Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned yesterday evening, I was indicating to you that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition showed us in his speech that he has now moved very far to the left. I do not believe that he made the move to the left because he truly believes that a leftist liberal policy will be able to guarantee security, peace and order in South Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that throughout the world today there lie the wrecks of plural communities which tried, or were even forced, to seek their salvation in integrationism.

I want to allege that the hon. the Leader has moved to the left with his party because he was pushed there, because they were taken in tow, because this Opposition, by virtue of its opportunism, has once again simply taken fright at the so-called progress of the Progressive Party. I want to return to that at a later stage, but at this stage I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he has again misread the signs in our country, as he has done repeatedly in the past. I think that the standpoint he has now adopted is but another nail in the coffin of the United Party. What has thus far become apparent in the Opposition speeches? There was not a single word of appreciation for what the National Party has done in recent years for our Brown and Black people. Frequently we have had to do these things in the face of very great opposition from their side. In this connection we may think of the housing improvements, of the economic, social and educational assistance granted to these people. We can think of the political growth that has taken place in this connection.

Is it necessary for the Opposition to place only the National Party in the dock? In the past there have been, and today there still are, other factors and bodies which are also responsible for the lagging position these people have. I claim that no one in the past, no person, no party, has done so much for the Whites, the Bantu and the Coloureds as the National Party has done, but there has been no word of appreciation for this. And I have not heard any member of the Opposition saying a single word to the leaders of the Brown and Black people to remind them that in these times increasingly greater responsibilities rest with them as far as their utterances and conduct are concerned. They have not been told that all of us have a very great responsibility to the country and to the security of its people. Thirdly, in their speeches I have heard not a sound of warning against the militant persons and groups who want to sow unrest in South Africa.

It is well known, Mr. Speaker, that the Opposition and the Press accuse the National Party of having bedevilled our racial peace. Let me ask whether the United Party, the Progressive Party or the English-language Press ever hit out at Mr. Donald, Woods when, before a Black audience at a memorial service, he made a most inflammatory speech? May I quote what this man said after he had paid tribute to a Black leader who had passed away—

Then he goes further and uses these words—

Sir, did you hear that the Leaders of the opposition parties had even spoken to that man about this? No, what happens? The hon. member for Sea Point invites this man, this agitator, to Sea Point to come and make an election speech for him there. Sir, I am still waiting for the day when either the Leader of the Progressive Party or the Leader of the United Party will issue a word of warning to this man, Donald Woods, or to his kindred spirits.

Who opposed him?

No, the Progressive Party looks to the day, and longs for the day when the Whites will lose their struggle to preserve their own identity and sovereignty; they strive for that and the United Party, Sir, has become afraid of the Progressives. Therefore they are willing, for the sake of short-term benefits, to put the National Party in the pillory.

You have become afraid of the U.P. men.

Sir, the National Party does not need to be ashamed or afraid of its policy. What people needs to be ashamed of trying to safeguard what is precious to it? The National Party says, unequivocally and unashamedly, the following three things: We believe in the self-determination right of peoples, and that is why the protection or continuation of colonialism is not a part of the National Party’s policy. Secondly we say this: Because we believe these things, the Government is not hostile to the legitimate political aspirations of our Black and Brown peoples. Thirdly we say that the National Party attaches great value to the principle of national distinctions, and that it will continue along this road.

Nor for Madam Rose.

Sir, in all humility I want to put two questions to the hon. member for Sea Point. I want to ask him to give me two straight answers to those questions. I have here in my hand a letter which a voter of Sea Point wrote to the Press, in which he states that on various occasions he has tried to put certain questions to Mr. Eglin, but as soon as he stood up, the chairman terminated the meeting, and now he has had recourse to the Press and has asked this question there—a very simple question—

Sir, it is a very simple question. The hon. member must not come and tell me, as they have done previously, “The local communities must decide”. No, that is not an answer to my question. I thank he owes us an answer to this question, because we are being put in the pillory for applying petty apartheid. We are being told that we are the cause of unrest. This simple question merely concerns the practical implementation of their multi-racial policy, and I should like the hon. member for Sea Point to answer this question.

He need only say “Yes” or “No”.

The hon. member may now stand up and just reply “Yes” or “No”.

He is “zipped”.

Sir, I want to put a second question to the hon. member for Sea Point: Is his Party’s policy based on a qualified franchise, or does it rest on one-man-one-vote? Because, Sir, on 5 April one of their present House of Assembly members wrote a letter to The Argus—I am not allowed to mention his name because at this stage he cannot give me a reply to this question—in which he said:

“Utter nonsense”. But, Sir, just after the election, on 22 June, another present M.P. of the Progressive Party writes a letter in which he states—

Sir, this is my second question. It is a very simple question. I know beforehand that we are not going to get a clear answer from the hon. member, because these people are very smooth talkers; they tell us, with smooth sounding words, what they think and feel. Sir, whatever answer is going to come from the hon. member for Sea Point, from the hon. member for Houghton or from any of the other five Progressive members South Africa will very quickly square accounts with a political philosophy which can make no positive contribution to the politics, orderliness and peaceful coexistence in South Africa.

Sir, I should like to come back to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Groote Schuur. In his speech he said that in their federal policy the White Parliament could disappear. Last year, Sir, as you know, the Leader of the Opposition and I were involved in an argument here across the floor of the House, on that occasion I claimed that he had said that the White Parliament could disappear, and he then denied this. It is very strange how quickly this man changes his policy. I think he is probably a very good fisherman; he understands very well the art of changing bait very quickly to catch a better fish. Sir. I must now put this question to the hon. member for Newton Park. On 19 April, with a loud trumpeting, he said—

Sir, if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tells us now that the White Parliament can disappear, I should like to ask the hon. member for Newton Park what has happened to the philosophy of “White leadership”. He must not come and tell me that in such a multi-racial Parliament there will still be “White leadership”. No, Sir there may be Whites in that Parliament with minority influence, if I may put it like that. I do not think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is realistic when he says that a possibility exists that Whites and non-Whites can agree on the establishment of a multi-racial Parliament, because he said—

Sir, I want to put this question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Has he not studied the results of the elections over a period of 25 years? Has he not discovered that over a period of 25 years the Government has been tested by its policy and that in one election after another its policy has been considered by the electorate? Sir, what were the results? From 1943 to 1970 the United Party’s number of votes has only increased by 5,5.% What is more, between the 1970 and the 1974 elections the United Party’s number of votes decreased by more than 200 000.

What is the position as far as the National Party is concerned? Over the period 1943 to 1970 the National Party’s number of votes increased by 81,2%, and in the period 1970 to 1974 there was again a very strong increase. I can give you the figures, Sir, but I think we shall leave that matter where it stands. But I want to bring home my point. The proof is there that an ever-increasing number of our Whites are, in their heart and soul, in favour of the political philosophy of separate development, not because they want to oppress other national groups, not because they want to take away the rights and the privileges of other population groups or because they begrudge them those rights and privileges, but because the Whites, and an ever increasing number of the responsible non-Whites, realize that separate development, together with its consequences, is in the end the only policy which will give South Africa the opportunity to grow in an orderly and secure fashion, and which will give South Africa a home, a fatherland where White, Brown and Black can live together in peace as good neighbours, and what is more, can work together. Why is the United Party swinging to the left? Is it because there are people like Mr. Philip Myburgh? [Interjections.] If it is hurting you, just keep quiet for a moment; you will soon have a chance. I am asking why they are swinging to the left? Is it because they have in their ranks, in their electorate, a kind of person like Philip Myburgh who said—

Is that the reason why they are now suddenly swinging to the left, or are they swinging to the left because the English language Press told them—

All that the United Party possesses as it stands today is an enormous potential for self-destruction.

Do they now think they can ward off this “self-destruction” by moving to the left? Why are they now moving to the left? Is it because some of their supporters, and ex-supporters, are saying this in letters in the newspapers—

Is that the reason why they are now suddenly moving to the left? But I think there is a fourth reason, and I am putting the question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: “Is he moving to the left because he is in a political muddle.” Let me illustrate this. On 24 April he was given a political thrashing, and the next morning his erstwhile newspaper friends told him—

But what does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say? He gets up the next day and says—

Is this not evidence of a man who is in a political muddle?

I want to conclude by saying that the Sunday Times is no friend of the National Party. I know the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will say it is no friend of his either. The Sunday Times is, however, a very good friend of the Progressive Party. On 19 May the Sunday Times came along with a piece of advice to the Opposition, the Progressive Party and the United Party, and I think it is valuable advice to which they ought to listen. The Sunday Times wrote in its leader—

It then proceeded to give this advice—

Sir, that is a piece of advice to which all the members on the opposite side of the House could listen. It is a piece of advice to which all the homeland leaders and all the Coloured leaders could listen, because the political philosophy of separate development is a basis from which we can move outwards in the interests of a South Africa in which everyone can develop and live in peace and quiet.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get involved in an argument with the hon. member for Worcester about Progressive Party policy and the United Party. They can fight their own battles as far as that is concerned. I have much to say and not very much time in which to say it. We are in any case discussing a motion of censure which emphasizes the need for change.

I want to say at once that, having listened to the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, there is no doubt whatever that the United Party has undergone a considerable change. I would almost call it a metamorphosis, a sex-change if you like. They have almost become men. [Interjections.] I may say that they have achieved this in record time, because a good deal of the important changes which they have made have been made since the general election. In other words, they went to the country on one policy and, less than two months later, the policy had changed materially in certain respects. I want to point out that only last year I was the only member in this House to vote against the Pill, introduced by the Minister of Bantu Administration, to give Self-Government to the Native Peoples of South-West Africa. I voted against that Bill for the very simple reason that I warned that it was highly likely that the introduction of a Bill like that at a critical stage of South Africa’s negotiations at the U.N. would do harm to our cause. So imagine my astonishment when the United Party, which supported that Bill last year, was on Monday, through the Leader of the Opposition, complaining that the Government had introduced a Bill which had jeopardized our relationships at the United Nations. Only last year I introduced a private member’s motion to amend the Industrial Conciliation Act in order to change the definition of “employee” so as to allow Black people full trade union rights. Did I get the support of the United Party? Certainly not. I was told that I was being “irresponsible.” It is true that it was through the mouth of the hon. member for Turffontein when he was still in the U.P. benches, but he was their chief spokesman on labour and presumably he was uttering their policy. He said that I was being irresponsible and other members accused me of wanting strikes.

I have not changed on that point. [Interjections].

All I can say, Sir, is that it must be one of the very few things on which the hon. member has not changed. Mr. Speaker, a few years ago I asked in a private member’s motion for free and compulsory education for children of all races. “Who will pay for it?” was the cry I got from the United Party benches.

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

No, do sit down. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that I welcome the changes which have taken place in the United Party, and I do not really care whether they have been engendered by a real change of heart in the official Opposition, by the presence of new members in their caucus, by the absence of the erstwhile left hand and right hand of the Leader of the Opposition or, I may say, by the absence of his ears as well—I refer to the erstwhile member for Orange Grove, who was his shadow Minister of Information I really do not mind why these changes have taken place. I do not even care if they have taken place for the simple reason, and possibly this simplistic answer is the right one that they lost six formerly safe seats in the general election to the Progressive Party. I welcome the changes because they are signs of enlightenment. Any signs of enlightenment in the political field in South Africa are to our, to everybody’s, advantage. I welcome them on a more personal level, because for years I have been sitting here listening to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition talking about upholding the traditional colour bar in industry and saying that the United Party, like the National Party, objected to White people working under Blacks. Those days, I believe, are gone and I sincerely hope that they are gone forever and that there will not be changes again within the next two or three months. I hope, too, that all the recent announcements we have heard from the United Party about defending civil rights will also mean that never again will I and my fellow Progressives sit on these benches and have to watch the sad spectacle of the official Opposition in South Africa trooping across the floor to vote with the Nationalists on Bills that give the Government powers to detain people without trial.

When did we do that?

I can think of two immediate examples where at Second Reading of the 90 day Bill and the Terrorism Bill the United Party in principle agreed with the Government. [Interjections.] Hansard and history, I am afraid, have recorded this. I noted that the Leader of the official Opposition omitted to mention on Monday in his catalogue of reform one of the points that emerged from the marathon 13-hour caucus which I read about in the newspapers. Maybe I missed this point and did not hear it. [Interjections.] The point I missed was the one, mentioned after the 13-hour long caucus, that the United Party was going to scrap the sex-across-the-colour line provision in the Immorality Act. I want to know if that still holds. I sincerely hope so, because on two previous occasions I have moved a private member’s motion asking for the scrapping of the relevant clause of the Immorality Act and I got no unqualified support whatever from the United Party. They wanted Select Committees and commissions of inquiry. Now, however, they have given that unequivocal undertaking and I want to know whether the United Party, as I was, is prepared to also tell the country it is prepared to support the obvious supplementary abolition of the Mixed Marriages Act, because the two go irrevocably together. You cannot abolish the sex-across-the-colour-line section of the Immorality Act and allow people to do outside marriage what they are in fact not allowed to do under the legal sanction of marriage it self. I think we are entitled to know these things. I welcome what has happened, because I think it is a sign of enlightened thinking in the official opposition although I doubt whether the little buffer state that sits to my immediate right had any part in it. [Interjections.] I am coming to that hon. member right now. After all, I am complimenting the official Opposition on the changes it has introduced and which consequently enables it to censure the Government for not introducing changes. I am absolutely relevant, although the rule of relevancy does not apply, as the hon. member knows to the no-confidence debate. As I have said, I doubt whether the buffer state agrees with my welcoming of the changes. I want to say too that I doubt whether these changes are going to be able to restore the credibility of the United Party, which has been so sadly lost over the last few years due to its own misbehaviour and as Umhlatuzana showed only too clearly, I should add.

Tell us why your party supported Gerdener ...

Maybe they thought he was the better candidate, who knows? [Interjections.] As a matter of fact, I would have found it very difficult to vote for the hon. member for Umhlatuzana after having read his speech about Indian domination in Natal. I do not say that I would have voted for Mr. Gerdener, but I certainly would not have voted for the hon. member for Umhlatuzana.

The Leader of the official Opposition took the Prime Minister to task the other day for some of the obvious untruths which he used in his television interview with Mr. Buckley. There were other specious things, I might add, which the Prime Minister said in that interview apart from his comment on the labour situation. Let us call them patriotic fibs, if you like. His comments, for instance on the rights of banned people.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “obvious” in the expression “obvious untruths”.

All right, Sir; then I would just say “untruths”. I meant untruths which might be obvious to some people but I will certainly withdraw the word. His comments on the rights of banned people I can only describe as a hoot. The hon. the Prime Minister said in the interview in reply to a question about appeal to the courts—

All I can say to the hon. the Prime Minister, is that it is extremely difficult; every lawyer to whom I have ever spoken has told me, to prove mala fides on the part of a Minister is extremely difficult. The hon. the Prime Minister, who is himself learned in the law, knows that perfectly well.

That is a valid argument.

Thank you. Well, there is another valid argument with which I should now like to deal. The hon. the Prime Minister said that a man was entitled to ask for reasons why he was banned, and that those reasons were given to him. Now, really, that is something! Sir, in all my many years of experience of dealing with cases of banned people, never to my knowledge have reasons at any time been given—that is, reasons that mean anything. I will read to the House a letter which was sent ...

Of course, you wanted it your way while I gave the reasons as Minister of Justice in terms of the Act.

Yes, but why give the impression to the outside world that reasons that mean anything are given to people who ask for them.

You wanted it your way, but I was dealing with the Act.

Well, I shall read the hon. the Prime Minister’s way and let the House Judge for itself. I have here a letter to a banned person, written by the Department of Justice, in reply to a request for the reasons for the banning. This is the reply. It is typical of all the replies which I have seen over all the years when banned people have asked for reasons. I quote—

I am directed by the hon. the Minister to inform you as follows—

Now, this is to a man who has just been banned under the anti-Communism Act. That really tells him something! But it goes on to say—

That is a notice in terms of another section. The letter continues—

Now, does the hon. the Prime Minister really think that reasons, when asked for, are in fact given in terms of a letter like this from the Ministry of Justice? I do not think any reasonable person could possibly adduce that.

The hon. the Prime Minister, apart from his TV interview, which of course was designed for overseas audiences, has also been handing out a lot of questionable statements for home consumption. For instance, there is his famous “hensoppers” speech which he made to the Afrikaanse Studentebond Congress last month, in which he said that people who advocated integrationist tendencies, lacked patriotism and had no sense of vocation. Of course. I am not too sure what he means by “integrationist tendencies”, but his statement about patriotism is positive nonsense. In the same speech he reached the profound conclusion that 60% of the problems which arise from what he called “our multinational make-up” are caused not by big things, but by, and I quote him, “rudeness on the one hand and impudence on the other”. All I can say about the first pronouncement about integrationist tendencies is that it would be a comical statement if the situation in Southern Africa were not so critical. It comes from a Government which, for the last 25 years, has been preaching separatist tendencies which have resulted in a South Africa where the domestic Black population is in a state of sullen resentment. And this policy has succeeded in isolating South Africa almost completely from the rest of the Western World. As it is, with the collapse of the last colonial outpost in Africa and with the Frelimo Government about to take over in Mozambique—there is at least a very decided possibility of this—I think these views of the Prime Minister are positively dangerous. As to his second statement about impudence and rudeness, all I can say is that it appears to reveal an astonishing naivety on the hon. the Prime Minister’s part. I am not derogating from the need for human dignity. I am at one with the hon. the Prime Minister on that score, but surely he cannot for one moment believe that the submissions made to him by the eight homeland leaders when they met him at the Pretoria conference on 6 March do not constitute the real reasons for grievances in South Africa. Surely he realizes that there is the question of apportionment of land, the economic viability of the homelands, the wage gap, the insecurity of the urban Blacks, the hardships that result from influx control and the resentment against the pass laws—with apologies to the Minister of Bantu Administration, who tells us that there is no such animal as pass laws in South Africa. Surely the hon. the Prime Minister does not think that it is impudence for Black leaders to want their people to live with their families where they work, to sell their labour in the best market, to earn a living wage, to own their homes where they are living and working, to see their children educated and trained and to have a real say in the laws that govern their lives. I have a horrible feeling that perhaps the hon. the Prime Minister does believe that it is only rudeness on the one hand and impudence on the other that causes 60% of our racial problems because the way in which this Government is pursuing its course, blundering along in what I can only call the most provocative manner, quite regardless of the effects of its actions on the Black population, indicates that that is what he believes. Let me give a few examples.

Let me talk about Doornkop for one minute. Let us talk about the removals about which the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education had quite a lot to say. I was not here when he spoke, but I have his speech with me and I have read it from the beginning to the end. As the hon. the Deputy Minister rightly said, Doornkop had some pretty bad slum conditions. It was overcrowded with illegal squatters and the latrines were not all that was desired, and so forth. The Bapedi people themselves have owned that farm since 1906. Why was it not possible to effect improvements in situ without threatening to remove the entire population and indeed removing many hundreds of them almost overnight, with no prior preparation of any magnitude in the places where they were to go?

That is not true.

All right then ...

That is completely incorrect.

I shall tell the hon. the Deputy Minister what was found there—one corrugated iron hut with one room per family, tents ...

May I ask the hon. member a question?

The hon. the Deputy Minister can ask a question under his Vote. Well, all right, but he must hurry up.

Has the hon. member been to Doornkop?

No.

Has she been to the other places she has been talking about?

No, I have not, but I had a delegation ... [Interjections.] Other people have been to Doornkop and other people have been to these places and they have reported. Furthermore I want to say that I had a deputation of elders from Doornkop who came to see me and who told me what was happening. When the hon. the Minister says that by and large they wanted to be moved, it is not true. They do not want to be moved. The hon. the Deputy Minister was moved to tears when he saw the conditions there.

That is completely untrue.

Well, he was very upset. He said it hurt him more than it hurt them. Does he deny having said that?

I did not say that.

He did not say that either?

I said it hurt me to move people. I did not say it in the way you say it.

Well, then I want to know why he moved them. What was the hurry? Does he believe that corrugated iron huts or tents are, in fact, a replacement for the houses which were bulldozed? Does he realize that many of these people were employed in Middelburg, that they supplemented their earnings by going to Middelburg to work. Why did he have to move them? What was the hurry? There was not even compensation ...

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, that is not true. Those people were not working in Middelburg. Eighty per cent of them were working elsewhere.

I said many of them were working in Middelburg. Others were coming to the Rand, but some of them were working in Middelburg.

Order! Cannot we stop this dialogue? Cannot the hon. member proceed with her speech?

Well, if the hon. the Deputy Minister would keep his seat. Sir, I could ... [Interjections.] Sir, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister one ...

There you go again.

All right, I will not ask him. So that he need not answer, I will tell him that there was absolutely no need to move these people in the dead of a Highveld winter and dump them on the veld—as one woman put it so graphically: “Like a sackful of troublesome cats.” That, Sir, is how those people felt. They give these people tents and the women are supposed to erect them. As far as schools are concerned, there was a prefabricated school at the place they went to; there was no clinic at the place itself.

There was and there is.

No, there was not. One woman was told that she had to go two or three miles to find some medical help. [Interjections.] There were no job opportunities. The important thing is that these people did not want to be moved. The Doornkop people, the Bapedi people anyway, had title to their lands and have had it since 1906. I might say that there was not even compensation agreed on when these people were moved. Can you imagine the Government treating White people in that way?

That is nonsense.

Well, I am glad the hon. the Deputy Minister visited the place. At least he saw what was going on, because so often Parliament passes laws and never comes in contact with the hapless people to whom these laws apply. The officials who have to implement the law are able to rationalize by saying: “We did not pass the laws.” So, I do commend the hon. the Deputy Minister for at least taking the trouble to go and see these people and I hope he will stay all further removals until proper conditions have in fact been created for their accommodation, etc., before they are moved.

I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration is not here because some years ago, when I visited him in his office in Pretoria, he gave me the undertaking that he was going to instruct his department not to move communities or people until adequate provision had been made for housing, water, schools, clinics, transport, etc. Of course he did not promise job opportunities. Because, quite clearly, there are no job opportunities in the homelands. The then Deputy Minister, Dr. Koornhof, was present at that interview and I sincerely hope that he will bear out what I have said about the undertaking of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

Sir, I wonder whether the Government is totally insensitive to the wave of resentment and rage that sweeps through the whole Black community in South Africa when they read about removal schemes. That does not apply only to Black people, but to many White people as well and more particularly to young White people. This is one reason why they are so frustrated with the Government which never appears to pause before it goes ahead with schemes involving hundred-of thousands of human beings. Let me give another example. Is the Government bound to carry out what amounts to a reign of terror in Langa and Gugulttu at the moment? I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister knows about this. I wonder if the hon. the Prime Minister knows that since May of this year, I am informed, 24-hour, around the clock, raids are being carried out in Langa and Guguletu by officials and Police, seeking illegal residents there. Now, Sir, most of these people are in employment. They are here illegally but they are needed in the Western Province. They are already in jobs. Why go to all this great trouble to move these people who are in jobs simply because the Government has some ideological idea of preserving the Cape for the Coloured people who do not want to do the jobs which the African people have taken? I cannot see the point in it.

There is also a wave of resentment about this. None of us would put up with Police of officials banging down our doors in the middle of the night and taking illegal residents out, and I am told that the householders who shelter these illegal residents are now being fined up to R30 per household for sheltering an illegal resident. What is the point of all this? It does not solve any problem by sending these people back to the homelands. There are no jobs there. The problem we are facing is the problem of Black poverty just as we faced the problem of the poor Whites in the ‘twenties. Sending Whites back to the country districts did not solve the poor White problem. The hon. the Deputy Minister, how is a sincere man—and I give him full credit for it—spoke about the dangers of removing influx control. It cannot be removed in vacuo; one has to do other things. One has to build houses, one has to provide jobs and, most important, one has to improve conditions in the rural areas, not only in the Black rural areas but on the White farms. One of the reasons for the influx is that the average Black worker on the White farm does not even earn the R15 per month which the hon. the Deputy Minister so correctly said was not enough to support a family. [Interjections.]

I want to remind this Government that despite its two-thirds majority in this House, it is not representative of the vast majority of the people who live in this country. It ought to remember that. It has a big majority of the White electorate, but it is not representative of the vast majority of the inhabitants of this country. I have no doubt that next week the hon. the Minister of Finance is going to present us with a huge budget in which there is going to be a very large defence Vote. I want to say that this will be money down the drain if the Black population of South Africa has retreated into sullen, irrevocable hostility and regards the White man as an appressor.

Do you support Nusas in regard to military service?

You have read the official statement. Keep your silly little political thoughts to yourself.

So, do you reject Nusas?

At this vital time, with the hand of history on South Africa’s shoulder, the Government should be especially vigilant in avoiding all provocative actions. That at least it can do—it can avoid all provocative actions. I believe it should be examining thoroughly all the underlying causes of racial animosity with a view to making the accommodations that are necessary to ensure the loyalty of the Black inhabitants of this country. It is one thing to win an election but it is quite another thing to give the country responsible leadership. I believe that in this critical time for Southern Africa—and it is a critical time—responsible leadership is not to be equated with “kragdadigheid”, with mindless, reckless provocation. I believe that it should be equated with intelligent anticipation and thoughtful conciliation. I hope very much that that is going to be the line that the Government will take in the future.

Mr. Speaker, over the years we have become accustomed to the hon. member who has just resumed her seat, but there are numerous new members in this House who are today hearing her for the first time. I must tell them that as they have heard her today, they will hear her in the future as well. She is a type of person who is known not only in this Parliament, but probably in other parliaments in the world as well. I should like to place it on record that during the past number of years during which the hon. member has been sitting here, a period during which it has been necessary to take precautionary measures here in South Africa, the hon. member has not helped this side of the House in one single instance to pass legislation for creating order. In all the instances where members of this House have acted responsibly, as in fact the hon. the Prime Minister has had to do from time to time, also in the case to which he referred, under circumstances requiring South Africa’s interests to be served best, which is so necessary in these times, the hon. member has, in all her comment to date, done nothing but try to slate the attempts made by the hon. the Prime Minister, attempts on the part of the Prime Minister to give South Africa a good image in the interests of everybody living in this country. I do not want to reply on behalf of the Prime Minister; he will do so himself. I want to tell the hon. member that her attempts to thwart everything established by this side of the House—and she also proved this in the case of the hon. the Deputy Minister to whom she referred—were not intended to help people; they were intended to arouse feeling against the Republic of South Africa and to make it impossible for this Government to keep this country safe. That was her intention. Sir, I am not the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, but with the facts which I have at my disposal, I too can give her the reply. There are more than 20 000 of these people. The number has risen from 4 000 to over 20 000, as she would have known had she listened to the hon. the Minister’s reply to the question the other day. An attempt is being made to move these people, irrespective of the cost. All the facilities may not be available immediately, but they are being created, where they now live, they have facilities which they did not have at the places they came from—facilities such as proper clinics, proper schools and all the other things. Why must she moan like this every day? Sir, without having any feeling for those people, she is discrediting everything being done for them by this Government. Sir, we do not expect any assistance from that side and from that hon. member and her colleagues in the future when we want to govern this country in an orderly manner and have good relations here. We shall just have to live with it; we understand it. Because the hon. member has not in one single instance tried to co-operate with the Government. She levels accusations in this regard at the Opposition. Sir, we too can attack the Opposition, and we do so every day, but there have been occasions where a responsible Opposition felt that it had to co-operate with the Government, and now the hon. member is attacking them on that score. I do not want to defend the Opposition. Sir, the hon. member goes as far as this. She tolerates nothing which is in the interests of South Africa, if it is concerned with order and safeguarding South Africa. Sir. I want to say, this much to the hon. member, and I hope that I shall also have time to put a few questions to her: The hon. member sets so much store by change. We hear a lot about change nowadays. But “change”, as you know, Sir, means different things to different people. The hon. member wants to see South Africa changed inherently. She wants to see it changed in a leftist direction; she wants to see it changed at the pace set by the enemies of South Africa; she wants to see it changed into a country where the White man has no place. That is what she is intent upon, and unless she can prove the contrary, I want to claim that wherever she has spoken of our father-land beyond our national borders, she has to date not said a single word about the good deeds of this Government.

I certainly do not defend Government policy.

Sir, all of us in the Republic of South Africa are aware that this is indeed a very difficult time in which we in this country must try to maintain order and peace among all the peoples of South Africa; it is not an easy task. We have but to take a look at what is happening in the world at the present moment to see that mankind is deeply concerned about where it is heading. Everyone is aware of it. When I look at what is happening in Africa and in countries around our fatherland, then I would be the last person to maintain that we are living in a time of calm. There is restlessness throughout the world, and that is why it is so important, when we are conducting a debate such as this, that one should not say things which will make the road ahead difficult for us. A great responsibility also rests on the hon. member always to try and behave in such a way that we may be able to defend in future what we are doing now and may keep our way clear, because the way ahead will, after all, not become easier; it can only get more difficult. Therefore this also applies to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I want to tell the hon. Leader that I am the last person who would ever suspect his sincerity. I might find fault with his wisdom and insight, but I will not be find fault with his intentions. But I also find it a pity that the hon. Leader, in what he had to say on his motion, had such a long list of lamentations, and that he found fault with so much. Sir, we who govern the country and deal with it every day and who know exactly what the problems are could, should we wish to do so, recite an even longer list of problems, because we work with these things. But in these times, when one has to deal with millions of people whom one must provide with guidelines for the future and whom one must take along with one, it will not do to say or do anything or to lay down anything as being a point of policy if one cannot foresee the full consequences of that course. I want to say a few things about that now.

I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and hon. members opposite that we too find ourselves in the constellation of change to which the hon. member referred. After all, Sir, who has done more in recent times to change this country than the National Party? We tried to change it for the best. Our intention is in fact to change it so that there will be room for all its peoples in the manner we have indicated. I want to say to the hon. the Leader that a policy which cannot comply with certain qualifications is a dangerous policy. No policy in the Republic of South Africa has any hope of succeeding if it is not primarily aimed at giving all the people of this country, and therefore all the peoples of this country as well, a fair opportunity to develop spiritually and materially in the future or to reach maturity, and if it does not take into account the people’s own dignity and values and the needs which exist in that regard. No policy which does not take these into account has any hope of succeeding in this country. I should also like to tell the hon. member that in future no policy will have any hope of succeeding if it does not have regard to the character, the sentiments, the needs and the deep emotions among the people and, what is more, imply the safety and protection of these things. Because if this is not the case. Sir, I can tell you that there will be suspicions and tensions and it will not be possible to preserve the peace. I also want to tell the hon. the Leader that no policy has any hope of succeeding if it is not carried through to its logical conclusion. For the past 26 years we have now been sitting here on this side with a definite course of action. We argue about it every year. One election after another is fought on that policy. I want to say to the hon. member, with all the gravity I can command, that there is only one policy that can succeed and that is the policy of this Government, because it is the only policy that embodies all the elements of success. [Interjections.] Do not be so quick to laugh. I want to repeat it. We can argue about it, but I say we must think about it fundamentally. It is the only policy that can succeed because it embraces all the elements of success. You do not have to listen to me, Sir. Take a look at it. Take a look at the drama of history. You do not have to go back a hundred years; you need only go back to the past few years, to the past few months. What this Government is trying to do is to achieve what was achieved in the course of history by force and war. What we are trying to do, in an administrative way, is to give people a place, whereas in the past this was only achieved through war. There is no better example than U.N. itself. In listening to the hon. members of the Opposition, one would expect U.N. to be a type of body where one form of government prevails, one uniform language is spoken and one type of person is found. But that is not the case. Only the other day there were only something over 50 members, and today there are already far more than 100 nations that have all attained independence one after another. U.N., as it looks today, is a demonstration of what is happening, of history unfolding in the world today, and is not what the Opposition suggests. Just look at Cyprus and look at the reason why they cannot end the war. Now, Cyprus is not an example of U.P. policy, surely? It is an example of the failure of the United Party’s policy. But forget about the example of what we see happening around us. My most important reason for mentioning this is to point to the breakthrough which the National Party has made over the past 26 years in the minds of the people of South Africa and as a result of which they accept that everybody can take his own place here, to such an extent that the Opposition is not able to have its own policy unless it incorporates the idea of separate development in it. [Interjections.] We need not be disheartened about this. The fact of the matter is that South Africa is a strong country and finds itself in a strong position economically, and it is therefore in a position to carry any policy to its logical conclusion. If we look at the acceptance of what I have just referred to in the minds of our people throughout South Africa, not in a spirit of defeatism, but in a spirit of making a success of it, then I say that that is all that can succeed. There are, however, certain conditions attached. The Government, whose policy it is, must bear the responsibility and must therefore be prepared to meet the demands, and these are very high demands; that we have never concealed. We know this will require a great deal of patience, we know this will require a great deal of time; we know this will require a strong administration, as well as honesty and clarity. These things are there and we are prepared to give them, but the Opposition also has a responsibility. Their responsibility is to co-operate in this regard. That is something we have not had for 26 years. A responsibility also rests on the people to whom this is being applied, the responsibility of having a desire to do well. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, what the position would have been today if we could look back in South Africa over a period of 26 years today and say that we have been governing for 26 years with the help of the Opposition and the co-operation of all bodies and persons and the whole Press in South Africa in one grand endeavour? Where would we have been tonight? Then this would have been a different South Africa. A high demand is being made here, and we will not shy away from it. When one considers these things, one sometimes wonders whether this is not too much for a country to try to undertake, but for 26 years we have seen the signs of success and we believe and know that the final attempt has to made here and nowhere else. We know that it can be done if it has to be done, and the National Party is following that course. It is, however, just as dangerous to hold out the prospect of something which you know you cannot achieve. That is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has done. [Interjections.] Wait, give me a chance. We argued about this matter last year and the year before. You must remember that you have an alternative and that you are offering a division of power. I want to ask the hon. member who has been interrupting me so much, whether the countries that are going to make joint decisions in that federal parliament will enjoy equal status. [Interjections.] The way the hon. the Leader of the Opposition put the matter here, and I hope he still adheres to this standpoint, was that one could not make laws for people, but that one had to make laws in conjunction with them. After all, this is his new theme now. When the matters involved are the power in this Parliament, the future of South Africa, and who will govern and be in charge of this country, I want to say immediately that the most important component is who will ultimately govern South Africa, how South Africa will be governed and what the powers of such a body will be. The federal parliament is important. I should now like to ask the hon. Leader whether, when they have met on that first day to decide about that federal parliament and its powers, the delegates present there will have equal status? Will they be equal?

Yes, they will have equal status.

Would the hon. the Leader of the Opposition do me the courtesy of replying to me? He need only say “yes” or “no”.

I do not understand what you mean by “equal status”.

Really, we should realize that we are grown-ups, and we are speaking before South Africa. That is what the whole thing is about. I am asking the hon. the Leader a simple question. Let me put the matter to the hon. the Leader in slightly different terms: If he should come into power tomorrow, it would mean that his federation would surely have to start somewhere. Surely someone would have to decide where they are going to meet. There would have to be an agenda and they would have to decide on who does what. After ail, the federation plan of the United Party provides at present for about 15 different provinces or territories that will have to share in the federation. We will form only four of these 15. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will probably be the chairman of such an assembly. Now the question is whether everybody present there will sit there as equals when they have to decide about the composition of the federal parliament. [Interjections.] I am asking the hon. member over there ...

You have not done your homework.

I am asking the hon. member for Durban North, and he need only reply “no” or “yes”.

The answer is that you have not done your homework.

The hon. member does not want to reply to me, but I shall tell him what will happen. They will sit there as equals, otherwise they will not be able to start holding a meeting. Do the United Party really think that if they have promised that there will be a sharing of power and said that they will not make laws for people but in conjunction with people, those delegates will sit there in any other way than as equals? Of course they will not. But I am going further. The moment that meeting is opened, the United Party will have lost control over it, because they will be in the minority. After all, they have given the whole of South Africa the guarantee in advance that they will not force anything on anybody, but will decide in concert. For that reason I say that the United Party will lose the control over that meeting. They will therefore not be in a position to determine what its powers will be. The meeting will determine them by way of a majority vote.

This Parliament must determine them.

Let me argue the point from another angle and tell the hon. the Leader that he has four alternatives in this connection. The first is to make it clear, right at the very outset, that there will not be equality. In that case, I maintain, that meeting would not get off the ground at all, nor would his federation. The hon. the Leader might refuse to do this, i.e. he might refuse to grant equal status. But, Sir, on the other hand, he might also yield. He might immediately concede that everyone is equal and that the new federal parliament is about to begin. I want to say to him: He does of course understand very well that the moment he has yielded he will immediately be in the minority. What is more, the hon. the Leader will then sit there at the mercy of the rest of the meeting.

But there are two other possibilities as well.

The ignorance you are displaying today ...!

I say that there are two other possibilities. The one possibility is that the hon. the Leader will say there that he cannot decide, that this Parliament must decide. He then refers it back here. If that happens ...

How they can keep you in a Cabinet when you talk such nonsense ...!

If the hon. the Leader should therefore, on that occasion, try to avoid the issue and refer the matter to this Parliament, what would then become of his offer of joint decisions on the powers of that Parliament?

Whose constitution are you discussing now?

Yours.

*I am telling the hon. the Leader that he is indicating to the country that, when that power is going to be divided, there will be a sort of safety valve. I say there is no safety valve. It is a bluff. Why did the hon. the Leader tell South Africa during the election that there would be a body outside that federal parliament which would have a veto? If he said that to South Africa, what indication will he give when he holds such a meeting with all the Bantu leaders? If they should ask him this question, what would he say to them?

They have more intelligence than you are displaying today.

Therefore I say to the hon. the Leader that he must be careful about promising a sharing of power and not meaning it. If he wants to share power and he is not prepared to foresee the consequences and go all the way, he should consider Langenhoven’s advice, i.e. that one should not think halfway. One should not marry a woman and hope that things will work out in that marriage. Similarly, one should not buy a suit of clothes and think the fit will improve as one wears it. One may not delay thinking until that day; it must be done now, before one makes an offer in South Africa for the sharing of power which one does not mean to honour. Perhaps the hon. the Leader will tell us in this House at some stage whether he has ironed out these points and whether there is agreement with the leaders of the various homelands.

May I ask the hon. member for Houghton, who is giving me such a friendly smile, whether she adheres to the corner-stone of qualified franchise?

Yes.

Really?

Just wait a minute. [Interjections.]

I suppose they have already made many calculations and have done a lot of discussing and thinking. Does the hon. member envisage that within the next ten years more than one-third of the non-Whites of this country will be qualified to vote?

If they are qualified, they will vote.

No, no. Tell me, does the hon. member think so?

If they are qualified, it will be so.

Now I want to ask the hon. member who will determine the qualifications: she or they?

[Inaudible.]

No, no. After all, the hon. member holds the view that they do not want to make laws. Surely, they do not want to govern for people; they want to govern with them. They will be deciding together, surely? I now put the question to her: “Are you going to decide what the qualifications are to be or will they?”

We will be opening up opportunities for everyone in this country to qualify.

No, wait. That is not the reply to my question. Who will determine those qualifications: You, or they, or all of you together?

[Inaudible.]

Hon. members can see that the hon. member, who wants to dictate to us, has not yet done any thinking herself. She makes promises, but in affect her policy amounts to “one man one vote”. It amounts to that because they are going to decide together and she will be in the minority. She will not be in the running, because she is going to be voted out.

[Inaudible.]

Let us be honest with each other now across the floor of the House. The hon. member is making an offer to share the country with these people, all of them. Now I ask the hon. member what is to become of those voiceless millions who will be disqualified.

They do have a vote. There is no such thing as a disqualified person. Immediately 10% of the seats . .

You are therefore not going to provide for them now until ...

Not until they are rich enough. [Interjection.]

Ten per cent of the seats are reserved for them.

I should like to know from the hon. member who is going to make that determination. Will she make it alone, or will they do it together? Who will decide how many there will be, what their qualifications will be, and so on? Will she do it alone or will she and they do it together? Because she says that she is not going to govern for people.

I have told you what our policy is.

This is what we get when we have people in South Africa who do not want to think fundamentally about fundamental things. When we do that, we land in this kind of situation. That is why I say that there is only one policy, and that is the policy advocated by this Government. I ask hon. members on the other side ...

Which policy?

I want to say to hon. members on the other side that we are prepared to accept that we want to give every person in this country a place in the future, and if we want to co-operate, this policy can succeed. There are conditions for success. It is a miracle that in 26 years’ time we have been able to achieve what we did, that South Africa is what it is, and that South Africa is in such a strong position and still has the most stable and the strongest government in spite of those hon. members, in spite of all the voting against it and in spite of all the obstruction from their side. This Government is the Government that has indicated a course which others have now begun to follow—this is something I have wanted to add for the benefit of these hon. members. Another thing I want to say to them that there will possibly be much to argue about on the road ahead, but they should give very careful consideration to whether we shall be able to afford to create ill-feelings among the people of this country, because we will all have to live together in South Africa, they and we. I want to say again that the only policy or the basis of which we will be able to live together in peace, is the policy of the National Party.

Mr. Speaker, this debate is concerned with the future of South Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition put certain questions in the light of the policy of the Nationalist Government. We are still waiting in vain for an answer. We have heard clichés, repetitions of old arguments and evasive explanations of policy from that side of the House, but we have not yet heard a single answer to the questions that were put. On the contrary. What we did get, as we have just had from the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, was merely a repetition of the old hackneyed explanations of Nationalist policy. I made a lot of notes of what he said. He said he admitted that there were many demands, that he and his Government knew that it cost a lot of money, that they were prepared to do certain things, that this was their last try and that the Nationalist Party was on the right road. Now these are the answers we received to the direct questions put by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. This is how it has been throughout the entire debate. We have put the questions in vain. Surely this debate is concerned with the policy of that Government for the future awaiting us. We cannot, however, get any answers.

One of the most important and one of the most urgent questions is in fact the Coloured question. We have been waiting for an answer. The hon. the Minister for Coloured Relations stood up here on Tuesday and spoke for half an hour. I took my notebook and sat waiting to write down what he was going to say on the future of the Coloured population in South Africa. After half an hour he sat down. My notebook had the heading “Schalk van der Merwe” and nothing more; I had an empty page in front of me!

You must be stone-deaf.

Yesterday we had the opportunity of listening to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. I want to say immediately that we appreciate his sincerity, his honesty. He is a moving speaker, he has the ability to stir a heart, but what did he really say? He said there was still a long road ahead we had to walk. He said, “I am not going to say that influx control is an ideal thing”. He said he was concerned about it. He wanted to take steps; he was heartsore about it, but what has he done in fact? I want to warn the hon. the Deputy Minister. Although we appreciate his approach, he is in great danger of becoming a lightning-conductor for the consciences of that Government. Every time he has to speak, he says that he is very sorry about what has happened and his conscience is disturbed, but something will be done in future. How much time is left? Do those gentlemen know how late in the day it is? Admitting the mistakes of the past is not enough. When we ask “where are we going in the future?”, it is not enough to give an evasive answer or to attack us as the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs did with his comical tricks concerning our policy of federation. We can do the same if we take things out of their context and hurl them across the floor of this House. It is too easy. These are no answers to the questions we put. These are no answers to the questions on which the country is waiting. We ask the Government to give us constructive answers to these vital questions of the day, but we do not receive them. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education referred to one of the phrases used by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition used a striking phrase when he said: “We are speaking to the last generation of negotiators”.

†What does that phrase mean? It means that we have reached the stage when the very interlocutors with whom we have to do business warn us and say: “We are the last of the patient generation; we still see the opportunity of doing business with you, of contracting with you, about the future of South Africa. The young men no longer have that patience.” Can we disregard this warning? The hon. the Deputy Minister of Pantu Administration took the Leader of the Opposition to task about what he had said about the Coloured people in a federal context. He said that if the Coloured people were allowed to establish closer associations and to meet in a legislative assembly with the White people, that would be an injustice to the Black people. What the hon. the Leader of the Opposition actually said was said in the context of a federal policy. We recognize in our federal policy that the various population groups of South Africa have separate identities in certain respects and that in other respects there is a common purpose.

He pointed out that so far as the Coloured people are concerned there is a great community of interest born of historical, geographical and cultural links over many years, and that the Coloured people themselves contend that they have a common identity with the White people. In reply to this desire, this contention, the Leader of the Opposition said that if the Coloured people so desire and if the White community with whom they are closely connected in a federal context should also desire it, then, to the extent that they agree, they could have a common institution. They can have common institutions to the extent that they both desire them.

Now, Sir, what injustice does this do to the Black people? Within a federal complex, where everybody has the right to exercise and enjoy his own identity, where there are constitutional accommodations for people to work together in a common cause, where within the federal system there is equality together with the safeguards that are attached to that equality, how then, if one is prepared to do justice to the Coloured people in their desire to co-operate, can this be an injustice to anyone else?

I want to come now to the theme of interrelationship. I believe that it need not be proved to this House that there is a very close interrelationship between external affairs and internal affairs. We have discussed this before. I believe that this question is not merely a matter of a shrinking world, and it is not merely a matter of closer relationships with countries outside Africa. It is also a question of closer contiguities—a closer encroachment of countries on to South Africa. One need only look briefly at the question of the Portguguese territories. Where are our north-east borders today? Are they on the Rovuma River, north of Mozambique? Are they on the Zambezi which bisects Mozambique? Are they on the Limpopo? Where are these borders? We do not know. We do not know where they will be. We are aware of encroachment, direct links between the terrorists growing closer every day and their constant encroachment on our borders. In the case of Rhodesia we are aware that they may lose the use of the port of Beira and Lourenço Marques. They will be dependent then on the South African railway links, heavily congested railway services and heavily congested harbours. In the case of Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland, we have three territories which have a very special significance so far as South Africa is concerned. They are independent territories, they belong to a customs union with South Africa, they share the same strategic dangers as South Africa does and, in a sense, they are forerunners of the independent Bantustans which that Government is trying to create.

Let us take a look at Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland, the LBS countries. As I say, there is a customs union. This customs union is, in the view of these three countries, not working at all well. As the ex-Minister of Economic Affairs and now the Minister of Transport will well know, this customs union is not working very well in connection with such things as the assembly of TV sets, the assembly of motor cars, the milling of maize, the manufacture of fertilizers, independent currencies and so forth. These are the difficulties. Let me quote what appeared in a report of the Swaziland Development Plan, 1973:

Now, Sir, we propose to have eight other countries in a similar condition. The problem will be multiplied by the fact that there will be hundreds of roads and railways intersecting these independent countries. If we are going to maintain these differences, these preferential treatments, the wishes of the control boards to do certain things in South Africa which conflict with what others wish to do in these independent territories, there will have to be border posts by the hundreds. These border posts will be manned by policemen who will also be customs inspectors. They will also be immigration inspectors; they will also be sanitary inspectors; they will be health inspectors; they will be censorship inspectors. They will have to carry out every conceivable kind of control in order to ensure in this multiple country that these essential differences of policy between this Government and these other fragments are maintained. Sir, it staggers the imagination. There will be an army of bureaucrats to enforce diversity, in defiance of a common economy, in defiance of a common destiny and in defiance of the essential need for a common loyalty.

Sir, the interrelationship concept may be a cliché; it is so obvious that it hardly needs to be laboured, but I wish to draw attention to two of the most important manifestations of the interdependence between the internal and the external policies of South Africa. I wish to refer in particular to the question of South-West Africa and the question of Coloured affairs, the CRC. I do not want to go into details over the South-West Africa argument but, Sir, we have essentially a difference of opinion between the United Nations and South Africa over the manner in which we are to proceed. If I may use shorthand, without going into too much explanation, the United Nations have made it clear that its point of view is that it wishes to have self-determination and independence for the Territory as a whole. The South African Government has taken its stand on self-government and self-determination by the various population groups—sometimes interpreted as nations—who will themselves decide their future. It is quite clear that a conflict of interpretation is possible.

Sir, I am happy to see the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs here. I have stated very briefly the difference of interpretation between the United Nations and South Africa as regards the future self-determination of South-West Africa, and I have said that a conflict of interpretations is possible between the two points as stated; but there is no conflict of interpretation possible when the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development uses the word “irrevocable” and the words “as in South Africa”, for these are the words which appeared in the explanatory memorandum when he introduced the Self-government for Nations in South-West Africa Bill. Here, Sir, appears to be a direct contradiction, a direct confrontation, which we warned at the time would lead to trouble, and it did.

The hon. member for Wonderboom referred to this matter in debate and he attacked the Leader of the Opposition on the curious argument that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had complained of the fact that the South African Government had got us in a position where there was a 15—0 rejection of the continuation of talks by the Security Council, and had stated the reasons averred in the Security Council for the termination of those talks. The hon. member for Wonderboom said that this was nonsense; the reasons were invalid, and he quoted as his authority a communication by Dr. Escher to Dr. Waldheim dated November 1972.

Now, Sir, in November 1972 there was a great deal of hope on the part of all concerned that these talks could be pursued with some success. There was a mood of optimism and Dr. Waldheim reported accordingly to the General Assembly and the Security Council. By 1973—and this is the point made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—hope had been lost. There were then accusations being made. My point here is that the hon. member for Wonderboom comes to this House and in refutation of the remarks made in December 1973, quotes the hopeful remarks made in November 1972. Now, Sir, if ever you looked for an example of double-talk, if ever you needed an example of ambiguity and the kind of frustration caused by incorrect quotations, by quoting out of context, then this is it.

But he also quoted what the Prime Minister and myself had said on much later dates.

Since December 1973? The point was that in December 1973 certain statements were made and certain actions were taken by the Security Council. These included certain accusations against the South African Government regarding the basis on which and the manner in which they had conducted their negotiations, and the accusers included a number of Western countries, who number amongst our friends. It is for this reason that we have come to this House and have asked for an explanation as part of our general motion of censure. We have asked the Government to account for themselves. We have asked for an explanation of this extraordinary, discouraging and disappointing turn of events. But we have heard not one word. We have not heard a word in reply to anything else either. We have raised a number of other matters. We have now heard something like 12 speakers and not one of them has given us an answer to anything we have asked.

All they have done is to play the sort of tricks that the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs played a few minutes ago. This, Sir, is not an answer to this debate. We are not satisfied with generalizations.

We are not satisfied with broad statements of good intentions. We want to know what policy this Government is going to adopt in regard to the serious matters we face in the future. We are all agreed that these are urgent matters which pose grave dangers for South Africa. But we get no reply.

Zip!

I come now to the question of the Coloured people. I would be the first to agree that it would not be right to anticipate the findings of the Theron Commission. The Theron Commission has been given a task to do. I hope they do it well and that they do it quickly and I hope their findings will be of assistance to this House. But there are certain things that are quite obvious.

One of the things that is obvious is that the problems which have arisen in connection with the Coloured Representative Council and its collapse are due to the fact that the Coloured people desire nothing so much as equality of social status and equality of economic status. One does not have to hold a commission to find that out. if you talk to the Coloured people of every party and of every shade of opinion, as we have done, you will find that that is basic to the question.

Now, the reason why the Coloured Representative Council has collapsed is not a question of formulae or of procedure. There can be found many small reasons which have led to difficulties and to discouragement, but basically the CRC is not able to satisfy the basic need of the Coloured people to achieve equality of social and economic status; and as long as they do not have equality of social and economic status, so long will they aspire to increased political rights, more effective political rights, in order to achieve those two things. Now, what are we going to do? What is the approach going to be?

We have the collapse of the CRC. We have this vacuum. Are we going to fill it by endlessly dickering with the Coloured people about the formation and shape of, and the representation in the CRC, or do we face the fact that these Coloured people want equality of economic and social status? If we were to recognize the simple principle that they are entitled to equality of social and economic status, then the political rights they desire would be negotiable, highly negotiable, because the fundamentals which make them feel so strongly would already have been achieved.

They would be entirely prepared to negotiate, because they recognize themselves as being an underdeveloped people, not able as yet to play their full part in the political structure of South Africa, but determined to have social and economic equality long before they can achieve this through political means.

On what basis are you prepared to negotiate with them?

I shall come to that in a moment. Sir, this brings me to my main point. We have here two urgent problems. We have the Coloured question and we have the South-West Africa question. These are two sharp-edged questions we have to deal with here and now. These are grave questions for South Africa not only because of their impact on international affairs but also because of their interrelationship with so many other aspects of the South African scene. They have to be dealt with now or they may lead to very serious trouble. The curious thing about these two questions is that, while being dangerous and urgent, they at once also offer South Africa its greatest opportunities because this Coloured question is a question which is amenable to a satisfactory solution. This goes for the South-West Africa question as well. Both can be dealt with without harm or danger to South African institutions. They can both be dealt with very effectively in a federal context.

In the case of South-West Africa it is recognized by certain members of the Security Council at the U.N., by certain African members, by some of the nations, if you want to call them that, in South-West Africa, by many Whites in South-West Africa, and certainly by us here, that the federal solution is the only way in which you can, firstly, reconcile the differences between the United Nations and the South African Government and, secondly, reconcile the problems of a diversity of peoples and population groups in South-West Africa and their need, as well as the U.N.’s insistence on that need, to have a common-purpose government in South-West Africa. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs smiles, but this is so. There is a broad and broadening consensus in this direction. If you want to maintain integrity and yet recognize diversity, what other means is there than a federal solution? The hon. the Minister must know that a federal solution is in fact actively being discussed and canvassed at the United Nations, that it is being actively discussed and canvassed in South-West Africa itself, and that this logically provides a solution which can in fact satisfy all parties because it will achieve the double purpose of recognizing diversity and yet ensuring the common good, the common welfare, of all the people in South-West Africa.

Now I come to the question of the hon. member for Potchefstroom. He asked me a question about the Coloured people. The answer is quite a simple one. If that hon. member and I were in power and we were to ensure the Coloured people of economic and social equality with the Whites without delay, what difficulties could arise from that? For the hon. member for Potchefstroom the difficulty would arise that those people enjoying social and economic equality with the Whites would inevitably aspire to political equality as well. He would then see the danger that they might overwhelm the White population of the Cape, shall we say, who are in the minority here vis-à-vis the Coloured people. That is his difficulty; I think I have correctly identified it. Under a federal system the White and Coloured people can in fact enjoy and exercise their identities with full and equal rights in their own communities. They can also enjoy equality of status in their representation on the federal council according to their contributions to that federal council. But they will be represented, each individual, as an equal with every other individual. They will participate in a federal form of government without anybody dominating anybody else. The essence of a federal system, which appears not be understood on that side of the House, is to allow each group to look after its own affairs, to participate in a central government on matters of common interest and not to dominate anyone else. This is the whole purpose and function of a federal system. That is why federal systems exist. The federal system exists precisely because there are minority groups in some countries which fear domination by majorities. If the federal system did not render that service, then people would not bother about federal systems. It is precisely because it is a guarantee that minorities will not be dominated by majorities that so many countries have accepted a federal system of government. While I am on the subject ...

May I ask the hon. member a question? What will be the basis of the contributions by each group?

There will be another occasion in another debate for us to discuss this. I have about two minutes left, but undoubtedly the question of federation will be discussed in this House again. We are now dealing with a motion of censure on that Government for its failure to provide answers to the country.

What promises did you make to the Coloured people in your panicky discussions with them?

There were no promises made. We went for information and to inform ourselves, because we get none from that side of the House. We tried to ascertain what the facts were. There was no discussion of policy and no attempt to persuade each other in regard to policies. We went for information and we are glad that we got it, because without this we would not have been able to plumb the depth of the inability of that Government to deal with this question or to understand precisely why they will not come to this House frankly with answers to the questions we have been asking.

Now you know what they want?

We know what their difficulties are. We will certainly have a valuable criterion to apply when that hon. Minister either remains silent or comes to us with solutions which do not meet the realities of the situation. Our only purpose is to find out what the realities of the situation are. We have no intention whatsoever of playing politics with them. We are in opposition, but it is our duty to know the realities of their situation and I would ask the hon. the Minister whether he believes it is wrong that an Opposition should inform itself about the realities of a situation which is a matter of national concern.

It all depends when you do it.

We can do it on a Tuesday, a Wednesday, a Thursday, a Friday, a Saturday or a Sunday. Does the Minister have a day he prefers? We do it when the opportunity arises.

You do it when the opportunity for you people arises.

When my hon. Leader put his motion of censure he stated clearly that there were three points which needed answers. These are, how will we ensure, firstly, that the population groups in this country will continue to give us their co-operation and loyalty; secondly, what shall we do to ensure that our neighbours in Africa continue to give us their co-operation and support; and, thirdly, what shall we do to ensure that the Western countries, our allies, will give us their support. These three things are essential. Without the first of these, the loyalty of our own people, without their consent and cooperation, we ask in vain for the support and confidence of our neighbours and for the support and confidence of the West. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, various things were said by the hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, with which hon. members on this side of the House are in complete agreement. The first is the credit he gave the National Party for its consistency in advocating and implementing its policy. That is a credit which he chalked up to the National Party. In my opinion the second thing, which goes hand in hand with that, is that the test for the answers the National Party gave to the problems of South Africa was applied by the electorate. With an overwhelming majority the electorate declared that it confirmed and accepted the National Party’s answer to the problems of South Africa, in so far as this was given, as the most sensible for South Africa. There is a further point which the hon. member emphasized, i.e. the realities in South Africa. And when it comes to indicating the realities in South Africa I do not think there is a great difference of opinion either. He referred to the identity of the various national groups in South Africa. That is an undeniable truth; we are faced with that truth. The Progressive Party is struggling with that truth, but I do not know how far the struggle is going to bring them. The United Party is struggling with that truth, and the National Party is also faced with it in its handling of affairs from day to day.

The hon. member referred here to the problems in connection with the Coloured Persons Representative Council. Other speakers on this side of the House have already gone into that matter. I do not think it is necessary to stress further that one should not over-emphasize here the small amount of dissension in the ranks of that Council and stir it up and try to use it here as a reason for division in the White ranks. The hon. member has said that the big problem that is basic to the failure in the proceedings of the Coloured Persons Representative Council is allegedly the frustration that builds up, frustration because they supposedly do not have equality in social and economic life. But I now want to ask that side of the House: “In what way are they now trying, for example, to establish social equality for the Coloureds?” Do they think it is social equality if they accept that there are to be group areas for the Coloureds? I know they make a small exception by saying that this should not be given very watertight implementation; but the broad, basic policy of the United Party is nevertheless that they also accept group areas. Just the other afternoon the hon. member for Green Point said there should be a “dividing line” between the Whites and the Coloureds. I would venture to say that that party’s answer, including the acceptance of the idea of group areas for the Coloureds, will not satisfy them. If they should come into power and implement the policy, I hope they remember that it is that side of the House which was the first to institute post office apartheid or segregation. It is therefore not for that side of the House to reproach this side in connection with measures that have been introduced to bring about separation, thereby to bring about better race relations between individuals of various national groups in South Africa.

But I should like to come back to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. I am sorry he is not in the House at the moment, for if he had been he could have heard a word of thanks from me. I want to begin by expressing my appreciation for the statement he issued during the introduction of his motion of censure, the statement in connection with the proceedings at Hammanskraal. It is appreciated. It was necessary. But I must also add that it did not come too soon. It was high time it came, it was time for South Africa to know where it and the official Opposition stand in respect of the statements and the resolution that was passed there and that is extremely dangerous to South Africa. The whole of South Africa will certainly appreciate knowing that the official Opposition has spoken out in the person of the Leader of the Opposition.

Sir, if there is anything that is needed in South Africa, it is the strengthening of the national will of our people, the national will of the White people. At the same time there is also room for the national will of other people beside us for whom there is space in South Africa. That is necessary, and in my opinion this will appear more necessary than ever in the times ahead, to testify that there is solid unity here in South Africa in respect of the kind of dangerous decisions that were taken at Hammanskraal.

But, Sir, there is an ambiguity in the preamble to the motion of censure. On the one hand there is condemnation of the decisions at Hammanskraal; on the other hand there is blackmail by the Opposition, using the pronouncements of certain non-White leaders, blackmail which is directed at the National Party. I just want to refer to a few instances in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. He quotes here what Chief Mangope said, i.e.:

What kind of quotation is that? Why is it dragged in?

It is not true ...

Here it stands. I want to ask those hon. members why he quotes him. It is surely to lay at the door of the National Party that against the background of terrorism these people want to tell us that we are alienating them without basic policy in South Africa. Now I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition why he comes and throws this into a motion of censure against the Government. Is he prepared to tell that Black man that he must resist the terrorists for the security of his own people. That is not stated. The same applies to another quotation of the Leader of the Opposition. He quoted the deputy leader of the Coloured Labour Party:

Why is that quoted and laid at the door of this side of the House? Is it not very conspicuous what contradictions there are even in that statement? He speaks of “White South Africa”, but he speaks also of “Our borders”. Would it not have been fitting for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to have given an indication of the answer he would have given that person, because that person’s reproach is now being flung in the National Party’s teeth though it applies equally to the White people who are sitting on that side of the House. We want to know what the United Party’s answer to this person’s question is. Can their ranks not ask the Brown man, in all sincerity and all friendliness whether White people have not already died on South Africa’s borders, for South Africa, White people who have also protected the Brown people who live in South Africa? For me there is no hesitation, and I am not afraid to put this question, because a Brown person for whom I have great respect, and whose interests in South Africa must be served, must not come and ask this kind of question to achieve some political gain. If a White man dies on the border, the Brown man’s blood is thereby given as much protection as mine. Let me add that if a Brown person dies on the border for South Africa. I am as much protected as he is. That must also be said. Therefore, would that hon. member repudiate his leader because he uses this quotation against the National Party and South Africa? Why is a false and hateful image of the White man presented as if nothing but harm is being done to the Brown man? That is the image which those hon. members of the House want to present to South Africa, i.e. that the policy of separate development has only entailed insults, derision, oppression and something negative of significance for the Brown man. Surely that is not true. I can go even further. The hon. Leader of the Opposition spoke of the functions of the Coloured Persons Representative Council and said that if the Council did not function, there would be a vacuum and the Coloureds would then try in a different way to realize their political aspirations. He states—

Why is this even suggested as a possibility? One must speak with a sense of responsibility when one is speaking about this problem. If it is a matter of the political power within our White political scheme of things, one can understand people using arguments in order to get their hands on the political power of the Government, but if people fall outside the Whites’ political scheme of things, if these are people who have another political dispensation and one wants to make them dissatisfied in this manner, what is one engendering in them? What is one engendering in those people when one actually puts words into their mouth or implies that there is a possibility of unconstitutional action when things run slightly askew in their own political scheme of things? What is being implied here by “the declining patience”? Why are there intimations to the Brown people to the effect that: “As far as you are concerned, there is ‘declining patience’ ”? I have here a front page report which appeared in one of our Afrikaans newspapers. The heading reads: “Man on border dies—Seven wounded”. Who is it that died? It was a White man. I am pointing that out merely to confirm what I said a moment ago. We must not come along and play around with these things. We must not come here and state that there are Brown people who are now saving “South Africa is not ours; it is a White South Africa”, because if a White person dies on the border, this is as much for the Brown man as it is for the White man.

Let me go a little further. We reproach the Opposition, which now comes along with its motion of censure, with the fact that while it cannot, on the basis of the strength of its support among the White voters, impress the Government with the outside world—it cannot even impress the Progressive Party with that—it tries to create some drama with non-White politics in order to try to intimidate the National Party. That is the politics on that side. This game with non-White politics, and the involvement of non-Whites in White-politics, is precisely the reason why the White voters reject and will reject that party to an ever-increasing extent. They do not reject that party because it professes to be a mouthpiece for the interests of non-Whites in South Africa, for the interests of people who are having a hard time. No one blames it for that. This side of the House knows hard times as well as that party does. That is not the reason why it is being rejected, it is being rejected because it has become a political risk and a danger to the White man without, in addition, offering political security to the Brown or Black people. That is why it is being rejected. It is a risk and a danger to the White man’s politics, and it offers no prospects for orderly co-existence of White, Brown and Black people in South Africa. We reproach the Opposition for the fact that they are prompting in their impatience, in their demands for political power whereby the political power will eventually be wrenched from the hands of the White man, people who are not yet in a position to accept full political responsibility.

Who are “they”?

I shall come back to the speech of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat and who spoke of the Coloureds and their interests. As I have said, we reproach the Opposition for creating impatience in people who are not yet in a position to accept full political responsibility.

Reproach us for creating this?

Of course! You are creating that impatience amongst those people and flinging it here at the Government. Those people are not yet able to accept their political responsibility.

Who are “they”?

I am now speaking specifically of the Coloured Persons Representative Council.

And the Bantu?

Those people are not yet of age in the full sense of the word either, but they are being led on the road towards that point. The hon. member ought to know this. You will know the answer if you give the answer to your own federal policy.

Hon. members on the other side had a great deal to say about the realities in South Africa, about what the Opposition and the National Party are faced with. There are quite a few of those realities in South Africa. The question is how one handles those realities through to their furthermost consequences. That is the final question we are faced with. May we now just mention these realities? The Opposition will agree with us about them. To begin with, there is the mutual economic dependence. That is a truth stated by the hon. the Prime Minister and by the previous Prime Minister, a truth no one finds any fault with and a truth no one disputes. It is simply a fact, mutual economic dependence. We accept it. But the second point is that South Africa does not have a homogeneous population. Hon. members opposite join us in recognizing this. There are various groups, each with its own identity. Some of them want to escape their identity, others not. That is a reality. Another reality in South Africa is that we do not have a simple political dispensation. We do not have one single political dispensation for all the groups of people in South Africa, and hon. members opposite agree with that. They also want to divide up the political dispensation in South Africa, so as to cover it again with their overlapping body. The cultural, racial and ethnic differences bring about political grouping on a racial and national basis. It is this idea which the National Party has considered well in all its consequences. The National Party has considered it well. The United Party has travelled quite a distance with us along this road. They also acknowledge the diversity of groups and know how essential group areas are, each within its living area, although they do not necessarily adjoin. They acknowledge this and they acknowledge that there must be separate voters’ rolls. If there are not separate voters’ rolls, I do not know how they will draw up the voters’ rolls for the various councils, the councils which there must be in the federal parliament. What is more, those differences that exist, and that grouping, call for an individual political dispensation. There the National Party is not at all alone in thinking among those Lines. I have here a writer in the publication Plural Societies who has the following to say—

Mr. Speaker, “separate development” is not an expression restricted in its use to South African politics. It is a word that comes from Belgium, and it is a word that is being spread abroad throughout the world. It is an expression that is not only used in South Africa, it is an expression used by all people who find themselves in a similar plural political set-up. The writer goes further. He states—

It is surely not a strange language we are speaking in South Africa when we say that each national group requests self-determination. Every self-respecting people or national group aims at self-determination, and if it is aiming at self-determination then it wants self-determination as completely and finally as possible. That is what we want to bring about in South Africa by means of the National Party.

May I put a question?

No, I think the hon. member will have an opportunity to make a speech. I am saying that the differences in grouping, which call for an individual political dispensation, are not just something of National Party origin. If there were time I would have been able to quote what Gen. Smuts, the great man on that side of the House, said in 1917. I would have been able to refer to what Gen. Louis Botha said, and also Mr. Sampson, all in the years after 1910 when these things began to crystallize, when people, with the clear realization of the diversity of peoples in South Africa, realized that something had to be done both in regard to the geographic settlement as well as the political control of the various peoples. I do not want to elaborate on that any further.

What is the ultimate destination for the Coloureds?

If the hon. member is interested in reclassification, he could probably approach someone in that connection. I am saying that the various peoples claim self-determination, socially and politically. No people, which is worth its salt, will forever remain subservient to other peoples, and if there is one people of whom this is true, it is the White people in South Africa. If other peoples do not, or do not yet, have any interest in obtaining similar independence, their unwillingness or inability will not meanwhile gain them participation in the self-determination of the White man. Hon. members on that side of the House have already intimated that if some of these peoples, not yet having come of age in the full sense of the word, do not want to accept the full responsibility of political self-determination, we must accept them, and by implication we are then not permitted to say “No”, and the further implication is then that we must grant them participation. Sir, I wonder whether, there are not some men on the other side of the House who have previously been rejected as suitors; they will know that if a man has been rejected as a suitor by a girl, he may love her as much as anything in the world, but if she says “No” it is no; he cannot marry her. The White man also has a say in this question, i.e. who identifies with whom in South Africa. Sir, we respect this will to self-determination amongst the Black peoples. We respect it amongst the Brown people. Hon. members opposite frequently quote certain mouthpieces in the Coloured community. Sir. I do not deny that in that community voices are raised that do not agree with the policy of the National Party, but there are many voices in that community that speak of and want to set a course for individual self-determination for the Brown people; voices that do not want to integrate and do not want political integration either; the road to independence must be opened for them.

And an individual homeland?

If the hon. member is worried about those people, let me tell him that they live in South Africa; they live on this flat earth in South Africa, and to an increasing extent they will be taken care of, that being precisely what the National Party is doing.

Their own homeland?

They live in South Africa. They obtain proprietary rights there; they also obtain the franchise there. Sir, they get the franchise which the U.P. men never gave them. They simply had a dummy, just a small piece of a vote. The National Party has given the franchise to all of them—to hundreds of thousands of them. The United Party Government gave them a few votes to try and impress the world. Sir, within this dispensation there is the Coloured population. The National Party is not afraid to speak about the interests of the Coloured population. It is a difficult problem. I am not saying anything new here; it is something which the Prime Minister in his honesty has said to this House and to the country. There are certain difficult questions in that connection, because those people have not traditionally had their own country, but those people must live somewhere; they cannot hang in the air. To quote the words of the hon. Chief Whip in this House last year, they live on this earth and care is taken of them, and to an increasing extent care is being taken that they be established in an orderly fashion as communities; to be happy within those communities, to administer themselves and to develop as far as they can.

Sir, I now come to the question of political development. We are not afraid of speaking about this matter. What that side of the House foresees is shared power. As against that, permit me again to state clearly the standpoint as put by the hon. the Prime Minister: The question involved is—shared power, or the separate exercising of power? I have said that there is economic interdependence; no one denies this. But the question is: Where is the highest political power vested? Hon. members opposite want to place it in the federal council. That is shared power. Sir, where in the whole wide world do you have satisfied communities operating within such a federal system, equal or parallel to South Africa? Hon. members on that side must not come along now and mention Switzerland to us. Switzerland is not a racially plural community; they consist of people who have got used to one another in the course of centuries. In South Africa one has various race groups. Sir, people who have made a study of the parliamentary system tell one that where one is dealing with a racially plural community within the same State, their politics is organized on a racial and national basis. You can imagine what will happen if in one’s federal parliament one brings all these peoples in, organizes each on a racial or national basis and then has a clash of interests. Who gives the final answer when it comes to a clash of interests? Sir, one has then shared one’s power, and once one has shared it, one has given at least half of it away and then one does not get it back again, and that is what the Opposition wants to experiment with in South Africa.

Barter.

They want to experiment with an abdication. Sir, after one has abdicated and then wants to take back one’s power when things become too difficult, one finds that one cannot get it back. If the highest power in South Africa is in the hands of a non-White majority—and one would not be able to stop that—one would not get it back again. That is precisely what the National Party says. We shall not run that risk in South Africa. We are not permitted to do so; we do not do so. This is the background to the standpoint adopted by the hon. the Prime Minister. He said this (translation)—

That is the standpoint of the National Party, stated by its Leader in Chief—

That is also the standpoint put forward by the hon. the Minister of the Interior at the Congress in South-West Africa. [Interjections.] The hon. member says we are spiritual allies. We are spiritual allies, and that is more than can be said of that side of the House. Sir, here is a very definite pronouncement. He states (translation)—

Do those hon. members, who even praise this Government for its consistency, now expect this Government to make itself colossally ridiculous by backtracking and saying “We have made a very big mistake; we no longer believe in the self-determination of peoples and we are retracing our steps”? No, Sir, the National Party will not make itself look that ridiculous. [Interjections.]

Sir, I want to point out that some of the members greatly object to one actually passing legislation to bring about these things. In that opposition of theirs to legislation they are, in point of fact, revealing only the old rusty trends of nineteenth century liberalism, of people who are afraid of legislation but nevertheless want the thing done. The hon. member for Green Point wants a “dividing line” between Whites and Coloureds, but then he scolds the National Party for its “divisive philosophy”. Sir, at the foundation of that party’s policy lies but the same divisive philosophy, but they do not have the courage to tell the world this to its face and to work out the consequences. They are people who join Jeremy Betham in saying: “Law and government are necessary evils, the lesser thereof the better”. But all the time they nevertheless want the division; all the time they nevertheless want to protect their residential areas against intrusion; all the time they nevertheless also want the separate voters’ rolls, because they must have them if they want to put their federal system into operation. Sir, that is how ridiculous one can become in one’s dreams about the federal policy. Of course, they just cannot manage it all. That is not the full guarantee of good relationships. A law must indeed have the support of the conscience of a people, otherwise it becomes powerless. That is so, but the law and its implementation give the security to the interests and the identity of a community, and not only to the Whites, but also to the Coloureds; because if that party were to come into power, it would make the Coloured community, without law, the dumping ground of South Africa’s evils. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, may I say at the outset that I regard it as a privilege that I was elected to serve in this House and may I say also that I am fully conscious of the responsibilities I believe that I must discharge here. I want to say that in what I shall do, hope to do and hope to say in this House, I shall have as my object the welfare, the security and the peaceful co-existence of all the people of this land. I believe that I personally owe South Africa very much. I believe that I personally have a great debt to discharge to this country and I shall endeavour to discharge that debt to the best of my ability. I may perhaps in lighter vein, mention the fact that I am pleased that you, Sir, have seen me early in the session because there are some hon. members who are finding it terribly frustrating not to mention the name of a certain individual and perhaps not to provoke him. I certainly would not like to be responsible for any frustrations that any hon. members on the Government side of the House may suffer from. To that end I am very pleased that I am able to speak now.

I have chosen as my topic the working man and inflation. Inflation is a topic that has already received some attention in this debate and it will no doubt receive attention in future debates in this House, particularly during the Budget debate. The controversy which rages around this issue will continue to rage but I, in venturing upon this stormy sea, shall endeavour to steer the topic into tranquil waters, away from political controversy. The Western World has for many years now been subject to the spectre of economic uncertainty. Currencies have weakened or hardened in ever more erratic cycles. Political and social considerations have demanded policies directed towards, if not achieving, full employment. Sometimes it is demand which exercises inflationary pressures and on other, perhaps more frequent occasions, rising costs are the major causes. Above all, the printing presses controlled by the governments of the countries concerned have printed ever increasing quantities of paper money. Paper money is managed not merely by financial experts, but is also managed by politicians and there are frequent conflicts between long-term plans seeking to maintain currency purchasing power and short-term expediencies which seek to satisfy voters by trying to keep the economy at near boom conditions and which ignore long-term consequences of undue increases in the money supply.

History records many inflationary periods. The so-called “Continental money” issued during the American War of Independence eventually had a value of less than one-thousandth of its original value. The French Revolution saw the assignats become worthless. After the First World War the Austrian crown, the Polish mark and the Russian rouble, among other currencies, tumbled. None, however, had a more dramatic fall than the German mark.

On 15 November 1923 when the discounting of Treasury bills by the Reichs Bank ceased, the nominal value of Reichs Bank bills in circulation was then 92,8 trillion paper marks and a billion is a million million and a trillion is a million of those. On 11 November 1923 notes started to be issued in Germany in one million mark denominations and later notes were issued in denominations of 100 000 million marks. I may say that I have a little cigar box at home which contains German currencies of that time, and if I were to convert that at the existing rate of exchange to South African currency, I think it would make me the richest man in the country. Regretfully I cannot do so.

By the end of November 1923 in Berlin a newspaper cost no less than 200 million marks; 428 million marks bought only one kilo of bread; 5 600 million marks bought a kilo of butter. The United States dollar dropped on the Cologne stock exchange from 3,9 billion marks to the dollar on 13 November 1923 to 11 billion marks on 26 November of the same year. One Karl Helfferich, a man often ignored in the financial world, saved the situation with his proposal of what he originally wished to call a “Roggen-Mark,” a Rye mark, to give confidence with a supposed link with a staple food. Eventually this was named the “Renten-mark” and given a minimum value below which it could not fall. It was backed by the assets of the major contributors to the economy in Germany. One Renten-mark was to be equivalent to one billion marks, which is a one followed by no less than 12 noughts. I may here again as a matter of interest say that Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, who became currency commissioner and who was by a later German régime hailed as the saviour of the German monetary system, has been given credit for the concept of the Renten-mark. Not only did he not conceive it; on the contrary, he actively and contemptuously opposed it when Mr. Helfferich first proposed it.

These are tales of economic horror, but they have happened in our society. I do not forecast their happening here, but bear in mind that with a 15 per cent inflation rate, prices double in five years. There is little doubt that the Western World is entering a crisis period and while we in South Africa have a certain basic strength which should enable us to avoid many of the troubles of other countries, we need to be careful and to plan our fiscal, monetary and social policies courageously and realistically. The list of games which are played in money management is a lengthy one, but the dangers looming ahead for the Western World are untold. I do not propose to list them all, but will merely draw attention to a relatively new feature, namely the volume of Arab money from increased oil revenues. This money can not only be used to buy major investments on depressed stock and property markets in Western countries, but the free movement of these funds from one country to another, while it may be used to bolster an ailing currency, has also the fearful danger of shaking a currency by its withdrawal. It is significant that much of this money is presently being kept on short-term deposit in Western countries. The consequences which may flow in the future from the use and the movement of this Arab money being deliberately kept in the short end of the market are matters which I believe not only economists but politicians in all countries would be wise to study.

South Africa has not, as we all well know, remained immune from the scourge of inflation. This is not for me the occasion to analyse our local causes of inflation or to seek to apportion responsibility. I think, however, that one can without controversy establish its existence as a fact, its dangers to our economy as real and the need to take remedial steps as essential. In this context I wish to refer to the need to save, the problems of the careful and diligent working individual who seeks to put something aside for a rainy day or for old age, and the lack of protection against the scourge of inflation from which this type of person, the individual who is the backbone of a country whether he be White or Black, suffers. The man who saves is generally a stable and responsible individual and from a social as well as a monetary point of view there is little needed, I believe, to convince this House that the saving and the building up of capital in our economic system is a desirable characteristic. It is difficult enough for the working man to seek to save in times of ever-increasing costs, but how do you encourage him to do so when depreciation in purchasing power of his past savings is the order of the day? There is little doubt that even without taking taxation into account, and despite increasing interest rates, the cash you saved a year ago is now worth less than when you saved it initially. In this regard we must also bear in mind that the small investor does not get the higher returns which in fact are often available to the wealthier or more sophisticated investor; nor does he get the more sophisticated investment advice. But perhaps it may be said that that sophisticated investment advice has not prevented very many people from suffering very substantial financial losses.

But what is the answer of the ordinary man in the street to inflation? Logically, in respect of savings, it is the purchase of assets which do not depreciate with the effluxion of time, or with use, and which it is hoped will in fact appreciate. A symptom of times when inflation gets out of hand is the scramble to buy assets, which in turn pushes up prices and causes more inflation. Home ownership is, however, the easiest and the most socially desirable of investments to act as a hedge against inflation. To buy with a smallish deposit, borrow good money from a building society and pay back in depreciating currency over or two more decades, is a good investment for anyone. This can give some protection, but it depends on how well you buy, how well you look after your home, on the area in which you buy and the manner of development in that area, and on extraneous circumstances, which may sometimes affect the property market. Those who invested in property in the United Kingdom, not so much for home ownership, but for investment, I think know that only too well. But even this ability to have a hedge against inflation is not available to all, as home ownership is not only becoming increasingly difficult for young Whites, but even more so for other racial groups, and many Blacks, particularly those living in the urban areas, are not legally permitted to own the homes in which they live, and so this method of protection against inflation is closed to them. It is an unfortunate characteristic that the lower one goes down the income scale—particularly in the Black community—the more circumstances cause expenditure on assets which will depreciate with the passage of time and with use. This results in a negligible, if any, expenditure on durable and appreciating assets. Where then does the man turn who wishes to protect himself against the ravages of overseas inflation? One overseas publication gives this advice: “Belong to a trade union and make wage demands, buy a house as soon as possible, borrow money, take fewer holidays, live near your work, buy a new car less often, have fewer children and send your wife out to work at the earliest opportunity.” No doubt this is a bit cynical.

Let us have a look at some of the other avenues for savings. Can the working man put his money in the share market? I think experience shows that markets go down when interest rates go up and foreign reserves fall, and historic lows in share prices are now being reached in overseas countries at times when there is in fact hyperinflation. Gold—I hope on future occasions to say a bit more about this—I think is a hedge against inflation. I personally am confident in gold and the future of gold. However, gold is also speculative, and in present conditions not readily available, and by reason of a degree of speculation, not entirely suitable for people in lower income groups who need liquidity in an emergency. May I say regretfully that we now have a form of rationing of the Kruger rand which makes it less readily available and gives it an additional scarcity value in addition to its market value based on the gold price. I may say here that the absence of the scarcity value has been one of its investment advantages. Gold can, however, provide a backing for a Government stock issue, and if there is true convertibility, this would be attractive at a relatively low interest rate.

In South Africa the era of paper money began in 1782 when Governor Van Plettenberg issued the first paper rix-dollars and stuijvers. Each one of the notes was handwritten as there was no printing press. It is a pity that they do not have to be handwritten any more, because perhaps then so much paper money might not be produced. But paper money in the modern world is a creation of governments or government agencies. Now money is printed in ever-increasing volume, and the more we print, the less we seem to be able to buy with it. I speak here not of our Government; I speak of all governments. I would like to illustrate the point with two simple statistics. The present consumer price index in South Africa stood at the end of the year 1966 at 110,6. By the end of 1973 it had risen to 161,2; in other words, 110 as against 161. The total of money and near-money rose in the same period from R2 624 million to R5 983 million; in other words it had increased from 2,6 thousand million to 5,9 thousand million. If we compare that with Germany before the extreme inflation, we find that the domestic prices rose from an index point of 100 in October in 1918 to 177,4 by August 1919 and the index for money in circulation rose in the identical period from 100 to 153,2. The lesson from these elementary facts, which all economists know, should not be forgotten and should not be forgotten by us. If we look at any bank note, whether it is ours or that of a foreign country—hon. members can pull it out now—it will say: “I promise to pay”. The question that must be posed is: “Promise to pay—what?” There is no convertibility except into goods which you can actually purchase with it. The strength of paper money in our system depends on the strength and integrity of the people who control it. Let me say here and now while one may sometimes disagree with the policy of the Reserve Bank—and this is a privilege of a democratic system—the strength and the integrity and international repute of the men who run the South African Reserve Bank is something of which we as South Africans can all be proud. I think it is a fact which is of great importance to us in the world of international finance.

In our present system we buy Government bonds and as interest rates go up, their market value drops. If they are held to redemption, you may get your full capital back, but then the money that you are getting back has much less purchasing power than the money you put in. Private pension funds and insurance companies to which the man in the street contributes, are obliged to invest in fixed interest public securities, particularly Government stock. There is no hedge against inflation in fixed interest investment, and private pensions and insurance policies are not normally linked to increases in living costs. The working man—the inflation man as I would like to call him—is therefore utterly frustrated in his search for protection against the scourge of inflation and it is for this reason that I plead for the introduction of what I would like to call the “working man’s inflation-proof money-box”. This would be an anti-inflation savings bond which would be an investment similar to the present National Savings Certificate to be purchased in multiples of, say, R5 so that it may be bought by the poorest, be he White, Black, Coloured or Asiatic. At this stage the maximum bond should be, say, R10 000 and should not be transferable to ensure that it is not cornered by the wealthy only. It should only be available to permanent residents of South Africa and should have a currency of a period of, say, at least seven years. It should be realizable before that date on specified conditions if required in an emergency by the individual concerned. This inflation-proof money-box can bear a relatively low rate of interest, and I would suggest that it could be issued in two series, one to be convertible into gold, which upon conversion would be issued in a coin such as the Kruger rand, and a second series which could have its capital value increased in accordance with a realistic consumer price index. Both interest and capital increase would have to be tax-free. The consumer price index would have to be revised as its present package does not have a realistic weighting for the poorer section of the community, but this is a matter which I believe requires attention in any case. What I am suggesting, in fact, is the creation of a gold bond and an index bond for the smaller investor, the small man. I believe that the convertible gold bond needs little further explanation. In so far as indexing is concerned, however, it is known that the Government has recently studied this, particularly in Brazil. I do not want to discuss the other uses to which indexing can be put, but may I point out that statistics in Brazil show that, when indexing was applied in Brazil, savings were boosted immediately. In the early sixties, when inflation ran amuck in Brazil, no one would keep a cruzero for longer than he could help; but with the protection against inflation in a period of six years all types of savings multiplied 50-fold.

Monetary correction, as index linking is sometimes called, is not new. Cost of living allowances, as we have had them in the war, are akin to this. In the United States some 50 million individuals receiving wages and pensions, have received this form of allowance and are protected by escalation provisions. A number of European countries have had them and still have these provisions. However, I do not want to pursue this type of indexing today. Nor do I wish to deal with private institutions which have been examined by the Organization of Economic Co-operation as well as, recently, by the Swedish Savings Bank Association. Finland, France and Israel have used the indexing system for Government investment. France had the famous Emprut Pinay 3½%, 1952-’58, with both death duty exemption and linkage to the 20-franc gold Napoleon. This was replaced in 1973 by the Rente Giscard 4½% without death duty exemption, but still to be used to pay for this duty with a value based on the gold Napoleon. France, I may say, also has a Rente Giscard of 7%, issued last year, indexed against the Common Market unit of account, and also with a gold guarantee. The Argentine has floated a six-year loan linked to wholesale prices. Only yesterday Britain took the first steps—one scheme open only to old-age pensioners who can save up to £500 over five years, and the second a “save as you earn” scheme in terms of which up to £20 a month may be saved. These schemes appear to be both too timid and perhaps overdue as far as Great Britain is concerned.

The United Kingdom’s Radcliffe and Page Commissions examined indexing at length, and in particular the indexing of National Savings Certificates. Indexing, as was shown there, has its critics. The Page Commission was informed that bonds attract money away from other investments; that their issue was an admission of failure in the fight against inflation. There are other criticisms, e.g. the need that there should be a limit to the number which any individual can hold as otherwise the wealthy might corner the market in a commodity designed for the poorer saver. These criticisms can, I believe, all be met. I believe that an inflation-proof money-box, whether based on the index or on gold at the holder’s option, can bolster or where lost, restore confidence; and this is an essential requisite in our economy. It can safeguard the savings of the lower income group and so in turn encourage further savings, and in turn reduce the demand for goods which in an inflationary period can have an accelerating force. It can also attract money for the Government and so in fact reduce the money in circulation. It is a weapon in the fight against inflation, but I concede immediately that it is not a complete weapon nor a substitute for the application of correct monetary and fiscal policies. It means to the working man of South Africa that he can save for possible periods of unemployment, for sickness and for his old age.

I commend the inflation-proof moneybox for the consideration of this House in a sincere endeavour to assist in the fight which the ordinary man has against inflation, to encourage thrift in the interest of our country, and to add a weapon to the armoury of the authorities in a battle for the economic security of our people.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Yeoville on the delivery of his maiden speech in this House. Strangely enough, there are quite a number of things he said which I agree with—if I understood them correctly—the main one being the question of the working man’s inflation-proof money-box. In saying this I am assuming that the expression “working man” also includes members of this House! I should like to say that it takes a brave man to deliver his maiden speech in a debate such as this. The hon. member is well-known. If I may say so, Sir, his record has preceded him to this House. He is a man who is well-known in South Africa and one who has made an interesting entry into politics by coming to this House. His entry into the debate that is taking place here was very quiet and calm, very reserved, but I cannot as far as this side of the House is concerned, guarantee that in subsequent speeches he may make here, he will experience the same quietude he experienced here this afternoon. I wish him a pleasant sojourn here. This House is recognized by the more senior members here as being a great leveller of men and I wish to express the hope that in future he will have a contribution to make in the same way as he made one this afternoon.

*Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the official Opposition, and also the unofficial Opposition, I presume, has proposed this motion of censure against the Government. They said wisely in not proposing a motion of no-confidence in the National Party, for after the last election the National Party returned to this House stronger than ever before. They were also particularly wise in not attacking our Prime Minister, for he was the man who, as leader of this side of the House, polled the largest number of votes at the last election. He received more votes than any other candidate. For these two very simple reasons it is probably reasonable of me to say that it was a good thing that a motion of no-confidence in this side of the House was not moved. Apart from that, to do so would in any case have been quite absurd.

Mr. Speaker, the motion before us—

I want to emphasize this word—

is interesting in this sense that policies have to be adapted. I want to say that any political party worth its salt must have basic principles and basic guide-lines. The multinational structure of South Africa makes it extremely important and also essential that there should be clarity concerning the guide-lines, guide-lines which can affect not only our future but also the future of our children. Sound basic principles survive any changes in a changing world. We on this side think differently to hon. members on that side of the House, and one aligns oneself with that group which gives expression best to those basic principles which one regards as being the foundations for the future for oneself and for one’s children. My choice is the National Party because these basic principles, two of which I shall dwell on briefly, meet the requirements I have stated here. Sir, to my mind the most important of the basic principles is that the White man will retain his own political rights, his own political power, in his own hands, and will not share it with anyone in the multi-national structure of our country. The second is that the White man in this country must retain his identity if he is in any way worth his salt. As has already been said by another speaker—this is not an original idea because some of our great leaders, including the hon. the Prime Minister, have said this on various occasions—what we demand for ourselves we also wish that the other peoples in South Africa may also have. That is the basis of separate development, or would it be more correct to call it “multi-national development”? That is the crux of this debate, for this debate is concerned with the amendment of principles. This debate is not concerned with adjustments in practice; it is concerned with basic principles, and there can be no uncertainty concerning this statement I have made, for it is stated in the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that what is at issue here is principles.

Sir, in contrast we have the United Party which stated last Monday through the mouthpiece of its leader in this House—and this is a statement which has now been made for the first time in public in South Africa by any member of the Opposition or by the Leader of the Opposition—that there will be one Parliament, here where I am standing today and where some of us are sitting, which will accommodate the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians. The hon. member for Houghton was right; this is the third change in policy we have had from the United Party since 1972. There will be one Parliament which will accommodate the Whites, Coloureds and the Indians.

Who said that? Tell the truth.

Sir, I was waiting for the hon. member for Durban Point to reply to me immediately. His leader mentioned the Coloureds and the Whites. What does he intend doing with the Indians? He can reply to me at once.

They are part of our federal system.

The hon. member has probably been on many fishing expeditions with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He is probably the person who baits the hook, for he rose very quickly this time to that piece of bait. What is he going to do with the Indians? With whom is he going to incorporate them? Is he going to incorporate them with the White community of Natal? Is he going to incorporate the Indians with the Provincial Council of Natal, or in that body which is going to be established as one of the White bodies?

They are part of the federal system.

I shall return to this point. Actually I just want to clear up this uncertainty and point out that the Indians have deliberately been omitted from this White Parliament which will have an admixture of Coloureds. Sir, the National Party has, on its basic principles, won election after election since 1948, but the United Party, on its basic principles, has during the past 26 years only once shown any improvement and that was in 1970, but that was, as we would say in medical terms, the convulsions which one finds before rigor mortis finally sets in. Sir, on basic principles the Progressive Party also fails. Their numbers here have in 14 years increased from one to seven. I expected the hon. member for Houghton to rise here this afternoon and make a scintillating speech, filled with happiness. I saw her standing there like Mrs. Rosenkowitz with her six youngsters at her side, but, Sir, what did she do? She struggled. She gave her speech to the hon. member for Sea Point yesterday, and the speech made by the hon. member for Sea Point yesterday demonstrated what the basic principles of the Progressive Party’s policy are: Nothing but a scraping out of the garbage heap of all the things that are not as they should be. The hon. member spoke of a shortage of 48 000 or 58 000 houses, but he said nothing about the thousands of houses which have been built; he said nothing about the health services and about the good things. I want to tell you that at this rate the hon. member for Sea Point, who is the leader of that party, should be very careful. I have worked out very carefully that by multiplying at this rate of seven in 14 years, it will take them 168 years to come to power. But if they adapt themselves to the rapidly changing world and double their rate of increase, it will still take them 84 years. What is important, however, is the admission which the hon. Leader on that side of the House made, i.e. that the Progressive Party gained its seats not at the expense of the Government but of the official Opposition. Government supporters adhere firmly to the two guide-lines I mentioned to you, the first of which is the basic principle that the White man will retain the political power in his own hands, and the second that he will preserve his own identity, as well as that of the other people. But what do we see? We see that the anti-Government people do not adhere as firmly to principles. They barter their votes among themselves, all the anti-Government parties, and in this way the one dwindles and the other grows. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana is the most recent proof of this. This headman over a 100 has now become a headman over 30. Sir, if you were to analyse it closely, you would find that he is in fact sitting here on the authority of only,2% of all the voters in his constituency, and that he was sent here to come here and say that the other parties supported Mr. Gerdener and in so doing voted against him. That is as far as adjustments to policy are concerned. Perhaps it is advisable now to consider this motion further.

Let us see why adjustments and amendments are made. I want to say at once that the National Party does not make any adjustments or amendments to the two basic principles I mentioned, because they have, for 26 years already, had a mandate from the people of South Africa, from the White people of South Africa, to implement them. During that time they have caused justice to be done to the Black people as well. Just ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He is aware of the ethnic structure of South Africa. In 1972 he saw fit to make a speech at Greyton in the Caledon by-election in which he made two statements, firstly that this White Parliament would remain, and, secondly, that we would simply have to accept—the United Party would have to accept—that there are various ethnic groups in South Africa.

Yes, I have been saying this for years ...

The hon. member says “yes”, but he knows what happened then. There were banner headlines for three days in the newspapers. The hon. member for Von Brandis had to fly down here from Johannesburg, and the hon. the Leader on that side of the House took him to task over two things. This is what is interesting. The first was that this White Parliament would continue to exist, as he said, and then there was that matter of multi-nationality. The leader on that side said he was wrong. It was the same member for Von Brandis who admitted during the recent squabble in the United Party that of course this squabble was taking place, but he said that it was a party which thinks that has internal squabbles; that is why the National Party is not squabbling because it does not think. Sir, I want to tell you that one makes changes and adjustments—I am now referring to the Government as such—because it is necessary in the interests of all the people in the country and because one’s supporters want it. This second point is very important, Sir, for no Government can govern if it does not have supporters, as both the Opposition parties, the official Opposition and the unofficial Opposition, have already discovered. And one does not make adjustments in the implementation of one’s policy because of pressure on you from anti-Government groups. One does not make adjustments in one’s policy when one listens to inflammatory speeches by the hon. member for Sea Point or the hon. member for Houghton about all the things which are supposedly wrong in the country. One makes adjustments to one’s policy when it is necessary in the eyes of the Government and in the eyes of the Party behind that Government. But when does the Opposition make adjustments and amendments? It does so because it wants to come into power. It does so at all costs if it wants to come into power, whether these are responsible or irresponsible. If, in addition, an Opposition advocates amendments in policy from a position of strength, one could still say that one ought to listen. Here it is not, however, a question of strength. Here we have an Opposition which, as I have said, has over a period of 26 years already effected six major amendments to its policy. What is interesting is that all of them do not even agree on the sequence of the amendments which they have effected! They are effecting these amendments despite the fact that their policy has never withstood a test in practice. They are effecting those amendments simply because the world is changing. What is more important is that they are being forced to effect those amendments, because this Government is implementing its multinational policy properly. The United Party changes its policy from time to time. It may be changed by its congress, or it may be changed by the United Party’s council which is more or less the counterpart of the National Party’s executive council or federal council. They have, however, created another possibility, which is that the leader of the United Party himself may effect a change in policy if he does not have sufficient time to convene that council to approve a change in policy.

Let us glance for a moment at the changes which have been effected in the course of time. We need not go far back in history. Let us glance only at 1972. In that year the disastrous by-election in Oudtshoorn took place. The United Party lost the election, but what is even worse, they have now lost the candidate they had there at the time—he has also left their party! I need not go into this in detail, but in April 1972 it was their policy to have six Coloured M.P.s. They could be White or Coloured. For the Indians there would be two M.P.s and for the Bantu eight. The M.P.s for the latter would initially be white, although the spokesman for the United Party himself said that they could subsequently be Bantu. I am not certain whether Oudtshoorn was the United Party’s omega or alpha, for that was followed by the Caledon by-election. It is then that we had that “is-what-it-is” concoction with which the hon. member for Durban North came to light. Suddenly that old policy had to be abandoned. The hon. member for Von Brandis was a member of the committee in question, and he replied to quite a number of questions in regard to the story they gave out at the time. As I have said, I do not know whether Oudtshoorn was the omega of the old policy or whether Caledon was the alpha, but I want to point out that that by-election was the end of them in the pshere of politics. They came forward with a new policy which went so far that they were uncertain in their own ranks whether or not the White Parliament would remain. Let us consider the hon. member for King William’s Town in this connection. He stated during the last election campaign in King William’s Town that the White Parliament in South Africa would survive. He said this because King William’s Town is a conservative constituency. At another meeting elsewhere he said that under the United Party’s policy 20 million hearts would beat as one. The hon. member for Newton Park sits in the same front bench as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I want to contend today that the views of those two hon. members on the statement made by their leader, i.e. that the Whites and the Coloureds should in future share representation in the House of Assembly, differ widely. The hon. member for Newton Park could furnish me with a reply in this regard. I know it is a hackneyed way of conducting a debate, i.e. by means of question and answer, in the sense that a person asks another hon. member whether or not he agrees with something. Nevertheless I want to ask him whether he agrees with the standpoint of his Leader that the Coloureds and the Whites will share representation in one House of Assembly. What is more, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said: “I pledge myself”. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition added that it would depend upon whether the Coloureds and the White group agreed, but nevertheless he stated as a leader of the White group: “I pledge myself to bring about this situation.” Does the hon. member for Newton Park agree with this? Do the hon. member for King William’s Town and the hon. member for Maitland agree with this? He is one of the few members on that side of the House who, in his day, was a member of the Ossewabrandwag. Then we had the 1974 election. Various views, such as those which I have already mentioned, were then expressed. But what does the rest of the their record look like? There was the old story of hon. members on that side of the House of “vote for the right to vote again”, “White leadership” and other slogans with which they went through one election after another. Other slogans were “White leadership with justice” and “White leadership with justice over the whole of South Africa”, and “federation one” and “federation two”. That is the point at which they have now arrived. But what was their record in respect of the Coloureds during this time? Today they are offering the Coloureds seats in this House, but what was their previous attitude to the Coloureds?

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No. I put a question to the hon. member a moment ago, but I know he is a little slow. Therefore he can reply to me later. When one considers the record of the United Party on the Coloureds, one recalls the tremendous court case which took place to restore them to the common voters’ roll. They then said: “We pledge ourselves to put the Coloureds back on the common roll.” Is that not true? The hon. the Leader is still the same leader they have had all these years, a practised leader of the Opposition. Subsequently, however, they held a congress and then decided that the Coloureds would be placed on a separate voters’ roll. They thereupon perceived that this idea would fit beautifully into their federation plan. In reply to a question the hon. member for Green Point then said that there would be no population register and that it would simply be done. One could simply join the queue and have oneself enrolled among the Coloureds or among the Whites. The term which he used was “according to usage”.

Is that not the case at the moment in South-West Africa?

The hon. member for Albany is a person who holds parties with restricted persons, and who then runs to the Minister when something happens, not so? I think he should keep out of this debate. He is so far to the right that he does not even get one vote from the Rhodes students. They even took a progressive from their own ranks to stand against him. Those are the factions which exist within one party. Then there are other strange things which also happened. Everything is ascribed to “bickering inside a party”. We then had the Mahlabatini incident where an hon. member whose name I do not want to mention although I may do so, went to Natal and then made the allegation that it was now necessary for him to have a pass to go to Natal because the hon. member for Umhlatuzana was so angry with him. Is the question of the Old Guard and the Young Turks merely a matter of “bickering”? If it is “bickering” when there is a 24 to 0 vote in favour of a candidate in Wynberg and three members of a committee then disqualify that candidate and appoint another? Is it “bickering”, or is it Old Guard versus Young Turks, or is it merely differences on policy? Although the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated that “set-backs in the party due to bickering are exaggerated by publicity given to certain minor domestic controversies”, I want to state that the leftist factions in that Party have pressurized them to such an extent that they are already going o have one Parliament for Whites and Coloureds now, while hon. members such as those I enumerated, as well as the hon. member for King William’s Town, the hon. member for Newton Park and the hon. member for Maitland said that this White Parliament would continue to exist.

Something else of interest also occurred. At the time the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in a statement, after the hon. member for Turffontein had left that party, that White leadership was the cornerstone of United Party policy. This was after he had been pressurized into saying this because the present member for Yeoville, according to the newspapers, had allegedly said that he would never again let the term “White leadership” pass his lips. It is a leading member of the party who said this. I think he made a mistake in entering this debate. I am only a backbencher, but I think he is going to have a hard time of it before this debate is over. I should like to say that if this is evidence of a unified Opposition party, the voters outside must look to the assurances they have had on White leadership, the assurance they had after the hon. member for Turffontein left that party. He saw it coming. He was the most far-sighted of all the members on that side. He can still see further than the hon. member for Griqualand East or the hon. member for Hillbrow, who is not present in the House at the moment.

Sir, it is interesting to be able to tell you that, while a great deal has been said about the Coloureds in this House, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana had a lot of scare-mongering tales to tell about the Indians in Natal. Or am I wrong? Did the newspaper report him incorrectly? He threw a scare into people and tried to catch votes. But after he had won, his leader came here and told the same stories that ex-Minister Gerdener had told, namely that they want the Coloureds and Whites in one Parliament. That is the extent to which they have been pressurized by a group which has been stampeding them.

I maintain that there are factions within the United Party, and that they are fighting. There are without doubt groups with leaders who want to take over the United Party as soon as the Leader of the Opposition retires. South Africa cannot afford to listen to such a Party which, at times, undermines its own leadership. Sir, I want to tell you that this Party has leftist and rightist factions. You need only ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout—he is a member of the inner circles of that Party. He will be able to tell you a great deal more about those factions. Ask his bench-fellow, the hon. member for Newton Park.

The Schlebusch Commission was appointed, and when the matter of whether or not to remain on the commission was mooted, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition refrained from appointing a member in the place of the hon. member for Turffontein, because there was dissension in his own Party concerning participation in the commission. But then a young party member here in the Cape, Mr. Carlisle, stated that they should not participate at all in the Schlebusch Commission. When an opportunity presented itself, when he made the mistake, he was suspended by the hon. member for Newton Park. You know the story. The hon. member for Newton Park cancelled that suspension for the sake of unity within the Party, which I tell you is full of factions. That Party is on its way to the “one man, one vote” idea, which will triumph in this country if that Party should ever come into power, more rapidly than the Progressive Party

After all, the hon. members of the Progressive Party have had a policy which has not changed for 14 years; that is how they adapt to the changes in a changing world. The party of the rich and the educated man as the hon. the Deputy Minister said yesterday, like the parties prior to the French Revolution. I want to adjure the people of South Africa: If you want to encounter problems with the political future of South Africa, if you want to allow the Whites to lose their grip on political power, if you want to lose your identity as Whites, the way is clear for you to vote for the official Opposition. But if you, as I do, believe in the National Party, and you believe in the National Party for the sake of your children, then you believe in the basic principles that the political power of the Whites must remain in their own hands and then you believe in the retention of their identity, not only for the present, not only for 14 days or three weeks, but for an eternity.

Mr. Speaker, before I react in any way to the speech of the hon. member for Caledon—and it is not going to require a great deal of reaction on my part—I would like to make one or two remarks about the attack which the hon. member for Houghton made on this party earlier this afternoon. She attacked this party in a tone to which we have become quite used in this House. I can only refer to it as a bitter-sweet tone. I should like to comment on what she said in regard to my party by referring her to the leader in The Star last night. I think it will make very good bed-time reading for her tonight. The Star can by no stretch of imagination be regarded as a close friend of the United Party. Here is something that The Star had to say. Its leader was headed by: “Invigorating Start” and that invigorating start referred to the start which this party has made in this session of Parliament. I should like to quote the following from that article—

We are a party which will change with the times and if we change with the times, we are changing for the better all the time.

As far as what the hon. member for Caledon said is concerned, I can only repeat what my hon. friend for Von Brandis said when he spoke earlier this afternoon, namely, that members on that side of the House have not answered the vital questions which we have put to them in this debate. I would have expected something better from the hon. member for Caledon. After all, he is an ex-member of the Executive Committee of the Cape Province; he has held responsible positions. We expected a constructive contribution to this debate from him, not the barren type of reaction that we did get.

As far as I am concerned this debate has become more or less a carbon copy of how my hon. Leader described the recent general election. He stressed the fact that one of the features of the recent general election was that the Nationalist Party ignored the vital issues facing this country. My leader stressed the fact that they ignored the Coloured problem, that they ignored the race relations problem. I should like to add to the subjects which the Nationalist Party ignored during the recent election, the fact, which I want to stress, that they ignored the bread-and-butter issues. These are the vital issues which affect the everyday lives and living of our people. They avoid discussion of the rising cost of living and inflation. They avoided discussion of all the vital economic consequences that flow from inflation. They avoided discussion of the effect of inflation on growth, the effect of inflation on investment, the effect of inflation on savings and, very important, the effect of inflation on the interest rates.

I want to talk this afternoon on the subject of inflation. Fortunately for me, unlike my colleague, the hon. member for Yeoville who spoke about inflation, I am not inhibited this afternoon by not having to be controversial. I want to speak very straight to the hon. members of the Government on this subject. I know that the Government is aware of and worried by the problem of inflation. That is obvious from the remarks contained in the State President’s address at the opening of Parliament. It is obvious from the fact that the hon. the Minister of Finance appointed a conference last Saturday to advise him on the question of inflation.

It is obvious from the fact that the Cabinet has a committee of its own on inflation and from the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council also has a sub-committee on inflation. What is also obvious to this side of the House, clearly obvious, is that the Government has been avoiding public discussion on the subject of inflation, public discussion which could have been very fruitful had it taken place, because their own ideological policies present direct barriers to them with regard to the solution of this problem. They have avoided public discussion because their ideological policies leave them absolutely barren of the real solution to the problem. Their hands are tied in solving this problem by their ideological policies.

I find this all very disturbing. Inflation is not solving itself. Inflation is getting worse and worse. It is getting to the critical stage when it reaches double figures. The last figure of inflation was 11,2% and the general consensus of opinion is that it is likely to get worse still. I find it very disturbing that real growth which we need so desperately if we are going to solve our social and economic problems in this country, after spurting this year to a rate of between 6¾% and 7%, is now levelling off. It is levelling off because the slack in the economy has been taken up and the economy is already bumping its head against bottlenecks: Bottlenecks in skilled labour; bottlenecks in capital; bottlenecks in plant capacity; and bottlenecks in raw material. I would like to ask this Government: Is this the best it can do in the economic management of our country—a double figure rate of inflation plus a position in the economy when the rate of growth exceeds the EPD rate of growth of 5¾% the economy becomes overheated and bumps its head against bottlenecks. If this is in fact the best the Government can do, we on this side of the House must warn the country that we are heading, at best, for a state of stagnation, of stagflation, i.e. a stagnant economy with a high rate of inflation. If the Government cannot do better, the present economic position contains many of the ingredients that are going to lead us into recession. Let there be no doubt about what recession means: It means unemployment amongst our Black population; it means unemployment of the type that gives the hon. the Prime Minister sleepless nights, unemployment, at best, means unrest, and a restive population in South Africa is the very last thing we need for our security. On the contrary, what we need for our security is a contented, working population with a rising standard of living.

However, I do not want to have to look only at the bleak side of the picture which Government management is leading us into unless they do something about it, but I would also like to look at the other side of the coin, which is that we need growth desperately. We need real growth and fast growth if we are going to provide work, a living and an increasing standard of living for our growing population. This Government must not come forward, as the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs indicated when he spoke earlier in this debate, with the old story that inflation is beyond its control, that inflation is a world-wide phenomenon, that inflation is mainly imported, that there is nothing they can do about it, that we in South Africa are no worse off and, in fact, are better off than they are in other countries. These are all half-truths, because there are steps which the Government can take to combat inflation more effectively and to relieve the population of the effects of inflation.

In South Africa we are in a unique position to be able to do something effective about combating inflation. Potentially we are an immensely wealthy country. We have manpower availability, if we make use of that manpower, which would be the envy of many other countries in the Western World. We have an abundance of raw materials, not only mineral raw materials, but an abundance of animal and vegetable raw materials; we have relatively cheap power; we are less dependent on oil as a source of energy than most other countries in the world which have a similar stage of development to our own; but above all, we have gold; we have the priceless asset of gold which is a source of immense wealth to our economy. It is a catalyst for growth because it is our biggest industry in itself and as it is active and as it grows so the rippling effect of industrial activity is felt throughout the whole economy. The goldmining industry also provides capital to enable us to invest in diversification. Gold is a stabilising factor in the economy against violent fluctuations because of itself it is a stable industry. Gold also provides the relatively strong balance of payments position which we are enjoying at the moment and which we have enjoyed over the years.

With all these advantages in our economy why is it that this Government is making such heavy weather of fighting inflation? Why are there so many question marks surrounding the possibilities for our future growth? I should like to pin-point three areas in which I believe the Government is deserving of censure for the lack of steps that it has taken in this regard.

Firstly, I do not think there is any argument that the fundamental solution to stable growth and the combating of inflation lies in increased productivity, particularly in the labour field. What we need in South Africa is leadership by the Government in this field and we need a sense of urgency in that leadership. We need that leadership to promote and encourage the reclassification of work so that more skilled work can be done by semi-skilled workers as was recommended by the Riekert White Paper of two or three years ago. This, of course, must be done in consultation and collaboration with the trade unions. We need leadership in encouraging White people to equip themselves for more responsible and more skilled work. We need leadership to provide them with the training facilities for doing so that the White population of South Africa can assume a more productive role. We need leadership in training and in giving opportunities to our Black workers, particularly in our White areas, as has been provided for by the Van Zyl Committee. Mr. Speaker, this is no longer a time for a pedestrian pace such as the Government is walking; this is a time when we need the crash programme that my leader advocated three or four years ago.

And then they laughed.

If the labour steps that we on this side of the House advocate are going to be effective, we also need a changed outlook by the Government in regard to the geographical mobility of Black labour. The contract labour system is becoming less and less appropriate the more and more we become an industrial society. Productivity in our industrial areas requires a permanent, settled Black working population. What is the use of an industrialist spending money to train a Black worker into a more skilled occupation if that Black worker under a contract system is going to be lost to him within a short period? Sir, hand in hand with a more permanent, settled Black population in our urban industrial areas go all the other factors that accompany a settled population, namely family life and the possession of homes. Mr. Speaker, labour productivity and labour mobility are absolutely fundamental to our economic health. Obstacles put in their way through ideological considerations are wounds inflicted on our economy, and any Government which deliberately damages its own economy, deliberately damages its own country, is deserving of censure in the most severe form.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, if we are to have stable growth and if we are to be able to combat inflation we have got to have more investment to expand our productive capacity. I am aware that there is a fair volume of investment going on in the public sector; I am aware that there is a fair volume of investment going on in the mining industry, and that there is a fair volume of construction going on, but in the biggest sector of the economy, namely the manufacturing section, the investment that is required to expand the capacity of our industry is not taking place. Mr. Speaker, investment, if it is to take place, needs an atmosphere of business confidence, and business confidence is a fragile commodity. It is something that takes a long time to build up, but it is broken down very, very easily. I do not think that business confidence in South Africa has ever really fully recovered from the hammering which it took over the period 1970 to 1972 as the result of the stop-go policies which were applied by the Government over that period. What does business now see when it looks to its prospects and when it looks to possible Government action? It sees a Government which is dithering; it sees a Government which is typified by lack of activity in taking the correct and fundamental steps to fight inflation. It sees a Government which is reticent in regard to its plans to reconcile the steps which it may have to take to fight demand inflation, which may entail reducing spending power, with the steps which are necessary to promote growth. Business sees on the one hand a Government espousing growth, but it sees on the other hand a Reserve Bank inducing a tight liquidity situation and concomitant high interest rates which are highly discouraging to investment and growth. High interest rates and tight liquidity cause difficulties to borrowers, both business borrowers and private borrowers, such as home owners. I get the impression that the Reserve Bank—and it is an institution for which I have the greatest respect—is inducing a position which may well lead to bankruptcies, and if we have too great a volume of bankruptcies it will inevitably lead us into a state of recession. Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder that there is uncertainty? The business community naturally is afraid of a stop-go situation, with probably more stop than go. Above all, this is the time when we need good, firm, wise leadership. This is no time for dithering; this is no time for conflicting policies.

Thirdly, I would like to come to a factor which has a very direct bearing on the inflationary situation in this country, and that is the Government’s handling of the finances of the country. I find it almost unbelievable that this Government for the last financial year budgeted on Revenue Account, after taking into account the Additional Estimates of Expenditure, for a deficit of R353 million. The actual result of last year was not a deficit but a surplus of R366 million.

Over-taxation.

In other words, Sir, the hon. the Minister’s Budget was inaccurate to the tune of R719 million. Now, I grant that some of this inaccuracy was due to the unpredictability of the price of gold, but the last quarterly Bulletin of the Reserve Bank spelled it out that that extra revenue gained from gold was of the order of R190 million, which can be compared to the total inaccuracy of R179 million. So it was not the predominant factor. Sir, these are not small figures; these are gigantic figures. The error in budgeting of R719 million amounts to 20% of the actual expenditure on Revenue Account; it amounts to 4% of the gross national product, which is more than we spend on the education of all races in South Africa. The surplus alone amounted to 10% of the total amount spent on Revenue Account and 2% of the gross national product. I shall come back to that.

First I should like to say that in a stage of the economic cycle where we have a cost push I believe that over-taxation is not deflationary in effect. Because we are in a cost-push stage, overtaxation tends to push costs up further. I say that advisedly because, firstly, one of the factors of overtaxation is taxes such as the sales tax and excise taxes which directly push prices up. The second factor of overtaxation is income tax which is taking too much money out of peoples’ pockets and is therefore acting as spur to salary and wage earners to press for higher salaries and wages. It therefore pushes costs up in that way. The third factor is that overtaxation drains off savings from those individuals in higher income groups and from companies, savings which would otherwise be utilized in investment to increase the productive capacity of the country and thus enable us to fight inflation in that manner.

I want to come back to the actual surplus which amounts to 2% of the gross national product. I know that this is an oversimplification of the position, but had that surplus been applied to cheapening the gross national product through all being applied to subsidies, then our rate of inflation would have been 2% less. It would have been 8% instead of 10% last year. That is not something which I am advocating. I realize the implications and side-effects if such a step were taken. I mention that merely as a guide to the measure of the overtaxation which the public has suffered. However, I do suggest that there are steps that should have been taken, could have been taken and should still be taken, I hope in the next Budget, with the surplus that the hon. the Minister of Finance has.

The first step that I would advocate is a review of the scale of social pensions which at the moment is R52 per month. I do not think that the Government realizes the problems which White old-age pensioners have in making ends meet. How much worse is the problem for Coloureds who get half and for Africans who get less than a quarter? The next step I would advocate is an increase in the subsidies on essential foodstuffs, such as bread, and the introduction of a subsidy on a health-giving foodstuff, such as milk. I would recommend a reduction of the excise duty on petrol so that an item that comes into the costs of all businesses and all individuals can be reduced. I would recommend that sales duties which put costs up directly be eliminated on items that are not luxury items. This includes a wide range of household goods. I would recommend that something be done in regard to the high rate of marginal income tax. I would recommend that some form of indexing of the marginal income tax scale be introduced so that when people get increases to combat the increasing cost of living, those increases are not all eaten up by the higher tax rate into which the higher income brings them. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, you will probably not hold against me what I am about to say, speaking as I do after this hon. member, because he has roused me to such a pitch with the speech he has just made that I will probably only be able to restrain myself with the greatest difficulty. It is pathetic to listen to that hon. member. His speeches do have a reasonable content, but if only he could put it across so that one could understand it! He reminds me of the days, many years ago, when we still had the Model I Ford. To get it started, one had to jack up one of its rear wheels. One then cranked the engine until it started going “brr-brr-brr” and then one would be ready to drive off. Now I must say that if I could only have done that to that hon. member we should perhaps have heard more from him. The hon. member referred to inflation, to low productivity and to the unrest in our labour market. The solution he then immediately offered, was once again that old stereotyped story we have been hearing in this House for the past 16 years namely the better utilization of Bantu labour. Their magic charm against inflation and their magic charm as regards the growth rate, consists of only one thing and that is Black labour.

I want to deal with the progress of this debate thus far and say that it was pathetic to listen to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. In the course of a term of office in this House of 10 years’ duration, I have listened to 16 speeches of his, and I do not know whether I have ever heard the hon. the Leader of the Opposition give a poorer performance. Now this is to be expected because, politically speaking, he has really been hammered into a punch-drunk state. After 1970, particularly after the by-election in Brakpan, these people had a reasonable hope of being returned to power again. Their information service calculated by way of statistics that with a certain percentage growth they would take 10 seats, with another percentage they would almost be returned to power and with 20% they would take over the government of the country. Now, one can understand how these people feel, because all those calculations went completely awry. When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition speaks here, he must surely have support. What support has he? He stands on two legs, the verligte leg ...

Two strong legs.

Yes, so strong that he lost six seats in the election. If one looks at the verligte leg, what does one see? He stands there on the verligtes, the Young Turks and the reformers. As the other leg, he has the verkramptes, the Old Guard and the Establishment. Now one can think for oneself that if one is to stand firmly, one must surely put one’s weight on that one, too. However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not know which leg to lean on, because he never knows which one is going to be kicked out from underneath him. It must be terrible to be the leader of a party in such a situation, to introduce a motion of censure here and not to know whether the people sitting behind or alongside one, really support one. We do know, though—and it is very clear, too—that the evil day has dawned for that party and that the leader of that party will not be leader much longer. The lighting installed here, is excellent, Mr. Speaker, and now I want to make a request in that connection. You are the master of this House and can grant the necessary permission. I wonder whether you would permit me to take a photograph of that lot. It would be a historic photograph, and I am sure that my late grandfather would very much have liked to have possessed one. If one were to study that photograph, one would see an Opposition split into three groups—two groups within the United Party and a small group of Progressives on one side. If you were to look at that photograph and ask where certain people were, you would not see them. If I were to possess such a photograph, I would make far more money with it than that father with his sextuplets, because they are, after all, his own children, while those people sitting there are not the leader’s own children. Those people sitting over there are the children of the stepfather, Joel Mervis. If we look at that photograph, where is the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central? What has become of him? He is too verlig.

Here I am!

He is too verlig for the Cape “Old Establishment”. Yes, and now the present hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is sitting in his place. He had to take his place. They did not really want the present member either. He was only the second choice. And where is Koos Yster? He is the man who was nominated in Wynberg, not so? He was axed by the Candidates Selection Committee. Koos Yster then appealed. Koos Yster was suspended at one stage, and now he is back in the United Party again. Now I ask you: What does such a party look like?

Let us go further. The Old Establishment, as you know, did not want the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, Mr. Van Hoogstraten. No, Graaff Junior was to have stood there. Fortunately, a vacancy occurred in Sea Point, because they never knew whether Marius Barnard was a verligte, a verkrampte or a Prog. Fortunately they were able to send Graaff Junior to Sea Point, and where is he now? He is taking a dip in Graaff’s Pool. Where is the shadow minister of tourism, the ex-O.B. general, who also joined us in a game of jukskei back in those years? He was too verlig for this Establishment. He is no longer here.

Now we may turn to Young Turks and see what has happened. Who was their prey? Etienne Malan was the prey of Harry Schwarz and his people. Why did Etienne Malan become the prey of the United Party? It is now being cast in his teeth that he was an ex-Nationalist. Now I ask you: If it is not possible for a Nationalist to join them, what hope do they have of ever coming into power? He has served them all these years. He did the dirty work in that party. But because he as a patriotic Afrikaner served on the Schlebusch Commission, he had to pay the price for the United Party’s ambiguity. Now, I wonder whether another reason is not the fact that his surname is “Malan”. But in the same constituency Mr. Alf Widman was returned with an overwhelming majority. Let us cross to the constituency of Eden-vale. There were two candidates, an Oliver and an Olivier. The chairman of the Candidates Selection Committee there was Mr. Harry Schwarz; but the jury was young Jonathan Schwarz, a third-year student. He, in fact, had to help determine who the candidate was to be. They then decided to choose Professor Olivier and sack Oliver. These are the people we see before us here. What has become of Mr. Sonny Emdin, the shining light in economics, their financial man who even saw himself as Minister of Finance? He is missing. Where is the postbag, as I might call him, of Umhlatuzana, who brought us all the old Railway gossip? The hon. Mr. Bands had to pay the price in Natal. And so we could go on. Without venturing to make prophecies—because the prophet, the hon. member for Hillbrow, is sitting there—I want to say that Messrs. Streicher, Wiley and Hickman have reached the end of the road. I warned the hon. the Leader of the Opposition here in 1972 that the master of the United Party was not sitting in those benches, but was Mr. Joel Mervis. I sounded the warning that they would have to decide at one time or another: left or right. I told the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that a Prog colt by the name of Mr. Harry Schwarz was being groomed for the leadership stakes.

You read too many newspapers.

Yes. But what happened? Today Mr. Schwarz is the leader in the Transvaal. The former hon. member for Zululand spoke immediately after I did in that debate. He asked what warning I was giving them by maintaining that there were two wings in the United Party. I should like to draw his attention to the fact that even in the Natal stable that Prog colt reigns supreme. He even signed treaties without the knowledge of that hon. member. Those are the people who are sitting there. But in that photograph we also see the hon. member for Albany. And do you know, Sir, what he is being branded as now? He is being branded as “the private eye of verkramptheid” by the master of those hon. members, Joel Mervis. Do hon. members know why? Because he supposedly made certain statements and gave certain evidence before the Schlebusch Commission. Now he is being slandered and it is being said that even the British Settlers would turn in their graves if they were to hear that. Because he acted as a true patriot of his country, he is branded as the private eye. Those hon. members talk about “boerehaat”, but I was unaware that there was so much enmity and Anglophobia as we have been experiencing recently. I say that the day of reckoning for the hon. the Leader is not far off, because the master of the United Party decided as long ago as last year: “Thirteen reasons why Graaff must go.” I can predict that these reasons will be accepted and that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will have to pay the same price as Koos Strauss had to pay in 1956.

I want to come back to certain statements which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made here. He attacked the Government, as did the hon. member for Constantia, and said that owing to its labour policy this Government was responsible for inflation and a certain impediment. That is one of the reasons. In the first instance, he reproached this side of the House by saying that inflation was not imported, but locally bred. I do not want to put words in his mouth. I shall quote what he said. He said—

He went on to say—

Now I ask hon. members, if these are supposed to be the reasons ...

May I put a question to the hon. member?

That hon. member will ask such a lot of nonsense that I shall not even give him an answer. In the first place, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is hiding behind the economists and businessmen of this country. If it were true that this Government is responsible for this impediment, I should like to ask him a few simple questions. Why is a growth rate of 7% plus expected in South Africa this year while there are countries in Europe which are stagnant or which can only boast a growth rate of perhaps 1% or even 2? In those countries they do not have our problems and now it is said that South Africa finds itself in this situation because of the National Party’s labour policy. That is a childish and silly inference. There is another question I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Why is South Africa’s name at the top of the foreign manufacturers’ list when they want to invest? If every manufacturer and every industrialist had to choose, one would find that South Africa’s name would stand very high on the list of countries in which money can be invested.

The second point the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made, was when he referred to “restrictions on labour and job reservation”. He specifically said that job reservation was the reason why we had inflation in the country and why we did not have the necessary growth, because according to him it supposedly influences foreign attitudes and inspires criticism of South Africa. Year after year this question is asked in this House—and the hon. member for Hill-brow is one of those who likes to do so: How many people are affected by the statutory application of job reservation? We all know that 2,9 or 3 is the accepted percentage.

Those statistics mean nothing.

If 2,9% or 3% of the people are affected by job reservation and there are close to 8,6 million economically active people in South Africa, surely it is ridiculous to argue that job reservation is the spanner in the works? After all, that is no argument; surely it is ridiculous to blame job reservation for that. The workers of South Africa will want to know where they stand in the future. They, and everyone, can safely take cognizance repeatedly, again and again, of the fact that as far as job reservation is concerned—and I think that this is very important—as long as there is a National Party at the helm, section 77 will not be removed from the Industrial Conciliation Act, because that protective clause not only offers security to the White workers, but also protects the Coloured and the Black worker.

Only 3% are involved in that.

Why does the fact that the percentage is so low, worry you? Would that really deter the world? No, Mr. Speaker, we have had enough of that silliness. We in South Africa are fortunate in that we have a model Industrial Conciliation Act, in accordance with which the worker is his own master and arranges and controls his affairs himself. That is why we have this happy corps in our country.

The third argument employed by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is that, according to him, inflation is attributable to low productivity. Of course low productivity is a factor which affects inflation, but not to the extent which he wants to imply. He says that if we were to make more use of Bantu labour, we should be able to increase our productivity. Now I ask you: Where does that solution come from? What right has he to say that if more Black labour were employed, one would necessarily have higher productivity?

Trained labour.

Trained or untrained! It does not follow that if you use labour of a certain colour, you will increase productivity.

That is what we have been trying to say.

Some of the industrialists and economists who are so willing to talk about low productivity, could safely begin with their top management and set matters right there. Many of these manufacturers can go to their top managements and they will find that if those people go to lunch between one and two o’clock, they sit there and eat for two to three and a half hours, “wining and dining”, and meanwhile they expect the workers in the factories to carry on working. They can safely make a start there rather than continually accusing the workmen of low productivity. If matters are set right at top level, it might have an effect further down, and it is time this happened.

Another accusation which is made, is that not enough training is provided as far as the labour force is concerned. Surely it is not solely the task of the Government to provide training. The industrialists themselves should instruct their people and provide them with the necessary training. They should not always hide behind the Government where this matter is concerned.

They also talk about schools. What was the situation in the Transvaal in 1948 when the United Party was in power? I think that there were two Afrikaans medium high schools in the whole of the Transvaal. You could not send your White child to a school! What is the situation today, even as far as the non-Whites are concerned? It is ridiculous to make that statement and always to hide behind the Government where productivity is concerned.

Another statement the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made, was that there was a “growing threat to the industrial peace”. Then he said that the threat consisted of the fact that we did not have industrial peace. One of the most important reasons he mentioned, was that there was insufficient bargaining machinery for use by the Black man. Once again we have that definite ambiguity from the United Party. As far as labour policy is concerned, they have probably done three somersaults over the past three years, and every time they came up with a new statement in this House.

Marais Steyn spoke about Bantu trade unions a long time ago.

Last year, when we introduced legislation concerning the regulation of Bantu labour relations, the United Party supported it. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says: “No, it cannot work! Works committees, liaison and co-ordinating committees cannot work!” The Act was published on 4 July. It had scarcely been possible to put that Act to the test when those people who had originally objected to it before it had been introduced, came along with an objection to the application of the Act. This, then, is the objection of those hon. members. I say that they have not given the Act a fair chance to prove its worth. As I said, when this Act was introduced, those hon. members supported it, they welcomed the Act, but, as we know the U.P., it does not surprise us that they have a new policy with each new moon. We know what their labour policy was up to and including 1971. When hon. members on this side asked very relevant and very simple questions across the floor of this House, such as: “Are you in favour of Bantu trade unions?”, they replied: “No, we do not want them.” That was up to and including 1971. Then the pressure in the United Party gradually began to build up. Yes, gradually the pressure exerted by that verligte element in the United Party began to build up, and Cathy Taylor and Mr. Winchester were the only two who acknowledged openly that they were in favour of Black trade unions. But not the rest. No, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke about affiliated trade unions. That is what he called them in 1972, affiliated trade unions. One did not know whether the Bantu were their junior or their senior partner. Whenever one put the question to them, they shied away from it.

[Inaudible.]

You will not set the pace for me.

Order!

I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the hon. member. They came up with this policy. In the year 1973 when the hon. member for Houghton introduced a motion here dealing with Black trade unions, the United Party shied away from it. But then the pressure exerted by the verligtes in the United Party grew stronger because at that stage the present hon. member for Turffontein was thrown out as leader. On 10 February Mr. Harry Schwarz made a speech and at that stage he too openly advocated Black trade unions; at that stage his leader and his minions in this House did not agreed with that as yet. Subsequently the hon. Leader came up with his so-called three-tier system. He said that the highly educated and the highly skilled Bantu could belong to a trade union but that the not so highly educated and the not so highly skilled Bantu could belong to an affiliated trade union. He also said that the tribal and the unskilled Bantu could belong to works committees. [Interjections.] I ask you, where is the morality of that party which is always accusing other parties of these things.

But that was not enough. The pressure was too great, it grew, and in the election of 1974 the Progressives captured some of their votes. There they sit on the strength of the frustrated vote of the United Party. They should not feel so happy about it. The Progs came and then the verligte element had to bid against the Progs. What did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition do then? He made the following statement. He said very clearly: We openly advocate Black trade unions. This has now been admitted for the first time, and he has succumbed to the pressure from the verligte element, the verligte element in the United Party. In three years they have had three policies. Can you understand now why the voters of South Africa will yet reject that party in toto. It is because they are unable to take up a standpoint. They are unable to take up a standpoint when it comes to the worker. They cannot expect ever to receive the support of those people. I want to say this to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Let us accept the proposal he put forward here. Let the National Party agree now and say that we accept Black trade unions. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said very clearly that he did not like separate trade unions. He states it very clearly. In other words, I want to take it that if we accept his proposal, the White and the Black man will belong to the same trade union.

He leaves it to them.

That party is not prepared to give a lead nor is it prepared to make a statement, because it would once again fall between two stools.

What do you advocate?

I say very clearly that I am not in favour of Bantu trade unions. Let there be no illusions on that score. In other words, Sir, you must take it that according to them, Black and White would be members of the same trade unions. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition should tell us who will serve in the management of those trade unions.

They will decide for themselves.

Oh, they will decide for themselves; just as the voters decided about the Opposition, they will decide for themselves. Mr. Speaker, who will conduct the negotiations? Who will sit around the table and negotiate? They will decide that for themselves.

What is so strange about that?

I say that we should not be afraid of giving a lead. Then I want to ask who will administer the funds of the trade unions. For what purpose will they use them? Will they decide for themselves? Every worker in South Africa wants to know the answers to the questions I am putting here. Why were our trade unions torn in two in 1946? Why did one have the South African Co-ordinating Council, the Confederation of Trade Unions? Why did certain trade unions cease to exist? They ceased to exist specifically as a result of the mixing of races within the trade unions. I do not want to see a return to those conditions. Do hon. members opposite think that those people will want to see a return to that state of affairs?

What are they saying now?

Why did the electrical workers withdraw from TUCSA two or three years ago? They withdrew from TUCSA because pressure was being exerted for Black trade unions to be allowed to affiliate or to acquire membership of certain trade unions affiliated with TUCSA. Sir, if the Bantu has the right to exercise his political rights in his own country, I see no reason why he should have a right of say in the White workers’ job opportunities in the White area.

But they are guest labourers.

Even though they are guest labourers. I say that they can exercise their trade union rights in their own country. In White South Africa itself it is the duty of this Government to look after the Whites in the first instance. We should have no illusions on that score. If the Bantu can exercise their political rights there, then they can exercise their labour rights there, too. Sir, if we were to allow what hon. members opposite are asking for, then we would have racial integration. Each nation, each people, would lose its identity in this set-up. That is not to say that the trade unions are the alpha and the omega for the solution of all problems. What does Britain look like? Britain has been brought to its knees by the trade union movement, because there the political parties make use of the trade union movement. Sir, because that opposition does not have a hope of ever coming into power in South Africa, it wants to use the trade unions in this way so as to come into power. But I want to give them the assurance that this National Party Government will ensure that the White worker and every worker in South Africa will be looked after and that they need not be concerned about the threat contained in the proposal by the Leader of the Opposition. Sir, by utilizing the existing machinery for negotiation provided by our labour laws, the Bantu workers can achieve the same as they would be able to achieve through trade unions, and for that reason I see no need for the proposal by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that we should recognize Black trade unions in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has been known outside the bounds of this House as a “bitterbek” but he introduced his speech today by ignoring ...

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

Sir, I withdraw. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has sought to ignore the serious contribution to the debate made by my friend, the hon. member for Constantia, and in doing so he commenced his remarks by naming me as the hon. member for Gardens who had a particular success in the past election. In view of the comments he made, I think this House should know the true story of the Gardens constituency and its election successes. The House should know, first of all, that the Gardens constituency is the traditional constituency, the seat of Van Riebeeck, most wished for by the Nationalists as their prize trophy, but one which has always eluded them. Secondly, it should be known that in the 1970 election the Nationalist Party sought to put in that seat as its candidate Adv. Alwyn Burger, a leading member of the Ossewa-Brandwag. The full weight of the Nationalist Party was brought to bear in his support in their endeavour to win the seat against a then unknown politician but a fairly well-known business man. The result was an ignominious loss, and the seat was won by the United Party. In 1974 the Nationalist Party, through sheer frustration, not being able to find a Nationalist in their ranks who was man enough to let his name go forward and take a thrashing, hid behind the skirts of a very charming lady and nominated the daughter of the then Minister of Sport as their candidate. In addition, they put into the election the full force of their paper, Die Burger, with the support of two Cabinet Ministers and a Senator. They said that owing to a delimitation which favoured them, the seat had become highly marginal. The story is now history and the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark will know that that seat again has been won by a large majority and will remain a United Party seat for the foreseeable future.

The hon. the Prime Minister, in the last debate in the House, indicated that one of his reasons for summoning a general election was that in his opinion, owing to the fluid situation in the world, South Africa had two, or perhaps three, years in which to solve its most difficult problems. One would have thought, against this background and against the background of the Nationalist Party being returned to power with a considerable majority, that that party would have listened to the gravamen of my hon. leader’s serious charges and that they would have come back and indicated to South Africa, in this time of growing stress and international danger, just what their policies will be during the next two years. As a businessman, to me it is reprehensible and irresponsible in the extreme that we have had nothing from the speakers on that side who have addressed you, Sir, during this debate but flippant irrelevancies, political debates and political vote-catching.

It is only right that against my hon. Leader’s charges that this Government has not reacted to the challenges of change in the present period, we should have a datum line with which to examine in depth the failure of the Nationalist Party. I would like to take the datum line for this purpose as the year 1948 and indicate to you the tremendous retrogression that has taken place in our political life and image since that year. It is only right to say that prior to 1948, when the United Party was still in power, this country had an international image. It was highly respected in the sporting world, in the international world; in the field of security, under the United Party, the borders from which we were threatened were the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, and the United Party had fought against the threats to our security and confined them to the Continent of Europe. Again, in our way of living, in a more frivolous vein, in those days the braaivleis was a traditional way of South African life. Today a braaivleis is almost an impossibility for the man in the street. Meat was still a commodity which one found on one’s table. We were a nation of meat-eaters. Butter was not then an unknown commodity. Wine was not rationed, and beer was a commodity which could be bought by our youth. Ponder these words, Sir, in view of the changes that have taken place under this Government. However, worst of all in our way of living has been the fact that since 1948 a pound is no longer a pound, a rand is no longer a rand. Under the tremendous run-away inflation which we are experiencing the man in the street today is bothered and distressed by the loss of his savings. This is not a commentary from United Party speakers; let us hear what a man such as Anton Rupert has to say—

We must see inflation for what it is. In its harshest terms—this Government will not face up to the fact—inflation is the theft of the hard-earned, full value capital resources and savings of the poor and the middle class by governments in order to fuel their expansionary programmes with money which has not value of the savings they have taken away from the poor. Inflation is a cancer which is eating into our economic system, sapping our strength and which can, if not contained, in the very near future cause the destruction of industry not only in this country but also in other countries. It is for this reason that we on this side of the House are at one with the hon. the Minister of Finance in his realization that the problem is so serious that he has seen fit to call together the businessmen of South Africa to discuss the problem with them.

I want to face up today to one comment from the Government benches—this statement that we are in the grip of an international monster, an international malady; that inflation is a world-wide phenomenon and that it is imported. Let us agree immediately across the floor that part of the inflation is imported. However, there are certain other contributory factors for which the Government must bear the full responsibility. I want to list these three factors particularly and immediately: The first is the creeping socialism which we are finding in our State Public Service about which no less a person than Dr. A. D. Wassenaar had the following to say—

At the stage we have reached at the moment we need high productivity and a fast growth rate. At last the hon. the Minister of Finance has accepted the advice of my hon. leader and other hon. speakers on finance on this side of the House and recognized that we must have a growth rate of at least 7%. A few years ago when we said 7%, the hon. members on the other side threw up their hands in horror. Today we need this fast growth to avoid confrontation with the lower middle classes. As the hon. member for Constantia has said and as the hon. the Prime Minister has reiterated time and again, if the Black man goes hungry, the White man will not sleep. We are not pessimists; we are responsible politicians. However, if we cannot from now on maintain a growth rate in South Africa that will allow us to find job opportunities for some 150 000 to 200 000 new workseekers from the Reserves and from within South Africa, then we face the possibility not only of recession but of revolution. We have to face these facts, and it is the Government’s responsibility to see that the scarce resources which are needed so much by the private sector are not milked off and eaten into by a too rapid expansion of the public sector. It is recognized that the proliferation of public sector departments under this Government has been so astounding that today it is a fact that in our modern, civilized country, of our economically viable population, over one-third of our workers are in the Public Service. Most of these workers are in the educated, professional and skilled classes. One-third of our skilled classes are in the pay of the Public Service, a service which is not competitive and a service which does not contribute to the gross domestic product as fast as does the private sector, or as fast as the private sector can. I want to warn this Government that we may have to look carefully at our public services and apply certain restrictive brakes in regard to their plans for expansion.

The second comment I would like to make is that under this Government inflation has been fuelled by their illogical, unjustifiable policy of decentralization for ideological purposes. Again I want to indicate what commerce thinks about this. No less a body than Hill Samuel, the respected merchant bankers, indicated that the border area development, and this was two years ago, was costing South Africa some R9 200 per creation of a job opportunity. What greater inflation can there be when money is as scarce as it is and we are paying the interest rates which businessmen are compelled to pay? Hill Samuel was reported as saying the following:

We on this side of the House have supported decentralization, but under the present ideological fantasies of this Government they have no regard whatsoever for the fact that if we are to look after our less privileged people and if we are to have a high growth rate we must first of all develop industry where it is most naturally called for and secondly, where we have our natural location of raw materials, capital, labour and skills. Thirdly, although the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark will not agree, the Government must accept responsibility for our higher inflationary rate being due largely to their restrictive labour policies, to the immobility of labour, and their not recognizing the fact which has been stated over and over again by their own economists, bankers and entrepreneurs—the Dr. Ruperts, the Dr. Marais’s, the Dr. Wassenaars and others—that if we are to succeed in containing inflation in South Africa the time must come when we must realize that, like money, labour is a commodity, part of our productive machine, and that unless we make the fullest use of the skills of all our labour, irrespective of colour, we shall be retarding our country at a time when change is absolutely vital and necessary if we ourselves are to gain the maximum benefit which we as a European community seek to do.

Tell us something about Boerehaat.

Boerehaat has got nothing to do with this. This is a much more serious matter.

I want to repeat that one of the matters which this Government has not given its fullest attention to and one which has been referred to over and over again is the question of taxation which is crippling South Africa. We see again that Dr. Anton Rupert, who I accept as being a thoroughly efficient South African businessman, has indicated that in view of inflation few industries this year will have enough profits left to replace stocks or equipment under the Government’s present taxation proposals. Our plea to the hon. the Minister when he introduces his Budget is to make two concessions. The first is to make far more realistic and potential allowances for depreciation of fixtures and fittings and plant, so that industrialists can replace their plant and can become more and more productive. Secondly, we make the plea that the man in the street should have some of the crushing burden of home ownership removed from his shoulders by the hon. the Minister of Finance who will then be recognizing the oft-made plea from this side of the House, namely, that interest on bonds should be tax-deductible. Under these conditions, Sir, we believe that we can go forward in South Africa. I wish to refer to another field in which the Government has been completely negligent, and that is in its failure to recognize the population explosion in this country for what it is. In most countries of the world it has been said that the present population explosion, either in undeveloped countries or in countries where the population growth amongst the non-Whites is such that it causes extreme dismay, should be controlled. If we do not face up to the facts today, then in the year 2000 we will have 50 million people in this country, and not only 24 million. We are making no provision for the fact that to house and provide for communities of this size, we will have to have 5, 10, 15 cities the size of Cape Town, and we are now squandering our present resources by not making use of the time available to us. We are ignoring the hon. the Prime Minister’s own warning that we have two perhaps three years in which to come to terms with ourselves, face up to the economic realities which, in the final instance, are so much more important in the lives of our people than the political absurdities pronounced by the Nationalist Party.

Mr. Speaker, the Opposition commenced this debate with a bravado on Colour relationships. The debate has been under way for a day or two, and after the scathing speech by my bench-fellow, the Minister of Water Affairs, here this afternoon they tried to evade the whole colour question, and tried to turn it into a financial debate. However, I want to bring them back to the colour debate. But to be able to do so, I need sufficient time and consequently I move—