name, but there is such a Coloured family and the facts are authentic. The father was a White man, a skilled, specialized artisan on my voters’ roll. The mother was classified Coloured but accepted in a White community. She attended a church in a select area on the Berea in Durban. There were eight children. Three daughters were all married to White men. My efforts over a period of time and at top level were unable to have these three women reclassified as Whites. When I raised the question of possible contravention of the Immorality Act, the answer I was given, again by a top official, was that the definition of “Coloured” in the Immorality Act was not the same as that in the Population Registration Act. One of the other daughters worked in a top White nursing home as a White in Johannesburg. The younger boys lived a twilight existence because they went to White schools but when they became of age they were issued with Coloured identity cards. All my representations through the normal channels up to Prime Ministerial level drew a complete blank. What happened? The family emigrated to Australia. The artisan sons applied for and were granted permission to emigrate. They went and in due course the family set up home in Australia. Before they left I received a letter from the mother of the family thanking me for what I had done and informing me that they were all going to Australia. Then we still encourage immigrants to come to South Africa! But they must have White skins!

There is another recurring indignity which the Coloureds in Natal feel very deeply and that is the question of identity cards. There are many cases of Coloureds born in Natal who find that they are issued with identity cards on which they are described as “Cape Coloured” or “Other Coloured”. Surely it is logical to say that these people know they are Coloured, they are proud to be called Coloured and that they would therefore like to be designated as Coloured.

I have dealt with the personal indignities but what is the general situation as far as the Coloureds in Natal are concerned? Last month I attended the Miss Durban Ball. It is sponsored and presented by a Coloured ratepayers’ association which operates in my constituency. It is primarily a social function to pick a Miss Durban. Thank heavens they are still able to use the Durban city hall by permit because there is no suitable alternative venue But when my wife and I are invited—as we have been year after year—we have to ensure that the permit allows us to be present. How do the dancers get there? Are they expected to travel on what is known as the “green mamba” transport service which is the only service available to Coloureds, Indians and Bantu, or are they all to get, if they can afford it, non-White taxis? I have seen what happens. Some women arrive, dressed in evening finery, in the backs of panel vans. It is their only means of getting there. I want to assure hon. members that their behaviour and the whole atmosphere at these functions would do credit to any racial group in South Africa.

What happens to the Coloureds when they go home after the ball is over? Those who live in areas such as Spark’s Estate go home to reasonable homes, to reasonable conditions and reasonable facilities, to homes that are over-crowded but nevertheless decent. But those who live in the Austerville, Merebank and Wentworth, complex 15 000 to 20 000 Coloured people, what of them? The local authority and the Government have made sincere efforts to provide homes, but these efforts should have been made ten years ago if not earlier. What facilities are there for these people? There are insufficient facilities for soccer; the soccer grounds are occupied from early morning on Sundays till late at night to enable every team to have an opportunity to play. There is no swimming bath but there are plans for the building of one. Only now are there two tennis courts. Six years have elapsed while I have fought a running battle with various departments to try to get tennis courts, which were vacated by the South African Police Force nearly six years ago, transferred for the use of Coloured people in their own Coloured area, but my request had to go through the pipeline of three different Government departments. When the tennis courts were eventually handed over they were in such a dilapidated condition and the pavilion so damaged by vandals that it took thousands of rand, some of the money contributed by service clubs in Durban and by the Department of Coloured Affairs, to restore the tennis courts so as to enable 15 000 to 20 000 Coloureds to have this recreational facility. There is no bowling green that they can play on. The South African Police in the same area vacated a bowling green over a year ago, but due to governmental delay that bowling green has suffered as a result of vandals. The green itself is unplayable, while the pavilion is just a shell. The Coloureds are still waiting for occupation of that bowling green. The situation is entirely due to the delay occasioned by various Government departments. How long can we go on putting up with this delay? I know that the Fouché Committee has been appointed to investigate certain aspects of the situation. I only hope that when the Cabinet and the Ministers concerned consider this Committee’s report that they give it urgent priority and see what can be done. It is no use turning around and saying that these instances which I have named are the fault of the local authority. They are not, because the ground at Austerville belongs to the Department of Coloured Affairs.

Sir, what happens to the children who live in this area? What facilities have they? Most of the children have only known the streets as their playground. Most school grounds in the area are as barren as a desert, and there are simply no sports facilities at most of the schools. After many years, plans are on the drawing board, but they have been waiting for years and years. One encouraging feature is the fact that a religious order is providing a service of meals-on-wheels, so that these little school children are able to queue up to get some form of nourishment. But that has nothing to do with Government activity there.

I would like now to refer to the question of race relations as they affect Indians, particularly in Natal. As far as I can remember, it was about 12 years ago that the term “Indian South African” became acceptable to the Government. Those Indians born in South Africa, I believe, accept this term. I believe some of them are proud to do so. There are others, not born in South Africa, who would like to be known as Indian South Africans, for good and valid reasons. But they cannot be by Government decree. In June of this year the South African Indian Council resolved to seek a meeting with the Minister of the Interior, Dr. Mulder, to discuss allowing brides from India to settle in South Africa. According to a Press report of 20 June—I quote—

Sir, that is perfectly reasonable, “if they are suitably qualified to enrich the life of the community”. A member of the South African Indian Council is on record as saying “this assurance is not being honoured”. I can confirm that the assurance is not being honoured, because I have a case on my file to prove it. The former hon. Minister of Indian Affairs, who is sitting there, will know—I say this in fairness to him, he did his best to assist, but he was unable to break down the barricade of prejudice that has existed for years in this connection. For more than 22 years an Indian professional man—and he is one of many, not just an isolated case—has sought recognition of his India-born wife whom he married in Scotland many years ago. This is a man known to me personally. I call him a friend and he is a man of high integrity and fine character who comes from an Indian family which settled in Durban nearly 100 years ago. He fought for South Africa in World War II. He went up to East Africa and when he came back and was demobbed, he studied in South Africa at Witwatersrand University as far as he could go. Then he went overseas to take up his profession. He met his wife in Scotland and they were married. In 1954 he started the procedure to apply for his wife to be given a South African passport. Her Indian passport became invalid years ago and she has no wish to renew it, but in terms of this Government’s edict she is still not entitled to a South African passport as a South African Indian. She is a highly qualified woman and was asked by a very high educationalist in the Indian University to come and lecture to Indians at the university. Her request was reasonable and her reasons were valid. What is the effect of this? There are few places in the Republic of South Africa where she and her husband can go together and stay under conditions which they are accustomed to in their own home. Therefore, in order to enjoy a normal holiday, they have to go outside of South Africa. In the days when Lourenço Marques was a town which tourists could visit, it was necessary to apply to Portugal before the woman could receive a visa to go to Lourenço Marques on holiday. This visa which can be granted by the South African Government is no longer valid in Swaziland. So the father and the family who have South African passports are able to go, but the mother is restrained on many occasions because she is not able to receive a South African passport. She has to travel on a visa. An interesting point is that when I made an appointment to interview the former Minister of Indian Affairs he kindly gave me the interview and the Indian professional man concerned flew up specially from Durban to Pretoria, but before he could enter the Transvaal merely for a sojourn of one day and a night he had to get a permit to do so. Then, when he got back to Durban he immediately had to go and surrender the permit. [Time expired.]

But that was changed.

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a good thing if, from the corner where I am standing, I expressed a word of congratulation to previous speakers on this side of the House, especially the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs, the hon. member for Piketberg and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. They delivered speeches of high quality here this afternoon, speeches bearing testimony to the earnestness with which the Government views the problems of the country. Unfortunately I cannot say this of speeches made on the other side of the House, because yesterday and today we were treated by some speakers to statements which in my opinion were dangerous and wrong. The hon. member for Berea came and told us quite dramatically here about a conversation he had had with a young Bantu person. He said that this Bantu had allegedly said to him: “We want revolution.” I want to ask the hon. member for Berea what his reply to this young man was. Did he join in the conversation? Did he take this opportunity to disparage his fellow-Whites in this country who are members of the National Party? I want to ask him what his reply was, because when I consider what was said yesterday and today, I think he would have given a reply that was unfavourable, unfavourable in the sense that he did not try to tell this man what the real point at issue is in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing of which we must be careful and against which we—i.e. the Whites, the Coloureds and the Bantu—must warn one another, then it is that we should not seek opportunities for confrontation with one another, but that we should positively ask one another: “What is the point at issue in South Africa?” It is very easy, when one does not have responsibilities, to say irresponsible things; this is very dangerous. Nobody expects all of us in this country to think alike or all of us to agree with one another. Everybody in this country, notwithstanding his colour, his creed, his language, must realize that the happiness and security and continued existence of all our people here in South Africa are at stake. Those in South Africa who are seeking confrontation, those who are echoing the views of these seekers after confrontation, must be made to realize by us that what is involved here in South Africa is an orderly continued existence, and that there are organizations outside our national borders—international communism, to be specific—which have their eye on this father-land of ours, their object being to get hold of this southern country of Africa as well. If those people were to take this country of ours by surprise, neither the Whites, nor the Coloureds, nor the Bantu would benefit by it, because we are South Africans and we are being pilloried. I should like to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he really believes that if they were governing the country with their federal system the world would then subside and say, “Well done; now we are satisfied; your system is the perfect one.” Do the Progressive Party think that if they should govern and introduce their qualified franchise—or is their policy “One man, one vote”?—the world will say, “We shall leave you alone now.”? Do you think that the Organization for African Unity or other international organizations would leave us alone then? No, Mr. Speaker. Irrespective of whether one is a supporter of the N.P. or U.P. or P.P., the outside world says, “You are a White colonialist and you must get out of South Africa.” During the past few days the speakers on the Opposition side have delivered themselves, as I have already said, of several reckless statements, and I have been wondering whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has once again been taken in tow, as was so often the case in the past. He moved a few paces to the left, and I wonder, when I think back of the speech the hon. member for Newton Park recently made in the district of Worcester, whether he, i.e. the hon. member for Newton Park, really agrees, in his heart, with this movement to the left, which is clear from the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I wonder whether the hon. member for King William’s Town agrees? I am telling you, Sir, that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has probably been taken in tow by the Young Turks after all. I am not allowed to mention their names yet, because they are not allowed to or cannot reply yet. Just as was the case when we became a Republic and just as was the case on other occasions where the National Party fought for South Africa, so they once again backed the wrong horse this time. Once again United Party members tried, through typically opportunist speeches and opportunism in politics, to be, at the same time, all things to all men.