Mr. Speaker, I move—

At a conferring meeting of the Committee on Internal Arrangements of the Senate and the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders of the House of Assembly held on 22 February 1974, the two Committees decided that in their opinion the efficient functioning of Parliament as an institution would be promoted by the amalgamation of the staffs of the Senate and the House of Assembly to form a unified parliamentary service.

The Committees accordingly recommended—

1. (1) that the staffs be amalgamated under a Secretary to Parliament, assisted by a Deputy Secretary to Parliament;
2. (2) that control over the appointment of and all other matters relating to the parliamentary staff be vested in Mr. Speaker: Provided that in respect of procedural and other domestic matters of the Senate, the Secretary to Parliament or, in his absence, his Deputy would be responsible to the President of the Senate;
3. (3) that the Secretary and Deputy Secretary to Parliament and such other Secretaries-at-the-Table as might be required, be appointed by resolution of the Senate and of the House of Assembly after such appointments had been considered at a conferring meeting of the appropriate Committees of the two Houses and reported upon by such Committees: Provided that on the staffs being amalgamated, the present Secretary. Deputy Secretary and Assistant Secretary to the House of Assembly were to be deemed to have been appointed as Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary to Parliament.

The Committees further recommended that the necessary legislation be enacted early in the present session after being approved by the Committees concerned.

In conclusion the Committees recommended that, from a date to be fixed by Mr. President in consultation with Mr. Speaker, Mr. Victor, the Secretary to the House of Assembly, be appointed as Acting Secretary to the Senate until the necessary legislation had been enacted and that he be authorized to undertake the reorganization of all parliamentary services during the recent recess. Mr. Victor has in fact been appointed Acting Secretary to the Senate with effect from 1 August.

Reports embodying the above recommendations were tabled on 25 February in the Senate by Mr. President and in the House of Assembly by Mr. Speaker and were adopted by both Houses.

In terms of a further resolution adopted by the Conferring Committees, a subcommittee consisting of Mr. President, Mr. Speaker and members of both Houses representing the two major parties, during the recess considered a memorandum on the reorganization of the parliamentary staff under a Secretary to Parliament which was submitted by the Secretary to the House of Assembly and the then Acting Secretary to the Senate, Mr. La Cock.

The proposals contained in this memorandum were unanimously approved by the sub-committee.

Members will know that Mr. La Cock has been granted permission to retire from the service of the Senate with effect from 1 August 1974 owing to reorganization, and I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to him for the outstanding service he rendered in various capacities to Parliament and to the Senate in particular over a period of 31 years. I am sure that members on both sides of the House join me in wishing him a long and happy retirement.

The legislation before the House has also been approved by the members of the subcommittee and by the Committees on Internal Arrangements of the Senate and on Standing Rules and Orders of the House of Assembly and, in addition to protecting the rights of present members of the two staffs, merely makes the necessary consequential amendments to various Acts to give effect to the new staff arrangements.

I feel that the new parliamentary service will be better able to serve Parliament as a whole in that its officers will have the opportunity to serve both Houses of Parliament and will accordingly have a far wider field of experience and better opportunities for promotion open to them. Members of both Houses will as a result to an ever-increasing extent benefit from the new system and I therefore have no hesitation in recommending this legislation to the House.

On this occasion I should like to express my gratitude and pay tribute to the hon. J. de Klerk, President of the Senate and the hon. H. J. Klopper, former Speaker of the House of Assembly, for the leading parts played by them in effecting the amalgamation of the staffs of the two Houses. This is an historic event which is of great importance to the smooth functioning of the parliamentary machine. I am grateful for the fine spirit of hearty co-operation in which all the preliminary arrangements were made, and I believe that the new dispensation will be in the best interests of Parliament as an institution.

Mr.

Speaker, we on this side of the House have no hesitation in wholeheartedly supporting this legislation. It gives effect, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, to a series of decisions taken at a conference of committees of the Other Place and of this House. In doing so we should like to be associated particularly with the hon. the Minister’s remarks in respect of Mr. La Cock who, while perhaps not so well known in this House as in the Other Place, has given dignified and greatly respected service to Parliament for a very long period.

The legislation giving effect to these decisions follows on consultations which took place over a long period of time. At first, Sir, they were not entirely successful but I am happy to say that ultimately an agreement was reached which was unanimous and carried the support of all sections and which, I feel, will undoubtedly lead to a streamlining of our personnel and to facilitation of the work of Parliament. Where you have a small staff it is often frustrating to individuals in that their prospects for advancement and the sort of training they can get tend to be limited. Where the staff is bigger, members of that staff get the opportunity of gaining experience of the work of both Houses and posts are open to them in both Houses, and one can expect that a much higher standard will be reached. I believe, Sir, that Parliament as such is going to benefit very much indeed from this legislation.

I thank the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for his support of this Bill. We, of course, had no doubts in this regard as all of us are of one mind as far as this matter is concerned.

Mr. Speaker. I have decided not to make a grand speech. One must be very careful these days not to become too grand, for that you are not grand enough. That poor old friend of mine, Gideon Bands, was not grand enough and he is no longer here. Another man tried to get in in his place and they very nearly told him that he was not good enough either. I have therefore decided not to make a grand speech. One must also be careful. The poor former member for Orange Grove was too much of an anti-Jew, he was an anti-Semitic. That was the propaganda they made against him, and there “they” sit. If one talks about a political group which has made its appearance here on the political parliamentary scene, then there they are sitting over there. They are a lot of political equivocators. Mr. Speaker, I am ready for you if you want to stop me. I can get past.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the expression “political equivocators”.

I withdraw it. Sir. Then I shall merely speak about this, that and the other.

As usual.

After the Pastor and the elder had paid a house visit to Uncle Jan Greyling, across the Makwassiespruit, there was a cloudburst along the upper reaches of the Makwassiespruit while they were on their way to Albert van Deventer, who also lived across the Makwassiespruit. When they were in the middle of the spruit the horses refused to go any further and the elder said to the Pastor: “Reverend look at that wall of water leading this way. Could you not say a little prayer for us?” The Pastor replied: “Brother, this is no time to be saying prayers; now is the time to whip up these horses!” Mr. Speaker, I also want to whip up the horses today.

I want to begin by quoting what was written by Ben Burroughs in the Chicago American in 1956, and I want to make that my point of departure. He said—

On 22 August 1966, precisely eight years ago yesterday, the Cape Times wrote as follows in a leading article—

Only a week ago there appeared an article in a newspaper written by a certain person. Mr. Speaker, I am so sorry—he bears my name, but thank goodness, he does not bear my surname. He wrote as follows (translation)—

He went on to say (translation)—

He went on to say (translation)—

He went on to say (translation)—

I want to quote something else. On Monday, 19 August, a report appeared in a newspaper in which the following was said (translation)—

Then something happens which has a profound effect on one. The photograph of one of our ministers of state appears next to that report, something he has absolutely nothing to do with. I have not discussed the matter with the hon. the Minister and he does not know that I am going to discuss it today, but I say here today as candidly as I possibly can: This kind of thing must stop here, right here. We dare not allow this in our Fatherland. I think I have finished speaking about it. There are things like courtesy and mutual respect for one another in a country, things which count for far more than all the good things given to us in the Budget by the hon. the Minister of Finance. If we push aside and ignore all these things, one might just as well write Ichabod to the future of our people—we will never win the battle. I can quote hundreds of newspaper reports in a similar vein. They hid behind the Press Board of Reference. When this report was written to the effect that people in the North—and this is how it is sent out into the world—kick their servants to death, the Press Board of Reference did nothing about it. They held their peace and today, when they see matters coming to a head, they tried another manoeuvre. They drew up a new code. I want to say candidly and this is my personal opinion, that that code is not worth the paper it is written on. I have learned this from past experience. We cannot allow such a thing. After all, we are governing. The thing that struck me most—and I am going to mention it here, because we must discuss this matter however unpleasant it may be—is another report which appeared in a newspaper. We have to elect a president and I am one of the members of the electoral college that has to elect our honourable president. Our Presidency is something above sensation, above press sensation too. We cannot allow our president or candidates for the presidency, to be commercialized. However, a report in one of our newspapers bears the following heading (translation)—“Uncle Ben challenges Dr. Nic.” I think it is a crying shame that we who ought to weave a kind of mystical aura about the presidency, should allow this to be commercialized and converted into a sensation. After all, this is not right and we cannot allow this to happen. Rather than allow the office of the president to become embroiled in this type of thing, I would rather abstain from voting if this were to continue, or I would say that we are dealing with an office of authority here which had better be abolished and that we should rather call our Prime Minister president as is the case elsewhere in the world. I want to repeat—

There is a second matter which I want to discuss. This Budget, if it were a person and had to fight an election or nomination, would have won, because this is a laughing Budget. It contains something for everyone and satisfies everyone. We are not talking about that. What is really the dominant feature in this whole Budget? I think we can indicate certain dominant features. Feature No. 1 is that we are producing too little. There is too much unproductive manpower in South Africa. That is the first point. More work must be done. Sir, I wish the Minister of Finance would give me R10 million. Do you know what I would do, Sir? I would launch a national campaign to make our people and our youth labour conscious again. We talk about this every day. It is said repeatedly outside and inside this House that we should work more. If we were to spend one-tenth of all our propaganda, of the potential of all the means of communication we have at our disposal in South Africa, or of the time we are spending on sport, to make our people labour conscious, there would be no need for me to listen to people telling me that we will have to live with inflation in the distant future. I simply cannot accept this. I do not accept this statement at all. In spite of the fact that we have employed certain micro and macro economic means, we have not come to the heart, the real cause behind this inflation in our Fatherland and that is that our people do not want to work; our people do not do enough work. If we merely leave this to the organism of the State and if the authorities do not take active steps and give this some status, we shall keep on talking about inflation and unproductive utilization of labour forces for many years to come. Sir, is it really necessary for one White man to spend the whole day sitting at the side of the road supervising six Blacks removing small bushes? I ask you in all honesty: Is it necessary? It is not only a deed of unproductivity one sees before one; it also acts as a contagious infection within the concept of labour our people have. Is it really necessary for two Whites and 13 Brown people to spend three or four days planting a telegraph pole? Sir, we must expose these practices. Sir, I am asking you this morning in all seriousness: Can we fight inflation in this way? When 32 Bantu and two White men have to lay a 13 foot pipe from a water channel and make this a three-day job because they had to pitch camp the previous afternoon and break camp again the following afternoon, I am asking you, Sir: Is it not time for us to whip up the horses?

I can go on quoting one example after another. From this Budget one dominant factor appears, and I repeat: Not enough work is being done in South Africa; here we have an incorrect allocation and an incorrect evaluation of labour. I think we have reached the stage where this matter has entered the jurisdiction of the authorities. The authorities have to take the lead in launching a comprehensive national campaign to tackle this question.

The second dominant factor which appears from this Budget, is the question of numbers. The figure in respect of the population increase of the Whites in South Africa is one of the lowest in the world. Our Brown population has, with the exception of Mexico, the highest population increase in the world. In view of the higher standard of living, the narrowing of the wage gap, the increase in the buying power of the non-Whites, the increase in the buying power of the Whites and the increase in numbers, the question arises whether the shoulders of the handful of Whites and the almost unutterably minimal number of technologically skilled non-Whites who are able to manufacture productively, are and will remain strong enough to be able to bear the burden, the burden which is becoming heavier on account of this stream of unskilled arrivals, who only become productive on reaching the age of 16 or 17 and for whom social, educational and health services and an extremely expensive infrastructure have to be established simply to be able to accommodate them and to comply with the basic social requirements. This is a question we will have to answer for ourselves. We will have to try to find a solution; we will have to escape from it.

We will have to launch a major national campaign with a view to proper family planning—I need not say a word about this. because all hon. members know precisely what I mean. It should be a public campaign so that racial feelings cannot be exploited. This campaign, just as the one in the case of labour, should be a campaign penetrating to the heart and the spirit of the people, because we are not living in a financial crisis. Our crisis is a crisis of the heart and the spirit. The same irresponsibility one notices in the approach of the people towards labour one also finds in their approach to their families. It is our duty to set the ball rolling and to set the wheels in motion, because this House has the status and the funds to be able to do so, in order that a change may be brought about in this crisis which is a deep-seated crisis in the heart and spirit of mankind.

I want to conclude. In the light of what I have said, events in Mozambique have tremendously significance for us. What we are dealing with here is the development of a catastrophic ethnical confrontation: Asia for the Asians, Europe for the Europeans, Africa for the Blacks. Behind this major confrontation which is building up, we find the neo-communist imperialism. What weapon do they use? They are using the weapon with which we are fighting for our policy of separate development to carry it to its logical conclusions, the same norms. Behind those norms is power; behind those norms operates power politics. That is why I am so glad that this dominant feature can be discerned in the Budget, which is that we realize that, in spite of our sweet-sounding, uncontentious, Christian-based norms and our moral steadfastness, both structural and functional, we cannot depend on that alone, because a new power and a new kind of politics have developed in Africa during the past few months, and that is power politics. I do not believe one other nation in the world supports the appropriation in the Budget in respect of Defence more than we do. I welcome this, because therein lies our success against this new dimension to be “grand” as we see it developing before us in Africa.

I think, Mr. Speaker, I have now applied the whip to a sufficient extent, and will therefore resume my seat.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the hon. member for Carletonville. Strangely enough, there are quite a number of points on which we can agree with one another. However, we shall differ considerably in our approach to the problems which we will be faced with. On the occasion of my first speech I make it quite clear here that the dominating nature of our population relations, the relations problem, casts its shadow on everything we do and are going to do in this House and in the country. I also want to say immediately that none of us have any doubts about the importance and dominating nature of those problems. To begin at once with a statement which, it is hoped, will clear the air let me say immediately that I accept that our population structure is multi-national and multi-racial. It is also heterogeneous in many other respects. I believe all of us accept and admit that we in South Africa are facing an enormous dilemma. This fact has emerged time and again from the great many speeches I listened to during the past three weeks in this House. We can have no doubt as to the existence of this dilemma, but something I do find difficult to accept, however is the lack of equilibrium with regard to this matter, as if it is, in fact, impossible to find common grounds and a common analysis in this connection. I often gain the impression that we are really at cross-purposes; that it is difficult to achieve a calm and rational analysis of that dilemma, and it seems to me two factors in particular are responsible for this lack of agreement. The one factor is that we are apparently unable to reach agreement on some of the basic aspects, factors and principles of this situation. It seems as if we are constantly at cross-purposes. Let me say immediately that we in this House and elsewhere are unable to obtain clarity on such a simple matter as the concept of discrimination. There are those of us who say that there is no discrimination. There are those of us who tell other people who, in this country and overseas, say that there is, in fact, discrimination that they are being disloyal towards South Africa. There are those who tell us that there is discrimination, but that such discrimination is justified, as I think the hon. member for Waterberg, for example, said recently, if I understood him correctly. There are those in this House and outside who say: “We admit there is discrimination and we want to move away from it; the whole object of our policy is to get away from discrimination”. Mr. Speaker, then there are those who say: “No, there is no discrimination, but there is, it is true, differentiation.” We are at cross purposes on a simple matter such as this. Sir, of the same nature is the question: How do the Bantu and the non-Whites in general react to our policy? And here we are faced with the same dilemma. There are some of us who say that they are happy and satisfied and that they accept what is being done; there are others who say that this is not true; that there is a strong feeling of opposition to, of resentment of, these things. We differ on that score as well. Sir, we are at cross purposes as far as the question of encroaching upon human dignity is concerned. There are some of us who say: In our structure, in our policy, in what we do to people we do not encroach upon their dignity. There are others who say that we are doing this day after day.

Surely, these things can be scientifically determined. Surely, it should be possible to do this in order that we may obtain clarity on these points of principle and can say that there is, in fact, discrimination. Surely, it is possible for us to determine scientifically what the feelings of the non-Whites are, in particular our urban non-Whites. Surely, it should be possible to determine whether human dignity is really being encroached upon. Is it not possible for us to get past the debating points and to have a real, pure analysis on this matter? You will allow me, Mr. Speaker to tell you merely in terms of the information I have at my disposal that I believe, as I am standing here, that there is unfair and unjustified discrimination in South Africa. I believe and I know that human dignity is being encroached upon in different ways day after day. As I am standing here, Sir, I want to tell you that I believe that profound dissatisfaction prevails in particular among our non-White urban populations; that profound resentment is developing and that there is tremendous opposition to the circumstances in which they find themselves. I only say this is my honest belief. I may be wrong, but I say to you again, Sir, that this is the conclusion I came to, not only on account of my academic studies, but on account of my observations and the contact I have as one human being with another. Sir, let me say immediately, just to put the matter in its true perspective, that I am not meting out any blame. I do not want to say that this one or that one is responsible for it. I have indicated earlier that, to a large extent, the circumstances in which we find ourselves, are also the product of history. But let us then not deny that these things do exist and if we Want to deny it because we do not like it, could we then not determine scientifically whether it is so or not? If we constantly refuse to accept these things we find unpleasant, and we do not even want to go to the trouble to investigate them then we are, in all honesty, not competent to govern this country.

Tell us what the solution of your party is.

Sir, I want to develop a particular trend of thought and if I do not respond to interjections now, I do so because the time is limited and because I should like to put a few things to this House in terms of that trend of thought. I do not do so because of a feeling of contempt or disrespect towards other hon. members.

The second factor which—so it seems to me—makes it impossible for us to make a sound analysis of this situation, is the fact that, when confronted with possibly unpleasant facts, we yield to the normal human frailty to looking for escape machanisms. One indulges in fictions and flights of the imagination. So it seems to me that one of the cardinal fictions we indulge in, is the following, and we are indulging in quite a number of them. One of the fictions we indulge in is that the urban Bantu are not really there, and that they will disappear tomorrow or the day after. We indulge in the fiction that our control measures and legislation are able to counteract the normal economic laws. For example, if a person is compelled to seek employment on account of his economic circumstances, we must not think that we can prevent him from doing so by making a law telling him that he is not allowed to be in this area and that he is not allowed to accept employment there. These are fictions, Mr. Speaker.

But it seems to me the major fiction we are indulging in here, is the one regarding the homelands. This fiction has two forms. I mention this, because this is fundamental to the policy we have here. That policy, as I see it, has two legs. The one leg is that Bantu homelands have been created historically and that, from that history, it can be clearly discerned that those homelands were created with the intention of establishing a political home for the Bantu; that those homelands are aimed at establishing separate constitutional entities for the Bantu population. Sir, when you read the White Paper of 1959, which forms the basis of the Promotion of Bantu Self-government Act, you will find this statement repeated there time and again. The whole logic of the policy is tied to that approach, that the Bantu homelands were created with a view to creating the possibility of separate constitutional entities for our Bantu population.

The second leg of this policy is that the areas outside these Bantu areas, are White areas and that in these areas the Whites have the sole right to supremacy, to political self-expression. One needs only to look at the records, Sir. I have the latest Year Book in front of me. Mention is being made of White areas. [Interjections.] Sir, I just want to say that we cannot make light of these matters and for that reason we should approach this matter in earnest. We speak of White areas. I just want to put this as my contention, that both these presumptions are based on absolute fictions. Nowhere in history do we read that, prior to 1959, it was intended that the Bantu areas which had been created should serve as a basis for separate constitutional entities for the Bantu population. [Interjections.] If I had the time, I could defend and motivate that statement. As the White man settled in South Africa, his first object was to destroy the constitutional independence of the Bantu tribes, because that constitutional independence threatened the existence of the White man. From the eastern frontier to Natal, from the Free State to the Transvaal wherever the White man settled, he subjected the Bantu to his authority. That was the basic approach of his policy.

That is not historically correct.

Indeed it is. He subjected the Bantu to his authority. I want to go further. Let us look at the history of the allocation of this land. What were the initial measures in this regard before 1910 and after 1913? What did these measures provide? They provided for South Africa to be divided into two areas, Native areas and non-Native areas. One will find no reference to White areas in that legislation. That legislation deals purely and solely with rights to land, not with government and not with politics, but with rights to land. In that legislation it was provided that there would be no limitation in respect of the number of farm labourers. It was also mentioned therein that the legislation is not applicable to urban areas. Let us go further. The following measure was that of 1936. What do we find in the 1936 Act? In that year an additional million morgen of land was added to the Bantu areas as they existed at that time. In that same year, by means of the Native Representation Act, we find that the Bantu voters of the Cape Province were put on a separate voters’ roll and that they were given three representatives, White representatives, in this House and two in the provincial council of the Cape Province. For the first time in the history of this House and of this country the Bantu received representation in the Senate by means of four Whites the Bantu had to elect themselves. The Native Representative Council was also established. The functions of that Native Council—and this deserves particular attention—were that all measures coming to this House should be submitted to that Council for advice. All budgets presented to this House in congestion with Bantu education, or the purchase of land for Bantu, had to be referred to that Council. But it went even further. It was laid down in the Act that any Bill or draft ordinance relating to matters concerning the Bantu had to be submitted to that Council for comment before such measure could be discussed in this House. All I want to say is that, considering this situation, it is totally absurd to say that we can infer from the historic pattern in South Africa that the Bantu homelands were intended as constitutional entities for the Bantu. [Interjections.] Let me tell hon. members immediately that there was nothing of this kind, not even in the initial application of the policy of this Government. We continued peacefully with local authorities in the Bantu areas in the form of Bantu authorities. Let me now tell hon. members what happened during the national congress held in Bloemfontein in 1956. One of my colleagues ventured to refer to the possible independence of the Transkei. He was called to order by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Affairs at that time. The Deputy Minister told my colleague that he refused to share the same platform with someone making a speech like that because the independence of the Transkei was diametrically opposed to the policy of the Government he was serving. [Interjections.] It was only in 1959 When that concept appeared.

Unfortunately my time is very nearly up, but let me deal for a moment with the question of the White area as a purely White area. Historically this is not correct. From the moment the White man set foot in this country, in 1652, this country was not a White man’s country. The Hottentots were here in the Cape and slaves were imported immediately afterwards.

Was it a Black country then?

No. Wherever the White man settled, whatever he did at any given time in his history, there the Black man or the Coloured was as well.

Where was he?

Everywhere. [Interjections.]

Order!

Can the hon. member name me one farm that has been developed without Black or Coloured labourers? Name me one city that was built without the joint assistance of Whites and non-Whites.

Constitutionally?

I shall deal with the constitutional position in a moment. All I want to say is that the concept of a White man’s country or a White portion is simply not correct. This has never been the case in South Africa throughout its history. [Interjection.] I am now speaking in terms of the physical presence of people. There is simply no such concept as a White man’s country. [Interjection.]

Order! Hon. members are now being unreasonable with their interjections.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In terms of the real occupation of land, the concept of there being a White man’s country, is simply not correct. It has never been correct and it will never be correct either. What are the implications thereof? On the basis of these two fictions—because these are fictions—we find the attitude that all the Bantu are committed to the Bantu homelands to give expression to their political aspirations. Furthermore, we find the fiction that not one Bantu in this White man’s land is entitled to participate in the political processes. When we are faced with the conflict of what we should do with those who are here permanently, those who are historically permanent such as the Coloured people, I can appreciate that the temptation exists—and I say it again that I can appreciate it because it is a dilemma—to speak of a separate Coloured homeland. The temptation to do so does exist because, after all, we have the model of a White man’s land and we have the model of a constitutional homeland for the Bantu. What we are doing now is to try and create a homeland for the Coloured people and the Indians from nothing. [Interjection.]

Order!

I want to make it quite clear once more that I did not say that it is the policy of the Government to create a Coloured homeland. I merely said some of us are thinking in that direction.

Let me furnish hon. members with a brief summary of the matter. There are a number of causes arising out of this which are altogether inconceivable in terms of the realities of our situation. One of them is that it is completely absurd to think that the arrangements regarding land which were made in 1913 and 1936 lent themselves to the independence of all the homelands. In the second place, to think that all the Bantu have to find self-expression for their political aspirations via the homelands, is a further absurdity. We can make a law and say, with one stroke of the pen, that from this moment on, we declare all the Blacks living outside the homelands to be citizens of the homelands and regard them as foreigners here. Surely, we have the power to do so, but what would we have achieved by that?

By that we have not changed one iota of the realities of the situation. We can continue bluffing ourselves by saying that we have found a solution to the problem while the real structure of the problem has, in fact, remained unchanged. The idea that we as Whites have the right, on account of historical factors, to have sole supremacy in the White area is a complete absurdity and an impossibility both from an historical and practical point of view.

Mr. Speaker, during my Stellenbosch days I attended lectures given by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I want to say at once that the philosophy which the hon. member has now been expounding in general is totally different from the one I had to listen to in my time. Something has gone wrong somewhere, but I do not know what. In the course of my speech I shall come back to those days, but first I want to start my story right at the beginning.

During the past few days we have had very good rains in the Western Cape. Our dams here in the Boland are full to overflowing. On the fields here in the Swartland area we have a wheat crop which is the finest in many years. The countryside beyond that is going to have a wealth of flowers this year, such as has never been the case before. I should like to take this opportunity to invite all of you to pay a visit to this part of the world this year. I am extending this invitation to all the members on my side of the House, also to the Progressives and the Young Turks, and if the Old Guard should wish to come to that part of the world in order to escape from all their political tensions, they would also be welcome there.

We shall give them flowers while they are still alive.

To make a long story short, in our old Boland a spirit of optimism is prevailing at the moment. We are grateful for what the future holds in store for us. This spirit of optimism in the Boland is not only connected with the season. Thanks to a National Party Government in this country creative work has taken place over the past few years, work which places this old Boland of ours before a totally new future. Here I am thinking, in passing, of the development of the Saldanha project, which has brought about new optimism in this part of the world. I am also thinking of the imaginative Boland water plan which is being developed at the moment under the guidance of, let me say this here, the best Minister of Water Affairs South Africa has ever had. At the moment we hear in the Boland about nuclear power which is coming, about the generation of water-power in the vicinity of Voëlvlei and Suurvlak. Thanks to the control measures of this Government, our fishing industry, one of the most important sources of revenue in the Boland, also finds itself faced, in my humble opinion, with a totally new future. All these things indicate that we here in the Boland, in the very oldest civilized part of our country, find ourselves at the moment, materially speaking, faced with a totally new future.

But it is in fact in this particular part of our country—and I believe further afield, too—that a very intimate and fruitful, open dialogue is being conducted at the moment. I say it is likely that this may be the case in a much wider area, but it is mainly in the Western Cape and in the Boland that open dialogue is being conducted at the moment. Sir, this is an intense and fruitful dialogue and it deals with White/Brown relationships. You must remember, Sir, that almost three-quarters of the Brown people of our country are concentrated here in the Boland or in the Western Cape. This important dialogue is taking place now, in participation of the report of the Erika There on Commission. It is taking place pursuant to the recent events in the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council. It has been stimulated very recently by the meeting between our Prime Minister and Mr. Sonny Leon and his people. From this dialogue it is very clear that there is great appreciation for the work the Prime Minister did this week in this meeting that took place. Time will, I believe, yet show this meeting to be quite an historic one.

While we here in the Boland have been conducting this open dialogue with the public in a very fruitful manner, one finds that this lot of Boland U.P. supporters in particular are engaged at the moment in a needless old struggle between their Young Turks and their Old Guards. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Maitland is losing ground by the day. In this way a great many of them are waging this needless struggle in their own ranks in the Boland, while we are dealing with these important matters. Out of this broad, open dialogue being conducted outside on the question of White-Brown relationships, I now want to indicate seven aspects which strike me every time. I think it is proper that this highest body, this Debating Chamber, should take cognizance of the various aspects that are being discussed here.

The first one I want to mention—the hon. member for Sea Point as well as other hon. members referred to this over the past few days—is the challenge to escape from our greatest dilemma in South Africa, the dilemma of colour discrimination. Our previous Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, stated time and again that the greatest dilemma in this country was to escape from colour discrimination. Our present hon. Prime Minister said by implication during the no-confidence debate that our greatest challenge in the country was to escape from the dilemma of colour discrimination. Now, this dilemma is founded on one basic fact. The greatest single or basic contribution in South Africa towards escaping from the dilemma of colour discrimination in this country was made in the past—and I am addressing this to the hon. member who spoke before me—through the creative work of the National Party, the most unique political party the Western world has ever known. It was not all those noisy liberalists who made their appearance from time to time that made a contribution towards allowing us to escape from this dilemma. Nor has this ever been the case with the old, sterile United Party as we have come to know it in recent years, this old party which runs from congress to congress in search of formulas for escaping from this basic dilemma in South Africa. This search for formulas in this regard has become so bad in recent years that one can almost say that they have been running from platform to platform to do so.

Are you not searching?

No, we, we are not searching; we have already done the basic work. I have said that during the past years the Government did the only basic work for escaping from this dilemma. I am coming back to that. I say that there is even less talk of any basic work having been done by a number of Progressive Party members who happen to be sitting here as a result of internal troubles in the United Party. Yesterday the hon. member for Sea Point covered a wide field in his speech. However, what is the truth today? The fact remains that when we come to the Progressive Party’s logic in this regard for escaping from this dilemma, we find time and again that that logic dashes itself to pieces against the Sea Point swimming bath or against a private English-medium school in the so-called select Prog residential areas of Pinelands and Rondebosch.

On the question of the relationships between White and Brown I predict that as the creative power of the National Party brought with it the miracle formula of separate territorial freedoms between White and Black, it will also be the creative work of this party which will, in the new era in which we are moving, in the time ahead and as time goes by, bring with it the formula for permanent co-existence between White and Brown within the borders of the same country of residence.

Why “in the time ahead” and not “now”?

In the broad dialogue in which I happen to be interested because I am from the Boland and because these people are concentrated here, it has struck me more and more of late that an ever-growing percentage of Brown people themselves are saying that when they are looking at this dilemma, there is only one body in South Africa that will be able to help them, namely the National Party with its philosophy. The hon. member who spoke before me also referred to another important aspect of this dialogue. What I want to emphasize is that we have finished arguing about a possible homeland freedom for the Brown people. That argument need therefore not be dragged in from time to time, as was done by the hon. member. It becomes very clear from this dialogue outside this House that we have finished arguing about it. I want to motivate it as follows:

The possibility of such a homeland freedom is ruled out by what has been done in this country under National Party regime since 1948. It is the National Party regime which has over the past 26 years subjected the old, impermanent, formless locations—as we referred to them in the Boland—situated next to every town in the Boland to permanent planning with a view to co-existence. Situated next to Malmesbury is its double town, its Brown township, a neat township for the Brown people. Situated next to Moorreesburg one also finds a Brown township, and this is also the position as far as Paarl as well as the rest of the Boland is concerned. We have therefore done away permanently with the old locations. I am referring to our doubletown system which is developing throughout the Western Cape today. In these Brown townships today the Brown people either have property rights or can obtain them. In these townships they have trading rights, and it is in these townships that their established institutions such as their schools and their churches are springing up. To that, Sir, we should add the fact that in the Boland and here in the Western Cape today their labour is indissolubly integrated—if I may use an ugly word—in the general industrial structure of our whole society here in the Western Cape. Ninety-seven per cent of our building trade is in the hands of the Brown people today, mostly under the leadership of the Whites. I therefore summarize by saying, in reply to the propaganda which is so often thrown into our ranks by hon. members opposite, that the homeland idea, which would imply the tearing to pieces of this moulded way of life, is today being condemned by both the White people and the Brown people.

Sir. there is another argument that comes to the fore in this broad dialogue. The other day the hon. member for Innesdal referred to this in what was in my humble opinion a brilliant maiden speech. It is the argument that White and Brown belong on the same side. In the great African contrast, I say, the White people and the Brown people belong on this same side, not in an irrevocable anti-Black hostility, but for the sake of the strength and balance which are essential for sound human relationships here in this country. In the world in which we live today it has become fashionable for heads to be counted, and there is nothing we can do about it. By way of our policy of Bantu homelands we are channelling the nationalism of a Black majority today. And this policy is irrevocable today. I want to put it this way: If the Progressive Party or the United Party should by chance come into power in South Africa, they would not be able to undo this pattern of the development of separate territorial homelands. This is a road on which it is no longer possible to turn back at all. Today we are saying to 15½ million Black people, in round figures: “There you have your countries of residence.” Having counted this 15½ million, with due regard to the hundreds of millions of Africa further north, we find that there are 3 800 000 White people left on the southernmost tip of Africa, i.e. if we stop counting here. However, if we start counting further, we also come to 2 million Brown people in this country. They are Western in their way of life, and for their aspirations, I say, there is no homeland freedom. It is on this particular point that a decision has already been taken in the debate taking place outside. In listening very carefully to that debate in general, one finds that the following decision has already been taken: “We, the White people, cannot cast out the Brown people to the side of a Black majority. These people, the Brown people, are to us, the White people, an indispensable corner-stone in a new dispensation in the time ahead.”

Mr. Speaker, the following is another example which I infer from this dialogue, and it concerns the moulding of a Brown personality. In recent years, in the process of Brown community development, a Brown personality has been moulded under National Party régime, a personality which we shall have to consult to an increasing extent in this country. Points of contact between White and Brown will necessarily have to be increased drastically, because this voice is a growing factor. Our hon. Prime Minister has also shown that he sees this. This voice, this personality, which has been moulded under this Government’s régime, is a growing factor. It is a voice with an identity of its own, one which is being heard inside the White man’s country of residence today and which is going to be heard more and more often in the time ahead, and, Sir, it is a voice that talks about self-government; it is a voice that talks about contact; it is a voice that talks about political rights; it is a voice that talks about the representation of Brown people in the White man’s Parliament. It is a voice that talks about new residential areas for the Brown people, about future seaside resorts, about citizenship, and about discrimination. Sir, it will become more and more unrealistic for our White people to ask where we are headed as far as the Brown people are concerned. One thing is becoming more and more obvious from the great, broad, debate taking place outside, and this is that the course ahead, the relationships the further future, will increasingly have to be considered jointly in this country as a senior partner and a junior partner. Sir, to make a long story short, this Brown personality which came into being in this country under National Party leadership, is like a plant with a statutory growth of its own. We shall be able to prune this plant in the future, but we shall no longer be able to destroy it.

What is the Nationalist Party’s solution?

This is an aspect which must also become more and more obvious in this great, broad dialogue taking place outside. Sir, there is another aspect which is increasingly being accepted and becoming more obvious from this broad, fruitful dialogue outside, and this is that the Brown people or Coloured people are Brown South Africans. They are children in the White man’s country of residence. Sir, they sing our national anthem. Mr. Jim Fouché is in terms of our set-up their State President, and they will join our White people in defending the borders of this country, and in this respect I take off my hat to South Africa’s Minister of Defence for what he is doing at present to involve these people in this regard. These people are not a settlers’ minority that may be wished away from one’s doorposts tomorrow or the next day. Sir, one of the best-known leading figures to have sat in this House, who may have been slightly ahead of his time in those days, the late Dr. T. E. Dӧnges, said on a certain occasion: “These are hearts beating as one.” Sir, in this debate there are people who say that a nation is being born here—I am referring to this voice I mentioned—and that immediately takes the dialogue further: If so, will it be possible to subject an indigenous nation permanently in this country? This is a dilemma which arises at once in this broad dialogue taking place outside. Alternatively, Sir, is it conceivable that a parliament for Coloureds, in whatever form, would always be satisfied with a position subordinate to that of the White Parliament? This is a dilemma that arises in this reasoning taking place outside, in the fruitful debate being conducted outside. Let me put it this way to the hon. member for Edenvale, who spoke before me: It was the very moulding of such a nationhood which, particularly before our becoming a Republic—which was fought by the United Party—became the strongest bulwark of our White people. Our Republic was formed in a struggle against foreign domination, British imperialism. Hon. members opposite who are sitting here today did not want to believe this in those days. That is why we say that supremacy over another people, once it has been moulded, cannot possibly be a permanent basis for distinctive Afrikaans politics within the borders of our country of residence. And you, Mr. Speaker, must forgive me if I refer to my notes at this point, for I want to say this very, very correctly. Against this background the intense interest with which the Prime Minister’s remark concerning a possible statutory consultative body between the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council and Parliament was received by the general public is worthy of note.

There is another aspect that I want to mention. In this dialogue about White/ Brown relationships there are many people who are obviously conducting it somewhat too dogmatically. In the debate just ended, on platforms and in lounges a great deal of time has to my mind actually been wasted on a cold logic—and this is what the U.P. supporters have also been throwing in our direction every time—a cold logic as if this dilemma ahead only involves either a homeland freedom or political integration or perpetual domination. This is being thrown in our direction every time. It is either the one or the other of these three poles.

You yourselves are saying so.

Now I want to say this, Sir. Good people on my own side—we on this side of the House are mature as far as our political reasoning is concerned—were so excited when they did this that the impression was frequently created that the people were made for logic and not that logic was made for man. Sir, I say this here with all due respect. If the Great Creator of all things had been coldly logical in human terms or in human tendencies, He would never have permitted the coming into being of our country’s Brown people. If any logic holds good in the case of White/Brown relationships, then it is the logic of new life in the time ahead. Then it is the logic of new growth in White/Brown relationships in the time ahead. It is the process of evolution. This is the logic for an altogether new dimension in White/Brown relationships in the time ahead.

Sir, I am coming to the last point, and this is that in this great dialogue being conducted outside there is in fact a broader aspect that is coming to the fore, namely the new concept on South Africa’s non-Black peoples, the new concept which is being born in this great, broad, open dialogue being conducted outside on South Africa’s non-Black people. Sir, if I have to summarize this intense debate today, I can say that here, in this broad debate, we are in fact witnessing the emergence of an altogether new concept, as I have said, on South Africa’s non-Black people. This is the future relationships among our White people, our Brown people and our South African Indians. Particularly as far as the White/Brown relationships are concerned, this is a further reassessment of the old proven formula of neighbourliness with proper boundary-lines. I could put this in broader terms. What is involved here is the linking together of our non-Black minorities, the Brown people and the South African Indians, with our own nationhood in a process which cannot be called permanent subordination. It is not in the first instance the wild elements outside that are compelling us to think further and ahead about this dilemma of ours. Nor is it in the first instance the outside world that is compelling our White people today to arrive at more final thinking in regard to our non-Black minorities. Sir, it is our becoming a Republic, which is being accepted today by everybody who is sitting in this House and previously opposed it, it is our own principles of anti-colonialism, of nationhood and our blatant honesty about our dilemma to escape from colour discrimination in this country which have forced us to do this. In the ordinary process of evolution of new White/Brown relationships in particular, the process often seems easier to me than when we are searching for final thinking in regard to the detribalized or urban Bantu referred to by the hon. member who spoke before me. As a matter of fact, if I read the times correctly, the negotiations in this country between White and Brown, in connection with which the hon. the Prime Minister took such historical steps only this week, are still going to become an unparallelled adventure in the creation of new human relationships between White and Brown in this country. The creative power of the National Party will ensure that in the years that lie ahead.

Mr. Speaker, this, my maiden speech in the highest debating chamber of our country, does not seek to nor may it be a prepared expression of thanks on winged words. This should rather be in the spirit of a sincere, supplicatory prayer that my deepest gratitude for a privilege granted to me will crystallize in a pure act of unselfish and dedicated service, service to my constituency, service to my country and my people, whom I love, and service to my Creator, whom I serve and fear.

I could wax lyrical on this occasion in paying homage to the achievements of a section of my voters, the farming community of Vaalharts, the biggest Government water scheme in our country. This is a scheme that was built and planned to serve as a means of subsistence for the impoverished during the depression and drought years, but which, through the zeal and hard work of the 1200 farmers—originally they were called settlers—on farms of approximately 30 morgen each—originally they were called plots—were developed into a prosperous and ordered farming community. This is a farming community which has contributed a considerable share to our national income through the production of food, fedder, cotton and other crops. These are farmers who also have their own problems, problems of insufficient water in the scorching heat of the Northern Cape during the summer months. At present they also have the problem which arose at the beginning of this year, a problem of having too much water. They are farmers who have also suffered losses through hail and frost and plantlice, etc., but farmers who have been guided and carried through all of this to victory over their setbakcs by their love of that piece of earth which was wrested from its cruel environment through dogged perseverance. These are farmers who have their own co-operative society and farmers’ union which render excellent services to their members; farmers who are sometimes forced by circumstances to apply to the Government for assistance, but who always adopt this commendable attitude in doing so: Please help us so that we may be better able to help ourselves towards attaining a greater measure of self-dependence and independence.

While I am proudly bearing testimony to the achievement of this farming community, I must also bear testimony to the achievements of another group of men and women in my constituency who have achieved a tremendously great deal, through their love of and service to their fellow-man, in the interests of a specific group of less privileged people in our national and community life. I am referring to: That number of children and adults in our national life who, until recently, were mentioned only in whispers or were even never mentioned. That group known as the so-called scholastically uneducable, those children who are mentally too well-endowed to be admitted to a State institution for the mentally handicapped and deviate, but who are mentally too poorly endowed to be admitted to special classes for retarded pupils in the provincial schools. That group of our population who in fact constitute the population of a no-man’s land in our community life. That child who in so many instances is a constant and continual source of embarrassment to his family and his community. That child or those children in a family who cause the parents heart-ache and deep concern at the thought of what would become of that child if they should pass away. That child whose cradle may be found in the hovel of the poorest or in the palace of the richest, that child whose cradle may be found in the house of the intellectually most gifted as well as in the house of the most illiterate. That child who is not capable of independently holding his own in exuberant child’s play. That child who will never know the joy to be derived from reading a story or a tale and who himself is not capable of sharing independently in the enjoyment offered by the world of entertainment. That child can also be sad and have longings. That child can also become angry or be cruel, but can also be loving and friendly. That child can be happy and smiling, and also yearns for love and being pampered. To make a long story short, that child has all the human emotions but can never develop into being a complete person in every sense because he does not have the mental power to assimilate that which acts upon him. It was in regard to alleviating the lot of these children, of whom we have one or two in every community, the Trudy van der Wall started exerting herself as a social worker with the Association for Mental Health in Kimberley and its environs in the early ’sixties. With inextinguishable zeal and enthusiasm, borne by a natural and unaffected charm, she literally talked her way into the hearts and pockets of people in order to realize a life-time ambition of creating a centre for these to provide these citizens, male and female, from the land of nowhere with a place where they can be cared for for life.

In 1960 a start was made with the teaching a few of these children—two afternoons per week—in a church hall. This work was done without remuneration, just for love of the cause. Owing to the kind offices of a friendly service organization a school building was erected for these children in Belding Street in Kimberley, and it was called the Jannie Brink Centre, in honour of another pillar of support this worthy undertaking. The find accommodation for these people, also for those from parts other than just that town, soon proved to be the biggest problem. But it is the darkest just before dawn. Trudy’s husband, Henry van der Wall, donated a big dwelling-house to the organization. Sixteen pupils could be accommodated here. Soon this was also too small. A mansion, previously the home of the managing director of the De Beers Diamond Company, was bought and more children could be accommodated here. But soon this house was also too small. And then! An entire village outside the urban area of Kimberley, previously a residential area of the De Beers officials, then became available as a result of these officials being moved to a new residential area. In 1968, through the encouragement, leadership and inspiration of Trudy van der Wall, the village of Kenilworth, an entire village, was bought from the De Beers Diamond Company by the Kenilworth Utility Company for Handicapped Persons with the aid of a loan from the Department of Community Development for an amount of R350 000. It is ironic that on the same day on which the De Beers Company granted permission for the sale of the village, Trudy van der Wall died. This happened in a tragic car accident just as she was on her way to propagate her life’s task. The words of Langenhoven proved to be true in this case as well (translation): “The soul lives on when the body decays;” because her mantle of inspired and inspiring idealism fell on the shoulders of the Rev. J. S. Marais and his wife, the present director of Yonder, as this home is now called, as from April 1970. Today 90 children between the ages of 6 and 18 and 113 above the age of 18 are accommodated there. There are eight female teachers on the teaching staff for the under 18 group, with Mrs. Marais as the chief planner and organizer, one speech therapist, one physiotherapist, one social worker and one nurse. For those above 18 there are four instructresses and two instructors. These people are accommodated according to the house-unit method, from 12 to 14 pupils to a house, each with its own matron. There are 14 such house units, with an administrative staff, consisting of a director, a secretary-cum-accountant, two typists, three clerks and a telephonist.

The activities of this village, which is unique in our country, consists in the first place of a school education in so far as one can consider this to be a school education in the sense in which we know it. We must realize that for some of these children it is a tremendous scholastic achievement to do up buttons. Then there is the work that can be done by the girls, such as ironing and washing in their own laundries and work in the kitchen. It is interesting to note that in this institution in which these people are accommodated, not a single Coloured or Bantu person is employed in the laundries, ironing rooms or kitchens. These girls also mend bags. It is an experience to see how they tackle that task. They also make mats and toys on order. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. members of this House, through you, to be so kind as to place their orders for this wonderful work there. For the boys there is a section where they can occupy themselves with making wire-hangers for dry-cleaners. Approximately four to six thousand wire-hangers are made every day. Another group occupy themselves with repairing and cleaning old furniture, and then there is a group occupying themselves with maintaining the grounds. If ever in my life I have had the privilege of seeing people enjoying work and of seeing this enjoyment on their faces, then it was here where these people were engaged in such simple tasks under the leadership of extremely sympathetic instructors and instructresses. I must mention at once that in other parts of the country, too, there are men and women who are possessed with a love of and rendering service to their fellowmen and who have established similar centres for the accommodation of such children, but Yonder is the only one that caters for caring for these people for life, from the age of six to the grave.

Therefore it is fitting that I should on this occasion express, on behalf of that institution, my sincere thanks to the various State departments, namely the Departments of Community Development, Health and Social Welfare which, through subsidies and grants, made this work possible and are still doing so. On this occasion I must also express my thanks to those individuals who, in the initial years, contributed so liberally in order to meet the financial needs of this institution.

In Yonder one can behold the wonder of the complete metamorphosis undergone by boys and girls who have stepped out of their isolation, seclusion and ostracism to that extent of being happy human beings to which their mental powers make this possible for them. This is a process that has been rendered possible by the finest forms of service and unselfish love. We pay tribute to them.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to be able to congratulate the hon. member for Kimberley North on his maiden speech. He has chosen a subject which is very near to the hearts of all of us. If his knowledge of that subject and his sincerity of delivery are to be continued in all his future speeches, I am sure that his stay here will be a happy one.

I should like to deal with the speech of the hon. member for Moorreesburg, who was his usual self today in expounding the situation of our Coloured people in South Africa—“die kleurdilemma” he called it. He made an interesting speech in which he spoke about the new dimensions, the new relationships that are going to develop. He spoke about the “vrugbare gesprek daarbuite” and said that that voice spoke of representation in this Parliament, of discrimination and of hope. He also said that the question was posed as to whether the Coloured people would be happy with a second-rate parliament for all times.

I must commend the hon. member for his speech. He totally rejected the idea of a Coloured homeland and I am interested to hear about the new dimensions. I would be most interested to know whether the hon. member for Moorreesburg spoke with the full concurrence of the caucus of his side of the House. I would be most interested to know whether the hon. member for Waterberg agreed entirely with what he said. I beg to differ with the hon. member as regards the picture of Coloured community development which he painted. He told us what had been achieved by the Nationalist Party over the last 26 years, but I believe that the thing which hurt the Coloured people most of all was their removal from the voters’ roll in the Cape Province. One must remember that there was then limited representation. Who did that, Mr. Speaker?

It was the Nationalist Party. That hurt the Coloured people intensely and if that had not been done we need not have spoken about new dimensions today. You will remember. Sir, that there was a high court of Parliament, an enlarged Senate, and umpteen court cases to get that measure passed. Now I hear from that side of the House that there is the possibility of Coloured representation in this House once more, 26 years afterwards. It is all very well to speak of new dimensions when you have messed up the dimensions in the first place. Why is it that that party only two years ago in the Cape Provincial Council removed the Coloured people from the municipal voters’ roll? That hurt them even more, I believe, than their removal from the common voters’ roll. But it is now said—

†I wish to speak on the question of the municipal voters’ roll. In the Cape Province, as far as I know, there was only one municipality, the Municipality of Cape Town, where Coloured people actually sat on that municipality. They did not have many problems over the years ... [Interjection.] ... and in Kimberley. I cannot remember that there was any trouble caused by the Coloured people sitting on those town councils. In those city and town councils and village management boards where there were not enough Coloured people to put their own man into the council, every man had a representative for whom he voted. That representative had to look after his Coloured people who lived in that town, even though these towns were situated next to one another. They had somebody to go to complain about their own personal problems, the removal of rubbish, their health hazards and what have you. They had contact with the local authority through their representative whether he was White or Brown. This was taken away by the Nationalist Party. Now they talk about a new dimension. Now they say that we must look at this again. Will they be satisfied with a second-rate parliament for ever? Of course not, and we have been telling the Government this for years as long as we have been in opposition in this House, but it has fallen on deaf ears. The speech made by the hon. member for Moorreesburg here today is highly commendable and we on this side of the House sincerely hope that it has the unanimous support of hon. members on that side. Sir, I would be most interested indeed to hear the comments of the hon. the Minister of the Interior on that speech. I shall discuss this with him at some other time.

Sir, we in the Western world and we in South Africa are living in a time in which we are all being caught up in a maelstrom of rapidly increasing change, and I sometimes feel that we in South Africa are at the vortex of that maelstrom. So often, Sir, fingers are pointed at us by our friends overseas and we as South Africans are accused of all sort of things, but I believe that it should be made clear by all South Africans that we are proud to be South Africans; that we are proud of our heritage, and that we are part of Africa. We did not come here of our own accord. Our ancestors were sent here. All our ancestors were dumped on this coast for the advantage of the merchants of Europe, and we were dumped here to take root or die, as many of our ancestors did die.

We are a tribe in Africa as much as any Black tribe, and when we discuss our relationships in the context of Africa and Southern Africa we must accept the fact that we, the White people, are a tribe and not a branch of some colonial power. It is natural for members of that tribe to be concerned about the process of change and how it is going to take place and about their rights and privileges. Sir, it is also natural that this tribe in Southern Africa should consider the fact that we cannot hold all the power all the time and that dialogue will have to take place on a very much more dynamic footing than it is taking place at the moment, and that we shall have to consider things in the very near future of which even a year ago we would never have thought.

I want to say to the Government that they have trodden on dangerous ground in Africa in relation to our tribal politics with the policy of separate development, and particularly with the land proposals which have been made so rapidly and so fast all over the country. We have argued this across the floor of the House many times. I believe that when land is to be purchased for homeland occupation, there should be prior consultation. It should be carefully done, a little at a time, according to what can be afforded by the Government. But when vast areas, hundreds of thousands of hectares, are declared, you begin to stir and to hurt the emotions of the people. A declaration is made and a map is drawn, but the people who occupy that land still continue to occupy it for a number of years and the people who are going to occupy it wonder why they cannot get it. The people who are occupying it are hurt because they have to get off the land. This method of making proclamations over vast areas is causing friction in this country such as we have not known for a long time. It is all very well to talk about problems arising among our Black workers in the industrial areas.

Sir, problems are going to arise among our Black people in the areas where there are no jobs. We should be spending the money immediately now on building the infrastructures to create those jobs where they are necessary. I speak for my own constituency, Sir.

Border industries.

Yes, Grahamstown has been declared a border industry town and it has an unemployment figure of round about 50 000 Bantu, but no border industry may employ one of them; they have to go and fetch their labour 20 miles away; that is how the Government’s policy works; it is utterly ridiculous. There is a township to be built. I am busy negotiating on this question with the other Deputy Minister, who is not in the House at the moment. Hon. members have heard questions put in this House. It is a township for 110 000 people, 45 kilometres away from Grahamstown, where the amount of industry is negligible. It has nothing at all around it, not even a road or a railway line. What are those people going to live on? That is why I say the money that is being spent on this consolidation should be spent on creating an infrastructure. Put the railway line there and put the roads there so that you can get the people to and fro and get them happily to and fro. Do not create new dumping grounds which will upset our race relations.

I want to come to a speech which was made during the censure debate by the hon. member for Bellville. It was a remarkable speech in that it was the umpteenth time that I have heard hon. members on that side of the House speak on the subject of consensus. He made eight points. He said he felt sure that there were some people on this side of the House who were patriotically inspired and who would define with them those areas of consensus in which we are very near to each other.

Sir, it is all very well to say that, but he made his eight points. These dealt with inflation, dialogue between ourselves and Africa, the fact that the Prime Minister should meet the homeland leaders as Prime Minister and not as Leader of the Nationalist Party, the improvement of race relations, the development of Bantu territories, politically, economically and educationally, the improvement of the living standards of the Coloured people, meaningful strengthening of the functions of the ORC and protection of the integrity of the State. Sir, I am sick and tired of hearing these appeals come from that side of the House. We are told to be patriotic and to make sacrifices, but what can we do other than serve this House as an Opposition? There is the party with the power to call a Select Committee to discuss a point where there is likely to be consensus. That is the side of the House with the power to set up a commission. There is the side of the House which can go to the State President and say they want to change the Constitution in such and such a way and tell him that they want a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament. That is the side of the House which has the power to bring about consensus.

This side of the House, whether it is the Progressive Party or the United Party, has no hope of doing it because we do not have the power. The Prime Minister has the power. The Leader of the House has the power to do these things. If we want consensus, we are not making enough use of the Select Committee system of this House and the commission system, where people can get round a table and discuss points. Over the floor of this House it is a ding-dong backwards and forwards ping-pong match, with each of us making points out of each other. We get nowhere. But if they genuinely want to do something, Sir, the ball is in the court of that side of the House. Let them play that ball. South Africa is waiting to see them play.

We play the ball.

But if we continue with this sort of point-making old-fashioned politics, then everything is over and done with. Sir, they can be a great party. They can win every seat in this country, but I want to tell them this: They will not solve their problems alone.

Mr. Speaker, in recent times we have been conducting fruitful debates in this House. We spoke on a great variety of matters and serious debates were conducted in this House. Sir, in the times in which we in South-Africa find ourselves, in a world which has become unsafe, it is necessary to talk seriously to each other. The leader of the opposition party in the Transvaal, who was the chief spokesman on finance on that side of the House during this debate, began his speech—and it is a great pity that he is not here at the moment—by saying that under these circumstances South Africa was fortunate. I want to agree with him. This hon. gentleman mentioned a few matters because of which he thought South Africa should regard itself as fortunate. The first matter he mentioned was that we were less dependent on energy than many other countries. He said we had alternative sources of energy and that he was pleased we had been able to meet our requirements with regard to energy and oil. He also spoke of the good gold price and the fact that our commodity prices had risen so much and said that that was a good sign. He also spoke of a fine year in agriculture. I fully agree with this hon. member. As a matter of fact, I actually took heart when this new opposition spokesman on financial matters began speaking in that manner. When one speaks in this House, one has to speak from a certain point of view. The hon. member for Albany who spoke just before me, also said that we were proud here of South Africa and of our heritage. These are fine words, especially when they come from the side of the Opposition.

The chief spokesman on finance on the Opposition’s side posed certain questions. He asked what the position would have been in South Africa if the gold price had not risen to the extent it did and if we had not had a good year in agriculture. Then the hon. member continued by raising a number of trivialities and by criticizing the Government, which I did not expect from him. These things which the hon. member and all of us should be proud of, are things of which I, too, am proud. However, there are many more matters I am proud of than those mentioned by that hon. member. For example, I am proud of the fact that in a world which finds itself in difficult circumstances, a world in which confusion prevails in various spheres, a world in which one government after another has fallen in recent times, we in South Africa have a Government that is stable and strong. That is what I am proud of in this country. We have a Government in South Africa that, as far as stability, vigour and strength are concerned, is comparable to the best in the world. I say that this is something of which I am proud. What happened during the past 26 years? Was it not this Government that brought us peace, security and stability in this country? Was it not this Government that exerted itself over a period of 26 years to make this a safe and prosperous country? Did not we who sit in this House and those outside, all our people, reap the benefit of the policy of this Government? We have heard speeches here on the matter of national relations. The economy of South Africa is so closely bound up with national relations in the future that we shall have to proceed very carefully and very systematically. This Government displayed far-sightedness at a stage when other people thought all was well with the world. This Government displayed far-sightedness, and yet it was accused of being a risk in the field of economy, in the field of politics and in many other fields. It was not so long ago—in fact it was only a few months ago—that these accusations came the Government’s way. The United Party accused our Government and the National Party of being a risk for South Africa. However, a decisive answer to this question was given at the last election. The voters of South Africa decided this matter when they gave this Government, this National Party, a mandate in a way we have never had before. They returned the National Party to govern this country with the greatest majority ever. When we come to this House to speak of certain things happening in South Africa, things of which we are proud, when we come here to speak of the fine things in South Africa, we should not simply be paying lip-service. We must have a dialogue to solve the problems of South Africa. In these times in which we are living, we cannot afford to be irresponsible. This afternoon I want to say to this Opposition that it has become very clear in recent debates that they come forward not only with a lot of unfounded criticism of this Government, but also with a lot of criticism of people in their ranks and of their leaders. This Opposition is the most irresponsible Opposition I know of. The hon. member who has just sat down, said that they as an Opposition were unable to do anything because they were sitting in the Opposition benches. This afternoon I want to say to both parties on the Opposition side in South Africa that we who put a high premium on democracy and on the institutions as we have them at present, also put a high premium on the responsibility to be revealed by the Opposition. Here we have a joint task, a task that must be fulfilled to the benefit and the good of South Africa. Therefore, we cannot afford to have an irresponsible Opposition in South Africa. For example questions were posed as to what would have happened to South Africa if the gold price had not risen or what would have happened if it had not been a good year in agriculture. These questions are not relevant. Do hon. members know what is relevant under the circumstances in which South Africa finds itself in the world today? The question to be answered by each one of us, is where South Africa would have stood after 26 years if the United Party had been governing this country. The United Party is the party that comes forward with the policy of federation in terms of which they will link people’s incomes to their representation. In this political debate in which we are participating I want to ask hon. members to try and picture for themselves the situation we would have if the United Party were to come into office. Hon. members can imagine how the United Party would have its arm twisted to effect increases in salaries for all groups of people since their political rights would be linked to their incomes. When one speaks of inflation and one looks at the policy of the United Party, I say to hon. members that the National Party has been doing what is right throughout in order to arrest inflation in a fair and orderly manner. The policy of the hon. members on the opposite side, however, will cause inflation to grow to an extent unequalled in the world, as unproductivity is to be linked to high salaries in order to give people representation in a federal Parliament.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

When business was suspended, I was pointing out how inflation would flourish if the United Party were to come into office since they link people’s representation to their contribution to the economy of South Africa. The hon. member who spoke before me, the hon. member for Albany, said that there should be consensus in South Africa on certain matters. I think if there is one matter on which there is in fact consensus in South Africa, then that matter is the combatting of inflation. So if there is in fact consensus on this important matter, it is time for us to get our priorities right, and in that case I want to state as a first priority in combatting inflation, a strong and stable Government such as the National Party Government. My evidence for this is the following; when we look at a country such as England where one has a weak Government and where one has improper pressure from labour groups for higher wages, to which that Government has to submit time and time again, one sees inflation flourishing in that country. The statement I want to make this afternoon, is that under a United Party Government, when people’s incomes will be linked to their representation in Parliament, one will have a highly inflationary situation. And there will be improper pressure on these people if they come into office, so much so that inflation will flourish to a large extent. Therefore my call this afternoon is that if we want to combat inflation, let there be consensus and let us keep the strong and stable Government which is in power in South Africa stable.

In this Budget the hon. the Minister of Finance made a major concession. As a farmer I should like to welcome the concessions he made in respect of transfer duties, in the first instance in the interests of the home-owner of South Africa, and I should like to thank him for that. This question of transfer duties weighed heavily on our people, especially on people who had to buy houses and also on the farmers. For that reason it gives me pleasure to thank him this afternoon, because if there is one thing in South Africa which is important, it is that there should be goodwill, not only amongst our people of the different population groups, but also between the farmers and the city dwellers. By using the price of butter and the matter of subsidies, the United Party tried in a subtle manner to drive a wedge between the town dwellers and the city dwellers. Sir, this cannot be justified. I shall come back to this later on. This concession in respect of transfer duties, in view of the fact that an economic unit in South Africa costs the farmer approximately R100 000 today, amounts to approximately R1 300 according to my calculations. By way of illustration I should like to tell you what this means to us. According to my information, this concession was granted as a result of representations which had been made also by the farmers’ group of the National Party in this House. We thank him for this. But to the farmer, to the young man, seeing that we should like to have succession in this industry and seeing that a man has to buy an expensive economic unit, this amount of money saved on transfer duties means that a man is able to buy fuel with that money, so much fuel that he is virtually able to work the lands of an economic unit of R100 000 with the fuel he is able to buy with that concession in respect of transfer duties alone. I say it gladly so that the farmers, too, may know what this Government has done for them in this regard. Then I should also like to say this to hon. members on the opposite side who spoke of subsidies: Does this concession not constitute a direct subsidy, too, for keeping the prices of agricultural products low?

Speaking of fuel, and since a great deal has been said about changes in South Africa in recent times, I think it is necessary for us to exchange a few ideas this afternoon on this aspect as well. When one considers that fuel to the value of more than R50 million is used in the agricultural industry alone and that there are major concessions in respect of fuel which is used for agricultural purposes in that no excise duties, etc., are payable on such fuel, this is another large item we must not overlook when we speak of subsidies.

Since we as agriculturists have lately also been thinking of changes in the agricultural industry and since we have also been thinking of more modern methods as it is necessary to keep production costs down by bringing about structural changes in the agricultural industry, we have in recent times started using weed-killers to a large extent in this industry. Now, if we consider our fuel situation on the one hand, a situation of our not always being able to obtain it readily, and if we consider the increase in the price of weed-killers on the other hand—last year alone an increase of 14,6% and this year, if I remember correctly, another increase of 28%, in other words, an increase of just over 42% from last season to the present season—then this structural change of minimum cultivation control by means of weed-killers is a matter that would in fact have come to the fore at the moment; and in view of the fact that we could have implemented this which would have enabled us to reduce our production costs and to save a great deal of fuel for the country, because of the fact that one controls the further cultivation of one’s lands by means of weed-killer, and in view of the fact that the cost of the further cultivation of one’s land constitutes approximately 60% of total fuel costs, this increase in the cost of weed-killers has been so enormous that I should very much like to ask the Minister of Finance to take a thorough look at the situation in South Africa in respect of fuel on the one hand, knowing full well that he does make a major concession to the farmers in respect of the prices which apply in the agricultural industry, and to ask him whether he could not possibly, in order to assist in the new structure we want to bring about in the agricultural industry, help by stimulating in one way or another the use of weedkillers for total surface-spraying. Sir, in recent times we have used a lot of weed-killer, but we have only sprayed rows, and in view of the fact that we can apply total surface-spraying which would save fuel for South Africa and enable us to be less dependent on this resource, I think this is a matter which we may examine to good effect so as to ascertain in this regard, too, whether we could possibly, in the interests of our agricultural industry and the country as a whole, as well as in the interests of the consumers of agricultural products, stimulate these new minimum cultivation methods, i.e. the application of weed-killers over the total area, by means of some concession or assistance from the Government.

In recent times a great deal has been said over the radio and otherwise with regard to Bantu salaries. This matter will be dealt with by the S.A. Agricultural Union. I do not want to say a great deal about it, except to plead here this afternoon for goodwill among our population groups, for goodwill between the city dweller and farmer, which is important in this country, since we as farmers also produce for the market. We should always like to take our city dwellers and our consumers into consideration as regards their requirements and their preferences. There should also be an attitude of goodwill between our farmers and farm labourers. Sir, many of us make large pieces of land available in parts where our Bantu are used to practise stock-farming. If you look at the quantity of land and at the price of land, Sir, I say to you that great sacrifices are made by the farmer so as to keep these people, happy in the agricultural industry as they are used to keeping a few head of live-stock, by making that land available to them. In the north-eastern Free State where I farm, the average of what is made available to the Bantu on a farm of 800 morgen is in the region of 100 morgen. At the prevailing prices of land there, this is land to the value of R30 000 which one is making available to more or less eight or ten Bantu for the purpose of grazing their stock. At present interest rates this item alone costs the farmer R3 000 per year in order to keep his people happy. I hope these matters will not be overlooked

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Heilbron mentioned the so-called achievements of the Nationalist Party over the past 26 years. I listened attentively to his explanation of what he alleges the Nationalist Party achieved over this period. Sir, if I were to sum up the history of the Nationalist Party over the past 26 years, I would say this: Over a period of 26 years the Nationalist Party has endangered the security and the future of the Whites as never before by the sustained, purposeful, relentless application of a policy of discrimination and White baasskap.

Mr. Speaker, the debate this morning was interesting. Significant things were said here. I am referring, in particular, to the speech by the hon. member for Moorreesburg ...

Which you did not understand in any case.

... who made an interesting and brilliant speech here. I found it encouraging to listen to what he said. Other members, who have been sitting in this House for years, say it is just another example of how the hon. member for Moorreesburg, as usual, salves the conscience of the Nationalist Party, a conscience which is subsequently stored away in a dark cupboard until such time as someone comes to salve that conscience again.

You have Etienne on your conscience.

Sir, what the hon. member said was quite significant, and it relates to what appeared earlier this week in the Nationalist Party mouthpiece, Die Transvaler. I am referring to the report which appeared there as a result of the interview conducted by the hon. the Prime Minister with representatives of the Labour Party of the Coloured Persons Representative Council. If that report is accurate, the hon. the Prime Minister is alleged to have said the following—and this is very interesting (translation)—

That is very interesting, Mr. Speaker. The article goes further and states—

The Prime Minister thinks that two Parliaments can function in one country. Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging, it is interesting, it is surprising that the Nationalist Party is coming to the fore with these ideas. I shall tell you why, Sir. It is a clear indication that the hon. the Prime Minister now finds certain basic principles of federalism acceptable for South Africa. That is interesting, Sir, because if one substitutes the words “Legislative Assemblies” for “Parliaments” one has an aspect of United Party policy; and, Sir, replace “two Parliaments” with the words “two or three or four or more Legislative Assemblies for separate race groups and communities in South Africa”, and you have the essence of the United Party’s policy. I am delighted at the fact that the Nationalist Party now finds it possible to accept these basic principles of the United Party. It is indeed a radical deviation from the persistent standpoint of the Nationalist Party over the past few years.

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

No, Sir, I have only a few minutes; I do not have the time to answer questions now. As I have said, it is a deviation from the Nationalist Party’s persistent standpoint, and I know there are members on the opposite side of the House, like the hon. member for Waterberg and the hon. the Minister of the Interior, who will not be satisfied with this new course. But, Sir, it is important for South Africa that the Nationalist Party is hereby intimating that it is prepared to consider and adopt certain new measures.

If I were to analyze and sum up the hon. member for Moorreesburg’s speech, I would do it as follows: He said that the present setup for the Coloureds is unacceptable. The present dispensation, he said, is unacceptable. He said there has to be a new dispensation, and there is going to be a new one. In that new dispensation the Coloureds in South Africa will not be subject to the baasskap of the Whites. In that new dispensation there will be no discrimination against the Coloureds in South Africa. I greatly appreciate what the hon. member said. He said it very well. But what I should like to hear from him—and I do not know whether he has the courage to say this, because I take it there are problems within the Nationalist Party’s caucus—are concrete, definite proposals in respect of the future of the Coloureds. This must be followed by concrete and definite decisions, and this in turn must be followed by concrete and definite action.

Sir, may I ask the hon. member a question?

Order! The hon. member has already intimated that he is not prepared to answer questions.

In the past few decades there has been a great deal of talk, and many promises have been made, but nothing has really been done to tackle and solve the problem.

Sir, we have observed another interesting phenomenon here. There was not only a clear indication on the part of the Nationalist Party that they are now beginning to move in the direction of the principles and the policy of the United Party; the hon. member for Sea Point also implied clearly in his speech that his party accepted the diversity of the groups of peoples and race groups in South Africa. He clearly implied that they accepted as a fact the diversity of the various race groups and groups of peoples in South Africa, that they accepted the necessity for taking those differences into account in any political plan for the future and that they were fully aware of the importance of that. The big difference between the Progressive Party and the United Party is that that party has refused, in the past to accept that basic foundation of the South African political situation. I am also delighted that the Progressive Party is beginning to move in the United Party direction. It is interesting that we are getting new support for our ideas and our policy from both sides, from the Nationalist Party on the right and from the Progressive Party on the left. [Interjections.]

Sir, a Budget is not only an exposition of estimated revenue and expenditure. A Budget ought to be a plan for the future, a clear plan of action which clearly lays down guide-lines for the future. Provision must be made for the future demands of a country. If we look at the Estimates which the hon. the Minister of Finance presented to this House, it is clear that no attention has been paid to the actual requirements of the future of South Africa. What is there in that Budget that gives us any indication that this Government is prepared, that this Government has the ability or the courage or the daring, to tackle and draw up plans for the actual problems South Africa is faced with? Does the Government not realize that South Africa is in a tremendously dangerous position—and all as a result of the policy of the Nationalist Party, the result of the discrimination and the Baasskap which the Nationalist Party has forced upon South Africa over the past 26 years. What is the Nationalist Party going to do to improve South Africa’s position in the outside world? What plans does the Nationalist Party have to convince our friends in the outside world that there is hope for the future in South Africa? All the money which the Nationalist Party votes for the Department of Foreign Affairs, for the Department of Information, for the millions of pamphlets for visitors, for the talks given abroad, will achieve nothing. It could just as well be removed from the Estimates. The reason is—and I am sorry that the hon. member for Sea Point did not spell it out clearly in this House—that this Government will never ever succeed in convincing even South Africa’s best friend abroad that a policy of baasskap and discriminations can ever be acceptable or can ever serve as a basis for a future of peaceful co-existence or progress. This cannot be done because the whole world rejects it. The Nationalist Party has an outgoing policy that is already in shreds; it is a complete failure. Their out going policy in Africa cannot succeed at all until they adopt the correct inward measures, within South Africa. We cannot go looking for friends in Africa until such time as we have made friends of the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians in South Africa. One cannot dismiss the whole world’s philosophies. We must accept that if South Africa wants to show progress in respect of its policy in Africa and in the world at large, there are certain unavoidable pre-requisites in respect of our internal policy, and these relates to discrimination. Until such time as the Nationalist Government is prepared to remove every aspect of discrimination on the grounds of a person’s colour, they will show no progress in connection with their foreign policy. There is no provision for that in the Budget. South Africa is being threatened by terrorism. This is the biggest threat we have yet experienced in South Africa. We shall not be able to defend South Africa successfully against terrorism by purchassing cannon, aircraft and armoured cars. It is necessary and essential that we should have these, but in the long run South Africa will only be able to protect its soil against the onslaughts of terrorism if this Government has the courage and the insight to realize that we must obtain the patriotism of the non-Whites in South Africa. What we need in South Africa is a joint patriotism in respect of a joint Fatherland. [Interjections.] The Nationalist Party’s Policy has resulted in the very opposite of this. The Nationalist Party Government is creating divergent patriotisms. Through the implementation of the policy of baasskap and discrimination, the Nationalist Party Government is causing resistance against the Whites to build up amongst the non-Whites, and the Government is causing the non-Whites to build up amongst the non-Whites, and the Government is causing the non-Whites to see the Whites in South Africa as being hostile to them rather than as being their partners.

Where do you read that?

Never will the Government be able to defend this country against terrorism unless there is a complete change in the Nationalist Party Government’s approach to the non-White groups of South Africa, and unless the Government is prepared to see all non-White groups as part of the population of South Africa with a joint patriotism in respect of a joint Fatherland.

The United Party members in this House are so anxious and worried about the future of South Africa that we are prepared to co-operate with the Nationalist Party Government in respect of any positive steps they are prepared to take to let the right things happen in South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister has said there is no discrimination in South Africa; it is differentiation. He is merely using another name or term. It is clear to us that the Nationalist Party Government would very much like to get away from the description “discrimination”. However, one cannot get away from the effect of discrimination by merely changing its definition. It is the conduct, the legislation of the Nationalist Party Government that must be changed. The Nationalist Party must change its whole approach and remove the legislation placed upon the Statute Book over the past 26 years with the object of forcing baasskap and discrimination upon people.

Which Acts?

The United Party will not only encourage the Government to do so, but it will also give the Government its full support in doing so. No political party in South Africa will try to gain politically from such a step. We are even prepared to support any positive aspect of the Nationalist Party’s policy if only the Government wants to implement it in the interests of South Africa. The Nationalist Party speaks and makes promises, but it does absolutely nothing. [Interjections.] The reason why the mass of South Africans—with the exception of the supporters of the Nationalist Party—and the responsible countries of the world have completely lost confidence in the Nationalist Party and its credibility, is that the Nationalists Party is not prepared to keep its promises in respect of its policy.

There are many questions which the Nationalist Party must answer. It is the purpose of this House that the Opposition should ask questions about Government policy, in this case the Nationalist Party Government and it is the essence of democracy that the Government should supply answers to those questions. But that does not happen in this House. The Nationalist Party is not prepared to honour the essence and principle of democracy. The questions are evaded and circumvented; they are not prepared to give any answers at all to the essential questions that are put to them by this side of the House. The Government is playing with the future of South Africa, and with the future of the Whites in South Africa, if they continue to make a political game of the future of this country instead of conducting sincere and honest debates about the topical affairs of our country. Let us join in finding solutions to the problems we are experiencing in this country today.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday the hon. member for Yeoville, the leader of the United Party in the Transvaal, held up to us the proverb of the mountain which brought forth a mouse. I think we have just heard one of the little mice. I have here in front of me a Sunday Times of 13 July 1972 with a large heading stretching right across the front page, and reading as follows: “Exciting Changes as Horace van Rensburg gets key post on Rand.” There is also this further heading in bold type, “Silent revolution in the United Party.” Then they go on to say: “Dynamic young men wipe out debt, aiming to win 35 Rand seats.” What happened to those 35 seats? Under the leadership of these “dynamic young men” the United Party won only eleven of those seats. Another interesting report was published under the heading “Why Horace got the job”.. It was said, inter alia, “Because the party feels that the Witwatersrand is the key to success in removing the Nationalists from office, they wanted a right man for the job”. But the hon. member for Bryanston is no longer the key man there. Not only is he the key figure of the United Party on the Witwatersrand, he is also the director-general of the United Party. If he is to be given further titles, he may also be called a Young Turk lieutenant of the hon. member for Yeoville. In Die Vaderland of 20 June 1974, I see, if one wants to acquaint oneself more fully with this matter, that in an article written in that newspaper by Mr. George Oliver, he refers to the substantial salary of the hon. member for Bryanston, not only from party funds, but paid from special sources. Now, I Wonder what those special sources are? A great hue and cry is being raised about the Progressive Party’s unlimited funds, and it could be that they, too, have received a small bite from the Progressives’ funds.

The hon. member for Bryanston referred to the National Party’s policy as 26 years of discrimination, but surely they are the last people to speak of discrimination. They are people who discriminate within their own party. In fact, this same hon. member is also the “chief chucker-out” of the United Party. Are hon. members aware of the fact that he is the man responsible for Mr. Etienne Malan no longer being here and for Mr. George Oliver no longer being here? When those hon. members speak of discrimination, that discrimination is within their own ranks. They want to present petty apartheid as constituting discrimination, but look at the degree of discrimination which exists within their own ranks. I want to refresh hon. members’ memories. Not so long ago it was not even possible for two United Party supporters to share one toilet in peace. [Interjection.] Did hon. members know that another United Party supporter, one Dormehl, could not even share it in peace with the leader of the Transvaal, Mr. Harry Schwarz? And now they speak of discrimination! The hon. member says that we do not want to face problems. He reminds me of the person who wanted to lead a donkey under a train bridge. It had rained, resulting in the area under the train bridge having become rather silted up. When the man arrived at the bridge with his donkey, it pricked its ears in alarm, and when he led it forward, the tips of the donkey’s ears touched the concrete of the bridge. Although the man pulled and tugged at the donkey, it would not budge an inch. Eventually, the man went to a neighbouring farm. He came back with a cold chisel and a hammer and started chipping away at the bridge. Eventually someone came along and asked him what he was doing. He replied: “No, man, the donkey’s ears are catching up here and I am chipping out two grooves to allow the donkey’s ears to pass through.” So the man told him: “But you are really being very stupid. Why do you not simply scrape a little sand away; surely the donkey will be able to walk through then." His reply was: “No, man, it is not the donkey’s feet that are catching, but his ears.” [Interjection.] Hon. members opposite want to inform us to some small extent about the differences between them and the Progressive Party. I want to tell those hon. members that one could not fit a razor-blade between the Young Turks and the Progressive Party. According to The Star, Mr. Harry Schwarz, or rather the hon. member for Yeoville, their leader in the Transvaal, said, inter alia, the following on Monday, 20 August 1973—

Now hon. members should listen to what he went on to say—

Why should he expect them to come back to the United Party if there is such a tremendous difference between them?

But you invited the Herstigtes ...

Oh really, Mr. Speaker, do you know it is really a pity that that hon. member for Hillbrow is always putting his foot into things. I have here in front of me the Sunday Times of 28 April 1974—in other words, just after the election. In a small heading I see the following—

Do hon. members know who that is? It is the hon. member for Hillbrow. [Interjection.] I just want to read hon. members a short excerpt from this article—

That is why I think that the hon. member for Hillbrow should rather remain silent. If I were the cause of a reverse for my party, as he is, I should really only show my face here when it was really necessary.

I can understand the tone of this speech. It is caused by frustration born of the realization that one will never come to power again. I think that the hon. member for Durban Point summed it up very accurately and I refer to the Rand Daily Mail of 26 April in which he said—

[Interjection.] He went on to say—

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Durban Point must withdraw the word “lie”.

Mr. Speaker, I said that if he repeated that after I had denied it, then he would be lying.

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

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member read a statement which he said was made by the hon. member for Durban Point. The hon. member for Durban Point said, “I have denied that I have made that statement.” Then he said, “If you repeat it again, then you will be lying because I have denied it.” I submit that he did not say to the hon. member that he was lying. He said that if he repeated it he would be lying.

Order! I consider the word “lying” or “lie” per se as being unparliamentary.

Surely, Sir, it depends on how it is used?

Order! I have given my ruling.

Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me to address you further on this matter, the hon. member for. Durban Point was not calling the hon. member for Boksburg a liar, or saying that he was lying ...

Order! I have given my ruling on the matter. The hon. member must please resume his seat. The hon. member for Boksburg may continue.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, are we to understand ...

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I not first ...

Mr. Speaker, is it your ruling that hon. members cannot use the word “lie” in any sense in this House?

Not in any sense in relation to a member of this House.

But the hon. member has not told the lie yet. [Interjections.]

Order! I have given my ruling. The hon. member for Boksburg may continue.

Mr.

Speaker, I would appeal to you to allow me to address you further on this point. The point the hon. member for Durban Point made was in order to explain his position in this House. With respect to you. Sir, there is no other way in which a member can establish his position in the light of a statement which he claims is defamatory of him.

Order! I have given my ruling. The hon. member for Boksburg may continue.

Mr. Speaker, all those people are doing now is spoiling a very good speech.

Order! The hon. member must refer to members of the Opposition as “hon. members”.

Sir, the hon. members are spoiling a very good speech. I also see in this statement in the newspaper—

The Press and the National Party are blamed for the fact that they will be sitting in the Opposition benches for all time. The hon. member for Durban Point and I often have differences of opinion, but I think we can agree that the National Party is “for ever in”. However, I want to differ from him if he says that it was the National Party that destroyed them. I do not believe that that is true. I think the task of the National Party was only to expose them. For the rest they destroyed themselves by that inner process of decay which has been going on within their ranks for a long time now. The hon. member for Durban Point also blames the Press. I do not know what Press he means. It surely cannot be the Afrikaans-language Press, because as far as I know, most Afrikaans newspapers are well-disposed towards the National Party. Consequently he must have been referring to the English-language Press. I wonder, however, whether the hon. member for Bezuidenhout agrees that the English-language Press was responsible. I might as well mention the Sunday Times in this regard, because, after all, it was the Sunday Times which made so much of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. In an interview he told them that he was prepared to take over the leadership of the United Party. After all, this is a newspaper which made much of him and his party. How, then, can it be the English-language Press which saw to their downfall?

It will be interesting to hear from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in this debate whether he was satisfied with the conduct of his Leader. I am referring now to the official Leader of the United Party. You know, Sir, the hon. member is after all the man to whom it is no trouble to say, behind the back of the Leader of the United Party, how disappointed he is in him. He is a man to whom it is no trouble to say this at places where the Leader is not present, but who never has the courage to stand up in front of him here and say it. Last year it was at a meeting of the Witwatersrand Council of the United Party that Mr. Japie Basson said, inter alia, the following ...

Order! The hon. member must refer to members of this House as “hon. members”.

I do so with pleasure, Mr. Speaker, but I am referring here to what he said according to the newspaper report. According to the Tribune of 27 January 1974 he said the following—

Unfortunately he and the hon. member for Durban Point differ on this point, but the report goes on to say—

Every one of them and that under the leadership of the Leader! This is what he said behind his back. It will be quite interesting, therefore, to hear whether, following upon the outcome of the recent censure debate, he was satisfied with the conduct of the Leader in this House. But I do think that there has been a small change. I think that he is gradually becoming more satisfied with the United Party, as they are shifting to the left, although I think that they have not yet shifted far enough to the left to please him.

While I am speaking about their shift to the left, I want to express a few thoughts particularly with regard to their labour policy, as announced by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, namely that now they are in favour of Black trade unions and will allow Whites to work under non-Whites. This change of policy on their part does not surprise us at all, because it is typical of what we expect of the United Party when pressure from the left is brought to bear on them. You will recall, Sir, how the Leader of the Opposition himself said here a few years ago that he was in favour of Black people taking their places here in this House. When he was asked why he had changed his policy in that respect, he replied that it was done under pressure. In this case it is again pressure brought to bear on him by the left wing of his own party, and it is not surprising, either, that an ever-growing number of conservative United Party supporters are being driven out by the Young Turks. Sir, at the beginning of the year six months ago, in the course of the session here, the hon. member for Durban Point brought the labour policy of the United Party very specifically to our attention. He said, inter alia, that they would allow no Black trade unions for the unskilled Black worker. But what is more, this was confirmed by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. During the election he said that they would not allow Black trade unions, and that they as the United Party were satisfied with the works committee system, because the system was fully effective in its operation. But this change of policy on their part in favour of Black trade unions is not the policy of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Nor is it the policy of the hon. member for King William’s Town. When he stands up, he should tell us so. Nor is this the policy of the hon. member for Maitland. He is not in favour of it. One could pick out all the Old Turks in this way and ask them to tell us whether they are in favour of Black trade unions. It is as a result of the pressure brought to bear by the left wing that they have not submitted. But do you know, Sir, where this comes from? In February 1973, before the Platteland General Council of the United Party in Pretoria, the Leader of the United Party said, inter alia, the following concerning Black trade unions (translation)—

In spite of the stated policy of the United Party as expounded here in this House by the hon. member for Durban Point at the beginning of the year, and as expounded by the hon. the Leader during the election, namely that they would not allow Black trade unions, the Transvaal leader of their party comes along and states that they do in fact want Black trade unions. We had an election in Boksburg recently. Do you know, Sir, that the United Party put up one of their prime candidates there? It was a show candidate, an authority on trade unions, a real, faithful, hard-working person for the workers of South Africa. The only thing I have been unable to determine is what the colour of those workers is. I should like to know something else. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition had a great deal to say about their nomination procedure and there is still some confusion. Do you know what happened there, Mr. Speaker? In July last year Mr. Kramer, United Party candidate for the Provincial Council, wrote a letter to Dr. Anna Scheepers, in which he asked her to make herself available for election and in which he said, inter alia—

that we would particularly like to see you representing the Boksburg constituency in Parliament.

Where did you get hold of that letter?

Wait a moment. Then he said, inter alia—

From where was that letter stolen?

Order! Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must withdraw the word “stolen”.

Mr. Speaker, I said ...

Order! I expect you to withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it, Sir.

But Mr. Speaker, this is nothing strange. After all it was in the Press, too. In any event, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition gave his blessing to Dr. Anna Scheepers, after the hon. the Leader of the United Party in the Transvaal had been so “thrilled” by the thought that Dr. Anna Scheepers would stand there. I just want to say that the boundaries of Boksburg remained unaltered; there was no change, therefore delimitation did not help Boksburg. Do you know what happened there, Sir? It is history now. The previous majority of 1 800 was increased to a majority of more than 3 000. Now they are complaining about the Press. Do you know, Sir, that Dr. Scheepers was one of the darlings of the Sunday Times, that they made much of her? She was one of their hand-picked candidates. And do you know, Sir, that the English-language Press cosseted her to such an extent that today she has a seat in the Senate, where she is representing both the United Party and the Progressive Party? Now, we wonder what the bond is between the United Party and the Progressive Party. We should like to know whether she sits in both caucuses. Which party is she really representing in the Senate? Is she the mouthpiece of the United Party or is she the mouthpiece of the Progressive Party?

To come back to my argument about the pressure which the leftists brought to bear on the Leader of the Opposition to change his labour policy, you should remember, Sir, that this came from Dr. Anna Scheepers too. Notwithstanding the fact that the stated policy of the United Party was that the unskilled Black workers should not have trade unions, she said, inter alia, the following to the Daily Mail on 29 January 1974—

She came along and told the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to his face, “I do not give two pins what your policy is; I say there must be Black trade unions.” And then she came along and gave the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a little squeeze and he said, “Very well, Anna, I agree.”

I want to proceed. The United Party expressed itself here as being in favour of Black trade unions. I just want to say that they are not concerned about the Black people in Southern Africa; there is another political motive behind this. They want to bring this National Party Government to a fall with the aid of Black trade unions. We know their techniques and methods. We became acquainted with them as far back as 1956 when Solly Sacks—you will recall, Sir, that he is a listed Communist—who was also a kindred spirit of Dr. Anna Scheepers, said, inter alia, the following in England (translation)—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I think one should take into consideration that it is Friday afternoon and that Parliament is occasionally in need of a little light entertainment. I want to thank the hon. member for Boksburg for the distraction he has provided for us.

I was very serious.

A few days ago the hon. the Minister of Defence told the Women’s Agricultural Association of Kimberley that South Africa is faced with a threat which is going to grow, and that this is going to require more and more of our time and our money and our attention. During the election the hon. the Prime Minister spoke in the same strain in Windhoek. He said there that South Africa and South West Africa was facing the most critical period in our history. There are other members on the Government side who have in fact used stronger language in regard to the threat confronting our country, and I shall subsequently refer to that as well. I want to say that it is a good thing that the Government is being candid with the public in this respect, and that it is issuing a warning to the effect that war is being planned against South Africa. The only fault which I have to find with the situation is that the Government is not being candid enough about the countermeasures which we ought to be adopting to deal with this threat. At Kimberley the hon. the Minister of Defence, as he has already done before, referred to the countermeasures which are being adopted in the military sphere. I am quite prepared to accept that any government would, in the circumstances in which South Africa finds itself today, do its best to make our country as defensible as it physically can. It would be monstrous if the Government did not do this. However, it does not end there. During he past 60 years we have been fortunate because our country has been completely spared a war on its own soil, in spite of the fact that South Africa participated in two world wars. Unfortunately we are now involved in a military action against our borders which could lead to a war on our own soil, and not only an ordinary war, but terrorist warfare, or what Gen. Spinola terms “subversive warfare”. Sir, we know from experience that this kind of warfare, “subversive warfare”, terrorist warfare, requires far more comprehensive countermeasures than countermeasures against ordinary warfare. I could just mention here in passing that the lie campaign against South Africa concerning its so-called mass murder in the Caprivi is only one example of the nature of subversive warfare. One found it significant that they singled out the most isolated, and as it happens also the most peaceful, part of South West Africa for this specific kind of subversive campaign, for the lying charges which were made. Sir, I think we should, in view of the type of warfare which is not being waged against us, prepare ourselves for other and also far worse charges of this nature, and I am pleased that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs took immediate action in this case and invited the world Press to go there and see for themselves, and I think we must admit that we have seen the good results of that. Sir, as we know, terrorist warfare is very different to ordinary warfare, and terrorist warfare is also different to guerilla warfare. One need only compare the fighting methods and the philosophy of Che Guevara, the greatest guerilla fighter of our time, with the fighting methods which George Grivas, who was the arch terrorist of our time, applied on Cyprus to realize what the hideous difference between a guerilla war and a terrorist war is. Sir, we know that in an ordinary war enemy faces enemy; they fight against one another openly and directly and eventually there is an end to the war. But a terrorist war is aimed at civilians, even more than at the military defence. Its intention is to practise subversion and instil terror behind the lines, to say the least of it, and over and above the hideousness of the methods which are applied in terrorist warfare, terrorist warfare has a way of being timeless in the sense that it is the kind of warfare which cannot be terminated easily before those at whom it is directed, are exhausted and isolated. America was involved in this kind of warfare for ten years in Vietnam. It had the best weapons there which a country can find, and it had the best trained men available and, if I remember correctly, it at one stage had as many as a quarter million men under arms in the field in Vietnam, but in spite of all these things it could not bring the war to a military conclusion, and ultimately it was forced to cease its military efforts and seek a political solution, just as Portugal is being forced to do in Africa today. Portugal reached the point where it had to spend 50% of its annual budget—it virtually had to bleed itself dry—on the war in the three African territories. In Guinea Bissau it has been fighting for all of 13 years, and the irony of it all is that there are fewer than 3 000 White Portuguese living in Guinea Bissau, but in order to remain in control of the country, Portugal had to maintain as many as 30 000 soldiers under arms there, and even that was not enough. In Mozambique it had 65 000 men under arms, and it fought there for nine years. Sir, the source of the difficulty is this, and this is always the difficulty in the case of subversive warfare, that Russia and China and other communist countries provide a never ending source of weapons, while the training camps are situated in countries such as Tanzania and Zambia, and one cannot attack and eradicate these, or invade those countries without becoming involved in an even greater and far more dangerous war, perhaps of world-wide extent. Admittedly, Sir, our position and circumstances are not the same as America’s were in Vietnam, nor are they the same as Portugal’s were in Africa. With us it is a matter of the survival of the mother country itself, of the homeland, and that is usually a completely different matter. But is would nevertheless be foolish if we, in the difficulty in which we find ourselves, did not learn in time the lessons which America and Portugal were forced to learn over a long period of years. I have just finished reading the book by Spinola, which makes very interesting reading. He is a person who has had years of experience of terrorist warfare in Guinea Bissau. He stresses throughout that military defence can be nothing but the shield which gives one time and behind which one can work to solve one’s political problems. That is what he emphasizes, that if one does not use it as a shield to seek a political solutions, one’s military action is eventually going to be of no value to one. Sir, we find ourselves in this dilemma that although we have reason to believe that the Government is doing its best to make us capable of defending ourselves physically, this cannot be said of the political solutions to our problems. On the contrary we find ourselves in this position that we have a divided country, a country filled with relations conflicts, where a relatively small White population is in the position that it has isolated and is dominating a large, dissatisfied mass of peoples, and is not able to determine from which direction, whether from the front or from the rear, from within or without, the winds of opposition will blow against it in a critical situation. Perhaps we differ. Perhaps we agree on the factors which have caused us to arrive now, in the words of the hon. the Prime Minister, at the most critical period in our history. In my opinion there are quite a number of factors we shall have to consider, and I think it is unrealistic to emphasize the one and ignore the other.

It is quite true that we have to deal with communist imperialism, just as one has to deal with it throughout the world. This is quite true, as was mentioned this morning. We are dealing with communist imperialism, of which China and Russia are the ringleaders, and undoubtedly they are engaged in Africa on a purposeful movement to the south. But now we know, from our knowledge of affairs, that the communist countries are unable to sell their Communism as such, Communism for the sake if Communism, anywhere, for no country in the world has ever become a communist country voluntarily. Therefore one finds that the communist countries are not coming to Africa to sell their Communism, for they would not succeed in doing so. They concentrate on situations which they can exploit for their own gain, where they can move in and offer the hand of friendship to the aggrieved and the oppressed. In this subtle way they can then gain influence and a foothold for themselves. With this recipe Communism has already subjugated a third of mankind. It is this recipe which they are applying in Africa today. Now, we have a Government which is anti-communist. I concede that. I think it is just as anti-communist as we are. But as a result of the stupid blunders which the Government perpetrates, the stupid blunders of its apartheid policy and its entire unfair order of colour discrimination, we have the ironic situation that it has worked up so much opposition to South Africa in the world that we find ourselves in this tragic situation that we are today, in Africa and throughout the entire world seen as the oppressors while the communists are seen as the liberators. That has become our dilemma. I have here the latest newsletter of the Centre for International Politics in Potchefstroom. It points out that—

But it points out this important fact that the accent in the aims and actions of the UN which represents the nations of the world, has shifted from maintaining the peace, which was the original purpose of that body, to a struggle for human rights. Now, whether we like it or not, that is what we have against us. We are dealing with world organizations which see their primary task as being that of a struggle for human rights. In this newsletter they quote from a speech made by the hon. member for Wonderboom, a good speech, and these are the words which the hon. member used. He said (translation)—

Sir, what an ally! It is only we and Russia who abstained from voting, according to the hon. member, at the time the declaration was passed; he says the fact that we abstained from voting (translation)—

I cannot disagree with this, but we see around us all the strongholds of colonialism falling, and today we are faced with the situation that with the fall of Angola and Mozambique, which to us seems to be merely a question of time, this human rights front, as the hon. member for Wonder-boom so aptly termed it, will shift right up to the entire northern border of South West Africa and the entire eastern border of the Transvaal. With a fast aircraft it takes only a half-hour to fly from Lourenço Marques to Johannesburg or Durban. It is too early to predict what kind of governments will come into power in Mozambique and Angola, but I think we are all agreed that when there is a change of government we shall have to do our best to establish valid relations with those new governments. If it should, however, be Frelimo which forms the new government in Mozambique, I shall be astonished if they will not, in exactly the same way as Zambia and Tanzania, be under a certain obligation to China and Russia, and allow those countries to gain a foothold in their territories. In the circumstances in which our country finds itself today, we need have no illusions about how these countries will use such a foothold on our borders. After all, it should be clear to all of us that if we are in earnest about the future of South Africa and want to survive, we shall have to take rapid and drastic action.

I regret to say that the Government, during the last election, aroused the expectation that if its hands were strengthened and it were returned to office, it would use that power to make adjustments. The Government was returned with a tremendous majority, and we now find ourselves in the third week of the Parliamentary session, but in no single sphere has the Government indicated that it has anything ambitious in mind. In no single speech, from that of the hon. the Prime Minister to that of other hon. members on that side, has there been any sign that there is, in the people who have South Africa in their hands any sense of urgency concerning the situation in which South Africa finds itself. Just think of the points which we have discussed since we began with the censure debate.

What future does the Government offer the Coloureds? Nothing but eternal servitude, and the Government is not even ashamed to admit this. During the election campaign the hon. the Minister of Justice was addressing a public meeting and said (translation)—

That was a stirring statement he made. He is not present at the moment but I should have liked to have asked him whether he meant only the blood of the Whites. Does he want the Whites to stand alone in these serious times, or does he want the Coloured people to play their part as well? If he wants to call for the blood of the Coloured people as well, I want to ask him whether he will say to them: “Do your civil duty, but do not ask for your civil rights.” Is that the attitude which the Government is adopting?

The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education was speaking in Durban, and according to the Natal Mercury he said—

That is the enemies—

This is as the hon. members see that situation confronting South Africa.

What do you say?

He said that we would fight in the streets. I think he meant that the Whites would fight in the streets. I want to ask him if he, when our Whites are fighting in the streets and we have our backs to the wall and we are fighting in the streets around the Nico Malan Theatre, will ask the Coloureds standing there to move out of the way and not to help us because this is a White country only, in which we have apartheid. Would he perhaps say to them: “Come and help us, but look, when the fighting is over and we have won and you have helped us to win, you must remember that you will once again have to be satisfied with eternal political domination by the Whites, and all the humiliations of apartheid.” That is the sum total of what the Government offers the Coloured people. With the one hand the hon. the Prime Minister appoints a commission to give serious consideration to the problem of the Coloured people, and with the other hand he sends the hon. the Minister of the Interior, who is also Minister of Information and charged with the important task of winning the outside world for South Africa, to Windhoek. He goes to Windhoek of all places—I am saving “of all places” because everything which is said there finds its way into the hands of the UN and is recorded there—to say to the Coloured people of South West Africa and to those of the Republic that they are destined to remain for all time in a subordinate position to the Whites and that they should be satisfied with this. I want to tell hon. members opposite that if the Government believes that it can divide South Africa into White and Black states, why does it not do so now? What is it waiting for? Does it want to wait until it is too late and the flames are already licking at South Africa? Why does it not create the states now, and dispose of the problem? Would hon. members tell us why not now? My submission is that if it cannot do so now, it can never do so, for the position is not easing, it is only worse. If the Government believes in its own mind that it can lead the Coloureds and the Indians along the road which it calls parallelism, whatever that may mean—the two paths are not in fact equal—to their full satisfaction, and can ensure that they obtain what is their just due, why does it not do so now? Why are they wasting time with doll’s houses which they call “Parliaments” and which are on the road to nowhere? If the Government is sincere in its declarations to the UN that all forms of colour discriminations are going to disappear in South Africa, why does it not do so now? One asks this question in particular when one takes cognizance of the fact that this is the one matter for which it will receive the support of the entire Opposition.

But you are not doing so yourself.

I want to ask that hon. member how long the Government will continue with ridiculous cases such as that of a leading writer such as Adam Small for example? If he wants to attend a performance of his own work in the city centre of Johannesburg, he first has to obtain the permission of the hon. the Minister of Community Development to do so. When will we reach the end of such absurdities which cause nothing but hate and revulsion for South Africa in the eyes of the rest of the world? When will we find someone saying that the position is a serious one, we must begin now to implement our own policy? I am prepared to say that I do not expect the Government to implement our policy, for it is entitled to say that that is not what it was elected for. But why does it not implement its own policy? I want to say to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs that if the Government believes it has the solution to the South-West African problem along the road of self-determination and independence which it has announced, as he sees it, why do they not implement it now and get done with it? By doing so they could solve something. The Government has been there now for 26 years, but what has it solved? We have not really made any progress and cannot point to any problem which the Government has disposed of. Does the Government want us to find ourselves in the position of Angola and Mozambique first before it does something? Must we first reach that stage? A very serious situation is developing, particularly in respect of South West Africa. The U.N. commissioner for Namibia, Mr. Sean McBride, is setting up an office in Lusaka with the object of forming a government in exile for South West Africa. According to reports hundreds of Ovambo are crossing the border to go through Angola and Zaïre to Zambia. If reports are true, there are among them some of the best people of the Ovambo nation. Among them, too, there are apparently broadcasters who were formerly in the employ of the SABC in South West Africa. It is not difficult to understand what part they are going to play across the border. Some time ago this Government showed that it was giving serious consideration to this question and called the churches in Owambo together. It asked them whether they knew why the Ovambo were streaming across the borders. Four of the church leaders got together, representative of all the leading churches—the Evangelical Lutheran Owambokavango Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church and the Baptist Church. They submitted to Mr. Jannie de Wet, the commissioner, 17 points as to why this exodus from the upper layers of the Ovambos was taking place. I do not have the time to read out these points here, but as they are stated here, it is an appalling indictment of the administration of the Government in certain areas of South West Africa which will have very serious repercussions. As I have said, I do not have the time to read it, but all these points are concerned with the disregard of human rights such as the public floggings imposed by one political group on another, the floggings which the party which happens to be in power imposed on the opposition leaders. Then they mentioned the following important reason—

This is what the churches, at the request of the Government, advanced as reasons for the position being as it is in Owambo at present. Naturally they went on to complain—

It is the Government’s duty to make South Africa defensible. Not only must South Africa be made physically defensible, but it needs absolute, total defensibility in the situation in which it finds itself today. This means that we will have to create an order internally—this applies to South West Africa as well as to the Republic—which will make all population groups prepared to defend South Africa. I believe that as long as we have a situation in which we have not placed the people in the position where they feel that it is their interests which are being defended, we will be entitled to say to the Government that it is failing in its duty to South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, when listening to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout one wonders what he is busy doing. Is he saving his own skin, and that of his party, or is he making himself acceptable to the Progressive Party? We have already heard some of the statements and words used by the hon. member here again this afternoon. We have already heard him using harsh words here about conditions that are on our doorstep. This afternoon he spoke about flames breaking out, of dissatisfied masses, of the oppressed, etc. The hon. member became quite vexed here the other day—if I may use the words—and walked out of the House, but later he reacted to that himself. When the hon. member for Turffontein presented him with certain statements he had made, he walked out. Later he returned and said he had been called to this House to be addressed by the hon. member for Turffontein, and that he then felt he had been insulted. I want to quote the hon. member one little sentence, a sentence the hon. member for Turffontein did not quote to him from the Sunday Times of 26 May 1974, to which the hon. member for Turffontein referred. A little while ago when he spoke, the hon. member reproached us for having been in power for 26 years without having done anything. He asked us why we did not do something. Let me tell hon. members that in those 26 years there were a number of difficult years. In that difficult process, like a young ox, he broke the traces and turned sharply. Do hon. members know what he told the Sunday Times of 26 May? He said—

It is nothing new for him, as member of the United Party, to say that he is their obvious leader and that he presents himself as their leader. What is more, he says he could even have become leader of the National Party, but when the National Party developed its policy he ran away to take over another leadership.

One asks oneself: If the situation is so serious and the emergency so great, why is it then that the South African electorate does not reject the National Party? In a recent debate we saw it very clearly again. If the policy of those people were acceptable to South Africa as an alternative policy for the White electorate, the electorate would probably have left the National Party. However, during one debate we get three divergent standpoints from that side of the House. The hon. member for Durban North said here that it would be a deceit if people thought that the White Parliament would govern here for ever. Then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout stood up and said that the Nationalists opposite were trying to bluff the people with the fact that under United Party policy there would, in the course of time, no longer be a White authority and that people who thought along those lines were being absurd. Hon. members may look it up in column 402 of this year’s Hansard. About an hour later the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also stood up and said that the hon. member for Durban North was right and that he had every right to say that the White Parliament would eventually disappear. We want to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to explain this matter when he speaks in the debate on the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote or the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. As long as it is not clear what that party’s policy actually is we shall be conducting hours of useless debates with each other across the floor of the House. We should like to defend ourselves if they happen to come along with a stronger policy.

The question I want to ask is: Why is it that the electorate of South Africa has not yet rejected the National Party after 26 years? More than 30 Budgets have already been introduced here since 1948. Many of those Budgets were introduced under difficult circumstances. It was especially difficult in the initial years because the National Party had to indicate that it was indeed worthy of the confidence of the people. They had to show the people that their victory was not simply a political quirk. After 26 years we come alone here with another good Budget. The hon. the Minister of Finance will probably be the first to agree with me when I say that as Minister he cannot introduce a good Budget unless he has a good, solid Government round him, and there can only be a good, solid Government if it is based on a good, solid policy, a policy that develops and grows, a policy which has indeed grown to such an extent that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout could no longer stick it out on the Government side and to such an extent that it drew the hon. member for Turffontein and others to the Government’s side. The growth of that policy is something different to the modern political meaning of “Grow”, the English “Grow” which undermines, subverts and throws out. No, Sir, we are speaking here of constructive growth, development and expansion of the policy of separate development.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens and other members before him have advocated change here. Some of the new members have also ventured an valuation of the concent “change”. What does “change” mean? Over the past 26 years three big changes have taken place in this country. In the face of those three changes the United Party and the Progressive Party are going to stand powerless for the next 25 years. The first big change came in 1948, when the National Party assumed power. The second big change came with the advent of the Republic, one of the biggest political developments that have taken place here and one which enabled us to do what we are now doing. The Progressive had to smother a debate in their own congress when someone stood up—I think it was in Durban—and advocated that the Progressives ought not to attend a function where the State President would be present. Thereby they wished to indicate their antipathy to a Republic. But just the other day the hon. member for Sea Point praised the Republic. You see, Sir, that is the kind of change that has come to stay. But the third change that has come to stay is the building of peoples. That is something that has taken place under this National Government. Hon. members opposite, including the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Progressive Party, present us with speeches by leaders of those peoples. Sir, the Government is taking note of that. The Government hears what they are saying, but who has enabled them to reach that platform in order to say those things? Are they not saying those things in the interests of their own people and their own development? But those hon. members think, when they hear a small sound somewhere, when they hear someone somewhere who is dissatisfied about the price of a pound of butter, or someone who is dissatisfied about something happening in a homeland, that those people reject separate development as such.

Sir, in the election campaign in my constituency I followed the footprints of my opponent, the United Party candidate. I saw how he set about things. He went to each house and asked whether the people were satisfied with the house-rent they were paying, with the price of butter, etc., etc.

What did they say,

Wait, let me tell the hon. member. Many of them then said “no”. And then? What did the hon. member want to do with the answer? Many of them said “no”, but when it came to the counter-question: “But if you were to come into power, could you assure us that as Whites in this country, we would continue to govern ourselves and what is ours?”, they say: “No, but just give us a chance first.” But, Sir, that is not the worst of it. The worst I have already mentioned a moment ago, i.e. that the people, as uncomplicated as many of them are, workers in the lower-income group, see right through their policy. They say: “When that United Party candidate walks out here, he walks out here with the idea that because we think a pound of butter is too expensive, we reject separate development.” Those are the words of more than one of my voters. As long as the United Party is playing that game, they are deceiving themselves and are going to get nowhere. I then walked that same path and asked those people myself, but I put my question differently. I asked them: Why do you vote for the National Party? Why are they satisfied to continue voting for the National Party, to continue working for the National Party, after 26 years? Those people normally do not have the knowledge—the book-knowledge, the knowledge of policy—to make a political speech and thereby explain why they vote for the National Party. I got the answer from this Statistical Survey which the hon. the Minister of Finance presented to us here. When I had analyzed the schedule at the end of this publication, I obtained by implication the answers of many of my voters and of many Nationalists. There we found that the people were actually telling us: We are dissatisfied because the house-rent is too high, because this or that person is exploiting us. That is the individual. We are dissatisfied because we have now been sitting here for so long in a rented house and still cannot get a house in Triomf or in one of the various community development projects. That is what they are telling us. Only last week I found the Department of Community Development wanting to put a woman with four children out of her house. What a fine story that would have been in the hands of the hon. member for Durban Point! I am sure he would have liked to quote that, and he would have been able to do it too because that woman is a United Party supporter. This kind of thing happens. But then one goes along and puts the matter right.

I examined this document from which I quoted to you a moment ago and saw how it is that notwithstanding the things I have mentioned, our people are still satisfied. I want to say here that I am using a table that is older than the data which the hon. the Minister has submitted. The expenditure is now greater because the concessions that appear in the Estimates have not yet been incorporated in this table. However, it indicates a trend, a trend which proves that in respect of our country’s security considerably more than 20% has been spent. I am thinking of the numerous discussions with my voters. In this connection I am thinking, in particular, of the wives and children of men on the border. I remember the pride of the child who replied, when I asked him where his father was: “My father has gone to the bush.” That meant that his father had gone to the border. What impresses one is the pride with which they do this, notwithstanding the fear, the worry of being alone and the problem the wife has in looking after the child on her own while his father is away. In spite of that, they vote for the National Party. When I make a quick summary of a number of welfare services—education, social welfare, health, housing, food subsidies and several other diverse services—I find that an amount of a little more than 20%, R954 million according to this statement, is being given to those people. Services are thereby being given to them. They encounter these things; in a moment I shall give another figure to link up with this. I am looking at another figure, once more from this table. It is an amount of R1 269 million that is being spent on the provinces in respect of education, health, roads, etc. The people witness these things. The people realize that it is worth while voting for this Government; this is shown to them by the harsh reality of education and all the things that go hand in hand with that.

Let us look for a moment at more specific cases. I should like to mention to you a group that does not come from this table. I want to mention the railway worker. Do you know that when the cost of living increased by 126% from 1948 to 1973, the railwayman’s wage packet increased by 383%, and this does not yet include this latest increase? let us take the question of housing. In the ten years preceding 1948. the Railways spent an average of R1,5 million per year on the housing of the railwaymen. In the next 24 years the amount was an average of R5 million per year for Railway housing for the railway worker. But let us, in general, take the Department of Community Development’s figure, excluding what is being done for the Bantu. Sir, while the average amount spent in the 28 years preceding 1948 was R3,7 million, it now amounts to an average of R35 million per year. If we look at our university figure, we find that just to make our university development projects possible, the State’s loan authorizations increased by 342%. Sir, the young people surely see this; the young people experience this here in our country. I do not know whether this is the case in other countries too. But in our country the young people experience this; they witness this and know that the money does not come from their own pockets or from the pockets of their parents; they know it comes from taxation, and they know that those things are being made available to them by good government.

Sir, let us just look briefly at the question of subsidies on staple foodstuffs, something we have heard quite a bit about here in the past few days. I could not work out the latest figure exactly, but the amount being spent on food subsidies is close to R100 million. Sir, the man in the street knows this; he experiences it in some way or other; that R100 million is now in his jacket pocket because he does not need to spend it on food. That is why people vote for the National Party, not because they are being fattened up, but for a whole string of reasons. Their security is being ensured for them; provision is being made for a decent life, and with the single exception which the hon. member for Durban Point mentioned, they live respectable lives.

Let us look at the whole question of pensions. Possibly the hon. member for Umbilo will say something about this, but I should just like to focus attention on the fact that the cash value of old-age pensions increased by 370% from 1948 to 1974. Sir, those people realize this; they experience it. The total expenditure of the State on pensions has increased by 1 500% since 1948. But having listened here to the hon. member for Durban Point the other day, when he stood swinging his arms and speaking about the poor man, and reading the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville, in which he requests that provision be made for the worker and the poor man, one would say that nothing is being done for the poor man. Sir, the total cash amount employed by the Department of Social Welfare has increased by more than 1 000% since 1948.

Sir, I am perhaps mentioning things here that are dearer to me because I am interested in specific ramifications, but if we were to take agricultural and commerce and industry, we would again find that the State had increasingly acknowledged the needs of those people. Sir, I come back to my question: Why, do the people vote for the National Party? If I am arguing with them about the price of a pound of butter and they say they want to pay a lower price for butter, and if I ask them where the money is to come from to lower the price of butter and explain to them that they themselves, as low-paid workers, do not even pay income tax, the people understand these things.

But let me tell you what I experienced during the recent election. I was standing on the pavement in front of a house when I received a message to go urgently to a certain house. Upon my arrival there I found an English married couple who had come to this country 40 years ago, people of Scottish descent who could not speak Afrikaans. They told me that they were listed, active members of the United Party and that they were still active members, but that they had decided to vote National on 24 April. I thought it was a lovely story and immediately proposed phoning the Star and Die Transvaler, so that they could come and write a fine story about that. But the old man then told me not to do that; he still wanted to die as a member of the United Party. He said: “I want to pay tribute to what the great Gen. Smuts has done for South Africa,” and I appreciated that and told him so. But then he gave me a message and I delivered that message. He told me to go and tell the Prime Minister they were voting for the National Party this time, on 24 April, “to pay tribute to what the National Party and to what John Vorster have done for South Africa and for the elderly people”. I have delivered that message, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, here we are at the end of this debate. Many young people have spoken on both sides, but there is one undertone that has struck me with the majority of these speeches, probably 80% of them, and if the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and his friends do not adopt that tone jointly, they do not have a future in this country. The undertone I heard was of confidence in this country and confidence in the Almighty who gave us a task here and I, and they, as the Prime Minister has so frequently said, are geared to that task. We listen to advice and bring about changes and improvements, but until the United Party spells out their policy for us, and until they get away from these small things which they call “petty apartheid”, etc., with which they feed the people at the U.N., we in the National Party will have to continue without their help.

Mr. Speaker, I have sat here all week, listening to the Budget debate, and I must say I am disappointed in the speeches we have heard from hon. members on the Government side, with the exception of the maiden speeches, of course. I am not talking about those speeches. Generally speaking, I am convinced that in this debate the Opposition is far ahead on points.

You are an optimist.

One does not have to be an optimist to be able to see that. It is very clear to me that if we have to count the points after the past three weeks of this session, the Opposition is far ahead on points.

You must not count points; you must count votes.

Listening to all the speeches by hon. members on that side, one wonders why we had such an early election in South Africa. If all is well with a Government, surely it is not necessary to hold an election. We should have held an election next year, in 1975.

†Why, Mr. Speaker? I will tell you why, Sir. It was quite clear that despite the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister mentioned that he was having an early election because of the terrible dangers facing us in the Republic, there was one danger facing his Cabinet and that was the spiralling cost of living and inflation. The Cabinet realized, as well as we all realized, that unless they had an early election and brought in a Budget to try to satisfy the people, there would be very little they could do about it by the time the year 1975 reached us.

This is a fact and one of the reasons why the hon. members opposite and candidates of the Nationalist Party refrained from discussing inflation and the cost of living on their platforms. They spoke about everything else except the real issue at stake at that time and that was inflation.

*We on this side of the House were also given little opportunity to speak on inflation and the cost of living. The people questioned us on inflation when question time arrived, but generally speaking, very few candidates discussed this important point during the election campaign.

†We have heard it mentioned and it was mentioned during election time too: “Oh well, you know inflation is something which we have imported from abroad. There is nothing we can do about it and South Africans must therefore just accept it as such. It is an imported problem.” I believe that to a small degree it may have been imported, but generally speaking, inflation in South Africa is not something which we have imported. I notice that the hon. the Minister of Finance is not in his seat at the moment. After having listened to all the trash here this afternoon from hon. members on that side I do not blame him for not being present. Year after year we have heard from him that the Opposition makes no contribution in this Parliament. In fact, late in 1972 he said in Germiston—

He was obviously reviewing the previous session of Parliament. Let me remind the House that we have made many suggestions in this House from time to time and we have also made them during this Budget debate. Time and again the Government members turned down our suggestions, scoffed at our suggestions, rejected them and then six or 12 months later we found that they were doing precisely what we had suggested. We are being realistic. We can forget about ideological philosophies in South Africa. We have to come down to earth and look at ourselves. We must forget about what is taking place abroad—inflation and the cost of living overseas—we must view the picture within our own borders, within the Republic of South Africa.

I believe that section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act—in other words, job reservation—is basic to this problem of inflation. This is the reason why we are in this economic mess today. I am talking about inflation and the spiralling cost of living which the people can no longer endure. Job reservation is a luxury which we can no longer afford in South Africa. I know it has been promised to the electorate election after election: “Hou ons aan bewind en ons waarborg dat julle, die Blankes, in jul werk sal bly.” This has been a very, very dangerous platform to use indeed, but the Government has now reached the point of no return. The Government has gone into a cul de sac and they cannot turn back. This has been the pledge to the White voters of South Africa: “Keep the Nationalist Party Government in power and we will guarantee that you will remain in your work.” This pledge has never been necessary at all, but this is the price we are paying today for these wild promises at election time.

The Government has run into very serious trouble with inflation and, apparently, from the debate we have heard this week, we now have to learn to live with inflation and the high cost of living. We have just got to accept it as a way of life in South Africa despite our natural resources and our tremendous labour force that could be harnessed if we really intended to curb inflation. It has been mentioned that the rate of inflation in South Africa is already running into double figures, viz., an alarming 12%. We have never known it to be so high and this is a very serious state of affairs indeed. I am glad that the hon. the Minister mentioned that we must now consider planning for the future because some of our problems are due to a lack of planning. We have been warning the Government for many years that unless we plan for the future and make provision for the education and uplifting of our non-Whites to fill skilled posts which cannot be filled by White workers, we will not solve this terrible problem of inflation. On 28 February 1969 my colleague the hon. member for Hillbrow introduced a Manpower Training Bill into this House. This is what it was all about, viz., planning for the future and the training of our non-Whites. We know what happened to this Bill. Because it was introduced by an hon. member on this side of the House it was rejected by hon. members on the Government side. That was a very tragic day for South Africa. That Bill, which the hon. member for Hillbrow introduced, was the green light to South Africa’s solving this problem of inflation to a very large extent.

I have read through the Budget Speech, but I gain the impression that the suggestions made by the hon. the Minister are merely half-measures. In it I do not see any incentive for workers to work more or to want to work more. There is a slight reduction in the sales tax, which I believe is far too small considering the R700 million plus surplus reflected in the Budget. The slight reduction in the sales tax is not going to assist our pensioners. The items on which the sales tax has been reduced are not those items readily purchased by pensioners today. I also fear that the slight increase in pensions will be phased out by the fiscal drag over the next few months. The general managers of some building societies are forecasting that by the end of the year, or in the next seven months, before the next Budget is introduced into this House, interest rates will be as high as 15%. This is something we have to consider very seriously. The slight increase with which pensioners have to be happy today—indeed, we should always keep them happy—is not enough, because it will be phased out completely by the fiscal drag. I believe that the means test is out-dated and that it should be reviewed in respect of pensioners. The means test does not encourage pensioners to work. What is there to encourage the married woman pensioner to work today? The moment she works her salary is deducted from her husband’s pension. The reverse in respect of a working pensioner is also true. We should really seriously consider the abolition of the means test in respect of pensioners. I believe, too, that married women should very definitely be taxed separately. The increase in the abatement from R1 000 to R1 200 is certainly not sufficient.

Another point which has been stressed in this House during the debate is transfer duty on property. While we welcome this, it is not going to assist the many thousands of flat-dwellers in South Africa. Very few people, apart from those who are in a position today to raise money and pay the high interest rates, will benefit by this reduction in the transfer duty. Just think of Hillbrow in Johannesburg and Sea Point here in Cape Town. How many of the voters in South Africa who are living there will in fact benefit by the reduction in transfer duties? None at all.

I believe that inflation is not a case of too much money chasing too few goods, which is the phrase we have used in the past. If we study the matter in depth, we find that it is in fact a case of too few goods and services chasing too much money in South Africa. Inflation and the high cost of living, like the rain, falls on the just and unjust. If it were not for the high price paid for our gold and the high income that our agricultural industry has enjoyed over the last year or two, we in South Africa would have been in serious difficulty. I do not believe that this is something which the Government can be proud of. We are all happy and very pleased that gold prices have gone up, and up and up, and that agriculture at long last is based on a sound footing when it comes to production. But what if we should have another drought and agricultural products should drop in price? What would happen if gold were to drop in price? We do not have a firm, solid foundation on which we can maintain our economy. Another problem which is worrying all of us is what has happened in the case of steel. It is not so much the price of steel that is worrying me, because steel in South Africa is still the cheapest in the Western world, it is more expensive elsewhere in the Western world. The fact is, however, that you cannot get steel today. Just take standards and fencing material as examples. You can go into any hardware store today, as I have done in my area, the Eastern Cape, and you will find that their stores are empty. There is no steel at all because it is just not available. I believe that unless something is done about it very soon we are going to land in serious trouble as regards our steel position in South Africa.

I want to quote what the hon. the Minister of Finance said in 1972 about the growth rate in South Africa. He said on 29 March 1972, and I quote from Hansard, Col. 4370—

In the same year, while playing it cool on the growth rate, the hon. the Minister forecast that we would end up with a 6% growth rate by the end of the year. However, we ended up with a growth rate of only 3%, merely half of what the hon. the Minister had forecast. At the same time the rate of inflation was 9%. Normally the growth rate in South Africa should be between 5,75% and 6% per annum. We have not achieved this. Over the last four or five years the growth rate has been lower than that. We shall now have to have a growth rate of at least 9% within the next year, for if our growth rate should be only 6% within the next year, I know and hon. members on that side should know, that there will be a million Black people unemployed in South Africa. The hon. the Minister said that he was not in a hurry. He said that we must not be reckless about it. Yet, there will be a million unemployed Black people in South Africa if the growth rate is only 6%, which is a higher rate than we have been enjoying for the last four or five years.

The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs mentioned on Monday—I have his Hansard here—that there is no unemployment in South Africa. He talked about unemployment in Britan, America and Germany, and added—

That is in contrast to the unemployment abroad—

Those are the words of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, a Senator.

How many Blacks are unemployed?

The hon. the Minister must obviously have been talking about Whites only. I come from the East London area and the official figures I have, show that in November last year we had at least 40 000 unemployed Black people in two townships, namely Mdantsane and Duncanvillage. As I have said, those are the official figures. I believe the figure is far greater than that. Those are figures we received from the hon. the Minister, the Chamber of Commerce in East London and the Border Chamber of Industries. Out of 340 000 people living in those two townships, at least 40 000 are unemployed.

The position was so serious there that Dr. Moolman, who was the member for East London City at the time, and I invited two Minsters to come and carry out an inspection there. I am very pleased to say that, on our request, they came and saw what we had to show them. We took them around in a helicopter and showed them everything we could in the short time that they had available. The two Ministers concerned are the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education and the present Minister of Justice who was then Deputy Minister of Police. They met a large gathering of Black people in Duncanvillage and heard many complaints. The chief complaint which came from every Black speaker, was unemployment. Their appeal was: “Ons moet meer werk hê vir ons mense in Oos-Londen.” I have the agenda with me. It was not arranged by Dr. Moolman or myself, but by another body. Everything bar unemployment was mentioned on that agenda. Yet unemployment was a topic that figured very prominently in the discussion with those Black people. It was a very orderly gathering.

There was no hostility at all, but the people were very worried indeed about unemployment in East London. I have always maintained—and I have said so here before—that we cannot keep up with the natural increase of our Black people in East London as regards employment. We cannot keep up with the population explosion, let alone the Black people from the Western Cape and elsewhere who are repatriated to that area. If I must blame anybody for much of the unemployment there. I must lay the blame on the shoulders of this Government fully and squarely. I blame this Government for a large measure of the problems we have there. I do not want to mention all the thieving, etc., that goes on there.

We had, as I said, two Ministers there, and they met many organizations.

*They met the farmers’ associations, the chambers of commerce, and I do not know who else. All the people are very worried about the unemployed people drifting around.

†They are not only living in their townships, but all the valleys surrounding East London are occupied by homeless Black people. Naturally the Minister was worried, as we all were. After having heard all the discussions, we asked the present Minister of Justice what he could suggest.

*We asked him what solution he could suggest. The hon. gentleman then suggested that he would send police dogs from Pretoria to East London and would chase all the Black people out of the bushes.

What did he say?

That we would chase them all out of the bushes with dogs.

Who said that?

The hon. the Minister of Police. [Interjections.] Yes, he was present that day when we were talking about the unemployed. At any rate, I do not think the Minister realized what he was saying; for to chase them out of the bushes with dogs, is no solution at all. We must provide employment for these people. I know and accept that you will always find a percentage of our people, Black and White ...

But you complained to me about those people.

Yes, I was there.

You told me that we should use dogs to get them out of there.

I?

Yes!

No, I am sorry, Sir No, it was a suggestion which came ...

I asked you how one could get the people out of there. “Flush them out” were your words.

That was a suggestion which came from the hon. gentleman, not from me. We asked you for a solution.

†Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss the growth rate. If we do not attract foreign investments to South Africa—I am talking about providing employment—we cannot have growth in South Africa. Very few women will be tempted into the labour market by the small increase in tax allowances. There is little incentive for the more highly paid people to increase their productivity. The Budget, I believe, has not gone nearly far enough in reducing inflationary pressure in South Africa. We must look for foreign capital where money is plentiful and when it is plentiful. It is no use the hon. the Minister going overseas when money is scarce. He should look for it when it is plentiful overseas. The high rate of growth and production will encourage investors to invest money in South Africa—not high interest rates.

I cannot see how high interest rates will encourage investors from abroad to invest money in this country. I do not believe this, and yet hon. members on that side believe this will happen. I believe growth alone will encourage foreign investment. We need more skilled labour. We have the labour, but we will have to train that labour and we shall have to make the prospects with regard to employment more attractive in South Africa. The way to do this is to have a serious look at section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act and to revert back to the Manpower Training Bill, which my colleague, the hon. member for Hill-brow, proposed in this House in 1969.

Mr. Speaker, I find the arguments of the hon. member who has just spoken something of an enigma from start to finish. The hon. member began by saying that if he were to give points in this debate, in other words, in this contest, he would award the majority of the points to the Opposition. I now want to ask my hon. friend whether he does not yet know the basic principle of any game or contest, i.e. that one cannot be the judge when one is also participating in a contest or a game. I want to tell him that in this contest the South African electorate is the judge, and on 24 April they very clearly gave the result. The score was in the region of 123 points to 40—virtually a three-quarters majority. The hon. member also upbraided the Government for having gone to the polls a year or so earlier. There I do not understand him very well either. Throughout the world the Opposition parties are only too glad when the Government goes to the polls earlier. The Opposition is surely the alternative government, which must be prepared to take over the Government. Why does the hon. member upbraid us for that? In the course of my speech I shall attempt—if not directly, then indirectly—to reply to some of the previous speaker’s arguments.

I learned many things from my political tutor, the late Dr. Verwoerd. Of the many things I learned, the following two have recently stood out more clearly for me as a result of the disturbances and the dispensation in South Africa’s politics. Number one: Politics is the science of Statecraft or the government of the country. The late Dr. Verwoerd always said: “The next most important thing to Religion, the Church and faith in the lives of one’s people, is politics, statecraft, the government of the country.” Mr. Speaker, in connection with that, I remember one of the other doctrines I gleaned from the teachings of the late Dr. Verwoerd. He always said, because politics, statecraft, the government of a country, are so important to the citizens of a country, politicians must always remember and endeavour to keep the politics, the statecraft of their country, at a very high level. It is in this connection that I now very quickly, but very seriously, want to address myself to the hon. Opposition. Today I want to say this to the hon. members of the Opposition, and I am not saying this with enmity, but with regret, with a sore heart, and with sympathy not only for them and for me, but for all M.P.s of the Republic of South Africa: They must endeavour to return politics in South Africa to a high level. Sir, I want to quote you various passages, and I shall begin with the following: I have here a cutting from a newspaper which supports the United Party and which states: “Now Sir de Villiers Graaff is making a better speech.” In other words, one of the United Party mouthpieces alleges that yesterday, the day before and on previous occasions the Leader of the United Party made bad speeches.

What newspaper is that?

The Sunday Times.

Your boss.

Sir, I shall quote to you as further proof a heading which reads as follows—

And then it describes an open struggle between the Old Guard and the Young Turk candidate on the West Rand—

[Interjection.] Yes, the hon. member need not be afraid; I shall speak to this Van der Merwe—

Mr. Speaker, I could thus quote various reports to you, but I want to conclude by saying to the Opposition that they must endeavour in all seriousness to settle their domestic affairs between four walls and behind closed doors, as befitting a good family, so that their differences do not leak out to the public of South Africa. Sir, I have a report here which states that United Party M.P.s are sharpening their knives to stab each other in the back. Sir, one of the previous speakers spoke here today of loyalty and patriotism in respect of South Africa. I want to tell the Opposition that loyalty and patriotism in one’s own ranks begins with one’s own people.

What of Japie Marais?

The voters of South Africa are fully entitled to ask this question: If the members of the United Party, the alternative government, are sharpening their knives for each other, what is to become of South Africa if these people ever come into power? Sir, what perturbs me is the fact that the virtue and integrity of our M.P.s are being prejudiced, because it can easily be said afterwards that United Party M.P.s are not the only ones who are sharpening their knives to stab each other in the back, but that all M.P.s talk like that and are sharpening their knives to stab each other in the back. Sir, I regret that the hon. member for Yeoville, the leader of the United Party in the Transvaal, is not here this afternoon, but he can read my Hansard later. I want to tell him that the late Dr. Verwoerd taught me—and I am saying this because I am being honest about things and because I also have a great deal of respect for the old United Party, because if I want to be honest I must acknowledge that in its day that party also did great and good things for South Africa. I want to tell the Leader of the United Party in the Transvaal that the late Dr. Verwoerd frequently said to me: “When you as a person use politics to push yourself to the fore, you are allowing the cause you serve to crumble; this you may not do.” I want to tell hon. members on that side that they owe it to the Republic of South Africa to consolidate and form a good, dignified Opposition—an alternative government which every democratic country needs.

That will be the Progs.

If they cannot do so, it means that the National Party ranks will continue to increase in strength.

Now I want to turn to the Budget. The hon. the Minister has introduced a record Budget, regarded in all respects as the best South Africa has ever had. In my opinion the hon. the Minister could do so for four reasons.

In the first place the hon. the Minister could introduce such a record Budget because South Africa has, for the past 26 years, had a Government that has watched over the security and prosperity of South Africa. This Budget is not a freak Budget that was simply conjured out of thin air. It is a Budget which is the culmination and product of many years of hard work by the National Party. Secondly, the Minister could introduce this Budget because the position of gold is today so strong internationally. In the third place, he could introduce this Budget—and there the hon. the Minister can give himself the credit—because over the years the Minister has shown and maintained his unshakable confidence in gold. When many people in South Africa, virtually throughout the world, had lost their confidence in the metal our Minister maintained his confidence in gold. Fourthly, such a Budget could be introduced because the Bounteous Creator has ensured a record crop for the farmers of South Africa this year. In conjunction with that the Government has managed to pay the farmers record prices for their agricultural products, notwithstanding their record crops. That is why the platteland is National. Notwithstanding the fact that the farmers have obtained record prices for their agricultural products, the consumers, the urbanites, are in the fortunate position that they do not have to compensate fully for the record prices which the farmers are obtaining for their products. In comparison with all comparable countries in the world, the consumers in South Africa are today paying the lowest prices in the world for their food and clothing, thanks to the policy of a good and sensible Government. We can then ask: How does the Government manage to maintain high agricultural prices, low consumer prices and subsidies. Government manages to do so by reconciling, in a very tactful and practical manner, three elements that are normally very difficult to reconcile i.e. high agricultural prices, low consumer prices and subsidies. You may ask: How does the Government manage to pay subsidies with low taxes? I want to tell you that it is the skill of this Government that has managed to bring those three divergent elements together, and that is why the urbanites are also voting for the National Party today, and they also know that their interests are safe in the hands of this Government. Sir, apart from the bread and the butter, the voters know that as far as matters of policy are concerned, and in respect of the security and safety of South Africa, they can also entrust everything to the National Party. And I am not the only one who says this. I want to quote to you what someone has said, and then I shall tell you who said it. This person stated (translation)—

Who said that? Mrs. Cathy Taylor said it, and not I, not this National Party. That is why the voters are increasingly voting for the National Party.

Mr. Speaker, I very specifically want to turn now to the hon. the Minister of Finance with a proposal which I very humbly want to present to him for consideration. The fact is that things are now going well for us in South Africa. I have just tried to sketch this. But, as the Bible teaches us, in the years of plenty one must make provision for the lean years. It is unfortunate that during the past few years our wonderful country has met with two very great disasters. I am referring in the first place to the earth-tremors that struck the Tulbagh and Ceres area a few years ago. At this stage we cannot but express our utmost thanks and appreciation to the Government for the assistance that was forthcoming. I gather that the Government granted assistance to the tune of about R50 million. In the second place, I am thinking of the floods we had recently, chiefly on the banks of the Orange River. As I have already said, the Government is still granting assistance to these disaster areas.

However, I want the people of South Africa to develop their own fund, their own feeling of security, as far as these matters are concerned. I therefore want to submit to the hon. the Minister for consideration that tax of only 1% be levied and that the proceeds of such a levy be paid into a central disaster fund. I know that people do not like having to pay out, and therefore I am stating very clearly that the levy should only be 1%. This means that the taxpayer who normally pays R100, will now have to pay R101. The taxpayer who has paid R1 000 before the introduction of such a levy, will only have to pay R1 010, and the taxpayer who has previously been paying R5 000, will only have to pay R5 050. This is such a trifle, but as the Bantu are fond of saying: Many little bits eventually make a lot.

From a small calculation I have made it appears that since the personal tax that will have to be paid this year—I am excluding the tax on companies—will amount to R1 000 million, the additional tax that taxpayers will have to pay as a result of this levy of only 1% will be R10 million. As the tax contributions increase, the amount being paid as a result of this levy will of course increase as well.

I have read somewhere that after the war a similar fund was established in Germany. Those German citizens who were lucky enough not to have suffered any damage in the bombardments during the war, were compelled to pay a special levy, and that money was subsequently used to restore the properties damaged in the war.

In my opinion, something like this would serve two good purposes. In the first place it would give me and anyone else a feeling of security, in that if one were unlucky in being the victim of a disaster, one would know that provision had already been made and need not be called for, and that the Government would not need to go out of its way to make such provision. In the second place: If I and the majority of us are fortunate enough not to be the victims of a disaster, we would be so thankful at not having suffered this fate that we would be only too glad to contribute so that attempts could be made to alleviate the sorrows of the afflicted.

We have a fine country, a good country, with many benefits and blessings apportioned to us by Benign Providence. I think the time has come for the citizens of South Africa to count their blessings to an increasing extent, to consider what they get from this good country and what is so bountifully given to us, trying to show in this way our humane co-operativeness and willingness to contribute our share when disasters, however unfortunate, hit our country or certain areas of our country at some time or other.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down is an experienced politician. In the first part of his speech he told us all about his experience as a politician and the fact that a former Prime Minister was his tutor. As an experienced politician he should surely realize that it is no use quoting from newspapers in an attempt to draw a conclusion from their contents when these are openly hostile towards the United Party. Surely this proves that what the hon. member said at the beginning of his speech was an erroneous statement. It was a picture he had taken over from the newspapers, and he did not even say which newspapers they were.

†During this debate we have had a large number of speakers paying attention to the problem of greater productivity in South Africa. In fact, it has become the fashion for hon. members opposite to make pleas for greater productivity. Sometimes these are based on a rather naïve belief that all that is required to perfect this in South Africa is for the people of South Africa to work harder and to be more diligent. There are, of course, rare occasions when one can notice a sense of realism. When the hon. the Minister of Finance introduced his Budget one could notice this sense of realism, because he at least made an attempt to link the problem of greater productivity with that of the better training of non-White workers in South Africa. The schemes he announced for training and the concessions will never be effective in South Africa until such time as we can change the framework within which those concessions must operate. Last year the hon. the Minister made similar announcements concerning the training of Black workers in and for industries in the border areas and in the homelands. What was not realized straight away—and I am afraid it is still not realized by hon. members opposite today—is that every time the hon. the Minister makes a concession a rider is attached to it, namely, that all these concessions and training schemes must function within the framework of separate development. Let us be under no illusion. The moment anything has to function within that limited framework of the Government’s policy, the benefits that are to be derived from it are immediately minimized. Last year we discovered, after the announcement of the hon. the Minister, that they were not going to train skilled artisans under those schemes. This year again we were told by the hon. the Minister of Labour: Of course there will be no training schemes for skilled Black artisans. Why? Do hon. members honestly believe that we can effect greater productivity in South Africa without training skilled Black artisans? These so-called training schemes and so-called concessions will in fact not contribute materially to the great problem which is facing us in this country. We must face up to reality.

The moment we have to perfect something in this country within the framework of separate development we leave the world of reality and move into a world of fantasy, into an unreal world. Consider the following: We have a law in this country which condemns forever the majority of workers in South Africa to live the lives of migratory labourers. How dare hon. members opposite and the Government speak about greater productivity when in fact the number of migratory labourers will never decrease in South Africa but will, if the Government’s policy is successful, increase? Has the hon. the Minister of Labour or perhaps any other hon. member opposite considered the effect the migratory labour system has on productivity and training? These are the realities of today; these are the realities of the policy of this Government. I think it is necessary to remind hon. members of the findings of the Tomlinson Commission in this respect. Do hon. members realize that it was estimated by the Tomlinson Commission that a migratory labourer is available for the labour market for only 22,6 years? Out of that time he is economically active for only 62% of the time. In addition it was estimated that a migratory labourer retires at the age of 41. Calculated on that basis, we find that out of 1 140 000 man-years available to South Africa annually, only 480 000 are in fact economically used. Is this how hon. members opposite think we can achieve this ideal of greater productivity in South Africa? How can we achieve it when we have laws which in fact prevent us from making the optimum use of our available manpower and also laws which prevent the training of potential workers in South Africa to the maximum of their abilities? We are all living in a strange world; we are apparently all living happily in this country within the framework of separate development. We are the only country in the world where the capacity of an individual to benefit from training is not measured against that person’s ability, but purely against the colour of his skin. It is in this South Africa and under these restrictions that we must look at this Budget and at these concessions.

We can only bring about, and this the hon. members should realize, an effective increase in productivity in South Africa once we are prepared to make certain basic changes. The very first change that must be brought about must be a change within the minds of hon. members opposite. They must stop bluffing themselves. There must be a willingness on their part to accept the realities of South Africa. The very first reality they must accept is that we are living in a country with a population of 22 million people and not in a country with a population of 3½ million. Furthermore that this is a country with the highest annual population increase in the world. The real economic challenge which is facing all of us here is not just how we are going to feed 50 million people by the end of the century, but the real challenge is how we are going to equip the people of South Africa so that they will be productive and can feed themselves. I think it is accepted by every hon. member opposite that education and training are in fact the common denominators on the productivity scene. Some authorities attribute 80% of the increase in productivity to education and training. As a result of Unesco’s investigations in over 100 countries it was discovered that there is a definite correlation between a person’s productivity and his level of education. Other overseas studies have also proved this. The tragedy is of course that all these factors are known to hon. members opposite. Yet we have once again debated a Budget where the amount to be appropriated for education is totally inadequate for the needs of South Africa. Dr. Verwoerd, opening a Nationalist Party congress in Bloemfontein, said in 1962 that South Africa had been too busy with political and constitutional matters to give proper consideration to the subject of education. He said that at a time when we were spending 3,4% of our national income on education. Ten years later we were still spending 3,4% or 3,5% of our national income on it! I cannot understand how it was possible in this country for a Government in the depression year of 1931, for instance, to spend over 4,2% of our income on education. As long as the Government is not prepared to invest in human capital in this country—that is what an investment in education is—there can be no hope of any increase in productivity and we will be entitled to accuse them of gross neglect of this problem and also of being downright stupid. As hon. members know, one reaps what one sows. We cannot expect to reap much in the field of increased productivity when we are prepared to invest, for instance, R27,20 per Bantu child today. To me it is quite incomprehensible how the Government can justify this in economic terms. This is a negligible amount to spend on 80% of the population.

Hon. members opposite tend to justify this in emotional terms. During the Censure debate, for instance, the verligte Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education attempted to justify this in emotional terms when he appealed to the Africans to do more for themselves. He drew an analogy between the Africans and the Afrikaners, pointing out the struggle of the Afrikaners to educate themselves and to reach the top by means of C.N.E. schools, etc. I want to warn the hon. the Deputy Minister that this attitude is, in the first instance, economically disastrous and, secondly, that I believe it is politically unwise—in fact, that it is political suicide. I know that 90% of hon. members opposite will never be anything else but members of the Nationalist Party.

Hear, hear!

They will always be intolerant of other race groups. Why is this so? One of the reasons one can find is, in fact, the struggle of the Afrikaner to reach the top in South Africa. That is one of the reasons why a large number of people in this country are bitter. Is this the example the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education wants to hold up to the Africans in South Africa? Does he want them to end up that way too and to say: “What we have achieved, we have achieved on our own”, establishing a complete similarity?

This attitude is also economically disastrous because, no matter how well the Whites of this country are educated and trained, there just is not sufficient of us to run the Republic and to fulfil the needs of a modern, industrialized country. A doubling of expenditure on education is something which we on this side of the House have advocated on a number of occasions. What is more important than merely doubling expenditure is that we should have a better distribution of the available money among the various race groups in South Africa. As I have said, it is quite incomprehensible how they can justify the spending of R27,20 per African child when R460 is spent on every White child in South Africa. I am not now talking in terms of emotion; I am talking in terms of economics and of training so that our people can achieve greater productivity in South Africa. Why is it possible for every other country in the world, whether developed or underdeveloped, to spend at least between 7% and 8% of its income on education? How long will it take the Government to realize that in the field of African education there is really a state of emergency? There is really a state of emergency, especially if we accept the basic fact that we are faced with a situation where we have a population increase of over 500 000 per annum whom we must in fact gear to the economy and help to be productive in this country of ours. I know hon. members can retort by saying that we have three and a quarter million Bantu pupils at school today.

Is that not an achievement.

The hon. member point, too. If one looks at this figure in isolation, one imagines that it is a great achievement. Then it sounds impressive. But if one looks at it in the South African context, where we are facing the problem that there are 22 million people in this country now and that there will be more than 50 million by the end of the century, one finds that this is not really such an achievement. In fact, what is happening in South Africa, is that the department is struggling to maintain the status quo. This is what I mean when I say we are facing a state of emergency. For over 20 years there has been very little substantial improvement in this respect. The hon. member for Sunny-side the other day decided to quote 1955. He started his speech by referring to the conditions in 1955. Sir, do you realize that in 1955 the enrolment at Bantu primary schools, expressed as a percentage of the total enrolment, was 95,7%? Eighteen years later, in 1973, it was 94,5%. Sir this represents an improvement of 1,2% over nearly two decades. This is not good enough. This is the problem we are facing in South Africa.

Who says your statistics are correct?

The hon. member can find that out. I will even send them to him. Today we have a situation, which we have had for decades, where 66% of the African children only stay at school for the first three or four years. Approximately 5% of African pupils reach high school—that is all. But out of that 5%, only between 8% and 10% eventually reach Matric. The situation as regards the White people—and that is not even good enough—is that between 45 and 50% of those who start high school, finish it. I say that that is not even good enough. How can we run a modern, industrialized country when we will not have trained people available? We will therefore not achieve greater productivity and we will always have the problem of inflation because in the speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance, he linked productivity with inflation.

We must accept that we are in a state of emergency when we find that in 1971 there were 544 Africans at the technical secondary schools while two years later there was a tremendous increase of seven, resulting in a total of 551. These are the realities we are facing in South Africa. It is not realistic, therefore, to talk about an increase in productivity, when the vast majority stay at school for three or four years after which they gradually lapse back into a state of illiteracy. No, Sir, the time is long overdue to have a frank discussion about the neglect of African education in South Africa. This stems, in the first place, from inadequate financing, secondly, from the policy of separate development, and thirdly, from the reluctance on the part of the Government to set some sort of educational priorities. Let us talk about inadequate financing. The Government must accept the blame for this. One of the reasons for their tremendous success in 1948 was the “Swart gevaar” tactics which they employed against the United Party, their propaganda against the United Party in relation to this very matter of expenditure on education. This is the problem. Once having convinced their supporters that one had to get rid of a White Government that was spending too much on African education they became the victims of their own propaganda. They had to continue to appease their supporters. That is the real reason why we had the introduction of the Bantu Education Account in 1955 when the amount to be appropriated for Bantu education was pegged at R13 million. And then the hon. member for Sunnyside can get up in this House and say: Look at the tremendous increase in this amount since 1955. We are spending seven times more today than what we spent in 1955.

That is not quite correct.

Yes it is; I have the figure here. It is seven times R15 769 552. As I pointed out, this means that we are spending something like R100 million, and yet we have a Budget which runs over something like R4 000 million. Are we really trying to solve this problem? I am not convinced on that score at all. In 1972 the Bantu Education Account was abolished. No longer was it tied to any legal formula, in other words, pegged at R13 million. What, however, was so interesting to my mind at the time was that the then hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Education who is now our energetic Minister of Sport and Recreation made it quite clear that the basis on which money would be appropriated in respect of Bantu education, the basis of allocation, would remain unaltered. In other words, the basis would be in relation to the amount of Bantu tax, direct and indirect, whereas the Act actually states that this is purely a matter for consultation between the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education and the hon. the Minister of Finance. As long as the Government does in fact adhere to this so-called basis of allocation, so long will we face a situation where we will have inadequate financing of Bantu education in South Africa. Apart from the obvious disastrous effect this will have on South Africa, I do not even believe that it is a clever political argument as the hon. member for Sunnyside tried to make out. It is not even a clever political argument for use against, let us say, possible attack from “verkrampte” quarters, from the Albert Hertzogs and the Jaap Marais’s and also, let me say, the scores of their bedfellows on the opposite benches. It is not even a clever way of neutralizing their attack to say: We are not as bad as the 1948 United Party; we are just spending what is their due, because what we are allocating to them is related to the taxes that they pay. However these people can then turn around and say: Well, if that is the situation, if it is quite true that the White man is not paying for their education, who then is paying for the other social services? Who is paying for their health services, for their political development? Hon. members opposite will never be able to convince them that this money too comes out of the pockets of the Africans. No, Sir, the criteria must be not whether there is any relationship between that amount and the amount they pay in taxation but what the needs for South Africa are. Here you have a Government that can remain in power for the next five years. Why do they not show some courage and say: For the next five years we are going to set ourselves a definite target to give the highest priority to this matter? When I say this, I am referring to education in general. They should give the highest priority to it. Sir, when the time comes for us to defend our country, we will do so with all our available manpower and we will be prepared to make the necessary investment. But, Sir, if you do not invest now in education, you will have a situation where you will have unproductive units in your country, where you will have low productivity, an ever-rising spiral of inflation, an acceleration of the increase in the cost of living, and poverty, and when you have poverty, Sir, as my hon. leader has said many times, you have guerilla fighters in your midst, and then it will not help you to defend your borders.

Let us look at the policy of separate development. This, of course, has everything to do with the neglect of Bantu education. One of the main reasons for the tremendously high dropout rate between the primary school and the secondary school is, of course, the unreasonable and unrealistic quota system which is applied in the establishment of African schools in the urban areas. Sir, we know why the Government applies this system. It wants to prove that its policy of separate development can at least work on paper; it wants to prove that there are larger numbers of non-Whites in the homelands than in the urban areas and that the numbers of non-Whites in the urban areas are dwindling. I do not know why they are still obsessed with this idea, because we know what has happened to Mr. Blaar Coetzee’s prophecy that the tide from the homelands to the urban areas would be reversed by 1978. I do not know where he is today ...

In Sea Point.

Sir, this is no longer an issue in South Africa; hon. members opposite must not bluff themselves; we all know that this policy can never work economically and that the numbers of Blacks in the urban areas will continue to increase. But because of the Government’s obsession with its policy of separate development, it has introduced what I call artificial methods and stumbling blocks in the way of education for the Blacks, and one of these stumbling blocks in this quota system which is so completely unrealistic. The hon. the Minister says that he is concerned about better training and greater productivity. If that is what he wants to see, then the very first thing he should do is to abolish the quota system which applies to the establishment of junior secondary schools in the urban areas for Bantu. Sir, here we have a system where one school is allowed in the urban areas for the children of every 3 200 families. That in itself is not bad because you can in fact have a viable, large comprehensive school in a multi-storeyed building for the children coming from 3 200 families, but when you have a system where the building is restricted to 16 rooms, of which only 10 are classrooms, it means that you are trying to accommodate in one classroom the children from 320 families. This is absolutely ridiculous; it can never work. It is a vain hope that these people will find their way into the boarding schools provided in the Reserves. In the first place, there are obvious financial reasons why this cannot take place. It would obviously place an additional financial burden on the parents to send their children to boarding schools. Even in the case of the White community, we find that it is cheaper to have your children attending a school in close proximity to your house. But, Sir, there is also another reason; there is a feeling of insecurity amongst pupils, especially amongst pupils who can qualify for privileges under section 10, because for them the hospitality of a boarding-school in the homelands can easily become an exit permit out of the urban areas. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, we always listen very attentively to the hon. member for Durban Central because, when he speaks on education, he always tries to approach his subject in a positive way, but we have had this tragic contrast here this afternoon because he made certain basic mistakes right from the start, mistakes which border upon deception, I would almost say deliberate deception of this House.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the words “deliberate deception”.

I withdraw them. He began by referring to the necessity for greater productivity. He elaborated on it for a long time and then came to a decision as to the reason for this lack of greater productivity. I shall come back to that aspect later on. He spent a great deal of his speech to the inadequate teaching facilities existing for Blacks and Coloureds. But, Sir, what he did not do was to tell and explain to this House what this Government has done in this connection through the years. He failed to tell this House of the inadequate facilities which existed during the time of United Party government. If we consider what this Government inherited from that side of the House in 1948, we see that in 1948 only 9,02% of the Black children of school going age received school education. But we notice further that during the past years that percentage has increased to such an extent that we reached a percentage of 19,86 forwards the end of last year. But even so this does not say very much.

It has doubled.

Yes, but that in itself does not say very much especially if one considers the increase in the total population. The Black population increased by 104% between 1948 and 1973.

And the school population?

The school population increased by 351%. Then this increase in the school-going population of more than 10% makes an enormous difference, something which was only made possible by the far-sightedness and the fairness of this Government.

But, Sir, one can also quote other interesting figures in this connection. When one considers the enrolment for 1973, one notices that there were 2 253 000 pupils in the lower primary classes, 965 000 in the higher primary classes—I am giving only round figures—183 000 in the secondary classes, and 551 000 in the technical secondary classes, i.e., a total of 3 428 000. These enrolments represent 72% of the children of school-going age, i.e. children between seven and 15 years of age. I say this is a totally different picture from the one the hon. member tried to present to this House. If one considers what has been done in respect of technical training over the past 26 years, one finds that Black pupils are able to receive training in various spheres. I say again that this was only made possible thanks to a positive Government such as this one.

I come back to the attitude adopted by the hon. member on the question of productivity. If one has to draw a conclusion from what he said, one finds in it thought which runs like a thread through his speech, which is that the Black man has to be trained as a full-fledged artisan in the White area. That is the purport of the hon. member’s argument. To me there is nothing strange in that suggestion coming from that side, because that matter is tied up with something else hon. members on that side of the House have been pleading for recently. They are pleading for Black trade unions to be established.

If this is the Utopia we in South Africa should strive to achieve, the White worker and South Africa must take cognizance of the standpoint of the United Party, because what they are pleading for here only means that all barriers should be done away with. Surely, it is logical that if one trains a person as a full-fledged artisan there can no longer be such a thing as separation in workshops. Then there will no longer be such a thing as the protection of the position the Whites have always held as of tradition. This can only mean that the Whites will have to compete with the Black man as an artisan. Surely, we know what the circumstances here in South Africa are, and we know what will happen. It is a fact that when one arrives at the point where Black and White have to compete for the same position, the Whites will be pushed out because for various reasons—I cannot deal with now—the Black man will be able to offer his services at a lower consideration. Because of the different circumstances of the Whites such a lower consideration will be unacceptable to them, and that will mean that the Whites will be pushed out. However, that is not all that is going to happen. We shall also find that social barriers will be done away with because if two people with the same training have to work together, there should be no objection to their having tea together or visiting one another, or to the son of one of them going out with the other one’s daughter. We know what will flow from this. This is what the United Party is pleading for now.

If these people do the same kind of work and they receive the same consideration, what is going to stop the Black man from wanting to come and live next to the hon. member for Durban Central? I accept that he will have no objection to a Black man living next to him, but I know of many Whites in this country who have serious objections to this. While speaking of sound relations between the various races, we shall by advancing arguments such as these and by adopting attitudes such as these, bedevil the sound race relations which have always been maintained under this Government. Is this what the hon. member is pleading for? I shall, however, come back later as to what the ultimate result will be of the attitude adopted by the hon. member.

The hon member for East London North spoke about job reservation earlier this afternoon. He called job reservation a luxury we can no longer afford, because it is supposed to be the cause of inflation. How foolish can we be with our arguments? It is now being alleged that job reservation is causing inflation. What are the true facts? The true facts are that, while there are 2,5 million economically active Black people in this country, 1,5 million of whom do unskilled or semi-skilled work, job reservation only applies to 2,9%. Whence this argument that job reservation is causing inflation? We agree that the position has to be reconsidered from time to time. I think I can claim that as far as this Government is concerned, it has always looked with great vision at realities presenting themselves to us every day, and has always acted accordingly in the best interests of South Africa. This is the approach of the National Government. It considers what is in the best interests of South Africa and its people.

We have come to the end of this Budget debate, and there are a few matters which were high-lighted in the course of the debate, or not which came to the fore in it, or which did not really highlighted, but which were very interesting. One of these matters is that as far as that side of the House is concerned, few members of the so-called Old Guard had the opportunity to take part in this debate. What is also significant, is that while the custom, the fashion, in the past to say a great deal about labour, one finds that very little was said about labour during this debate and that in spite of the fact that it was announced in advance that the United Party, because of their standpoint on Black labour unions, will have much to say on this matter. But in this debate it was referred to only in passing, only now and then. From this I want to infer that there is so much dissatisfaction among hon. members on the opposite side that the United Party did not see its way clear to talk on this matter.

The new policy of the United Party is that there should be Black trade unions. This policy was announced on 10 February 1973 by no less a person than the leader of the United Party in the Transvaal. According to a report in The Pretoria News he said on that occasion—

This is an announcement made by the hon. member for Yeoville on 10 February last year. What do we find now, in 1974, after the election? We find that the men in the United Party who have always spoken on labour questions, are conspicuous by their absence. The hon. member for Hillbrow took part in the debate, but did not speak on the matter. The hon. member for Maitland, a very faithful member, was sitting in this House and never said a single word. He did not even make an interjection. Although the hon. member for Simonstown does not normally speak on labour, we did not hear his voice during this debate either. The hon. member for Newton Park spoke, but he did not elaborate on labour either. The hon. member for Benoni did not speak either ...

He does not agree.

That is correct; he does not agree. He dare not agree, because if he returns to his constituency and has to tell his voters that he is in favour of mixed or Black trade unions, he will be compelled to take his belongings and leave Benoni. I say he dare not do it...

You pleaded for mixed sports teams.

He dare not do it and I want to invite the hon. member for Benoni in all friendliness this afternoon to say publicly whether he subscribes to the standpoint of the leader of the United Party in the Transvaal, Mr. Schwarz, when the latter says that there should be Black trade unions. I am convinced that he dare not do it because he knows what his voters will do to him. I also want to say that if ever there was a time when it was proved that the White labourer has a friend in the National Party, it is now, because the standpoint of the National Party has always been quite clear on this matter, which is that Black trade unions, mixed trade unions or whatever one may call it, will never be recognized as long as the National Party Government is in power. As a Nationalist it is once more my privilege this afternoon to give to the White workers outside the assurance that this will continue to be the standpoint of the National Party. It is remarkable—and the electorate outside should take note of this—that when an hon. member rises on the opposite side of the House, all he does is to talk about and plead for what should be done for the Black people, as though a great deal is not already being done for them. They never take up the cudgels for the White worker. The White workers never experience the privilege of the United Party saying to them that it supports them. They are prepared to sell him out and to destroy his future. I want to indicate how they are going to do it. Firstly, they are pleading for Black trade unions to be allowed. The hon. member for Maitland was not here a while ago, but I can tell him again what his Transvaal leader said in this connection.

I support it.

The hon. member for Maitland says he supports Black trade unions, and now the voters of Maitland know how to deal with him during the next election, that is to say if the Young Turks do not deal with him before then. But looking at him, I do not think he has another four years’ grace. Let me come back to the question of Black trade unions. According to the United Party there is only one true solution to all our labour problems. I do want to suggest in any way that we have no problems; that would be inconceivable and unrealistic. They suggest that there is only one solution, which is that Black trade unions should be allowed.

Who said so?

According to them this will create the true paradise and will cause all the problems to vanish like mist before the morning sun.

That is only one of the solutions.

Here they are pleading that the Blacks should be allowed into trade unions, but not one of the hon. members have told us whether these should be exclusively Black trade unions or whether these should be mixed trade unions. They have not told us yet and we should like to know whether these are going to be exclusively Black trade unions or whether these are going to be mixed trade unions.

Read the leader’s speech.

What leader?

The speech of last week.

Irrespective of whether these are going to be exclusively Black trade unions or whether these are going to be mixed trade unions, it is interesting to learn what the standpoint of the Black worker is in respect of these trade unions. As far as the standpoint is concerned, I have here a quotation from the Rand Daily Mail of 18 August 1972, in which Mr. Drake Koka, somebody not unknown to the United Party, said ...

Who was that?

Mr. Drake Koka is one of the spokesmen of the Black workers on labour questions. According to the Rand Daily Mail he said—

Why not?

You should ask him; you should not ask me. He is the spokesman of the corps of Black workers in this country. He says there can be no mixed trade unions. But he goes further. At the same time he says—

I can quote further if hon. members want me to. It is quite clear what is happening here. Here we have a Black man speaking on behalf of the Black workers in this country and he rejects the idea of mixed trade unions. By implication, he also rejects the idea of Black trade unions. They are not going to co-operate with the White trade unions. If they cannot even co-operate with their sister trade unions how the—I very nearly said deuce (“swernoot”)—devil, how on earth are they going to co-operate with the United Party?

Knowing full well that this is not the solution, the United Party now says:“We are in favour of allowing the Black man into the activities of the trade unions.” They say this for one reason only, which is that they feel the pressure from the Progressive Party and because they want to yield to the Young Turks in their own ranks. If we have to make out a case why these Black trade unions, or mixed trade unions, are unacceptable to us, I may point out that, in the first instance, it is the policy of this Government that there should be no mixing at the workers’ level either, and that the White worker will not sacrifice the position he held in the past.

There are also other dangers involved. Now, let it not be said that it is only the National Party that points out the dangers of allowing the Blacks into the trade unions. I have here a cutting from The Cape Times of 10 April 1973. Time does not allow me to read it in full, but I should like to read to hon. members the heading of this article. It reads: “Danger seen in premature Black unions.” Who said so? This was not said by a Minister or a National M.P. on this side of the House or even a Nationalist outside, but by Mr. Raymond Ackerman. We can go further and listen to what is said by men who know what they are talking about when it comes to the activities of trade unions. I have here a report of a speech made by Mr. W. E. Luke, chairman of the British-South African Trade Association.

Is it a “Jack”?

No, it is spelt differently. What did this person say? He said (translation)—

He also gave his reasons. He said (translation)—

The point I want to make is that the hon. members on the opposite side, the United Party, know that this Government is in power for ever. They said so through the hon. member for Durban Point. We have heard it from someone who knows what he is talking about, that they are now using the trade union movement to fight a democratically elected Government and to try and destroy it. They know that once the Black man obtains the right to belong to a trade union, the following logical step would be that he will have to be granted more political rights. Simply through his trade union he will be able to hold to ransom any Government, as has happened in England, about which Mr. Luke can speak with authority. That is what those hon. members must stand accused of, also before the general electorate. They have no confidence in the judgment of the electorate. As long as the voters send a National Government back into power ...

They are uninformed.

Yes, you may say they are uninformed, but you had the opportunity to enlighten them.

[Inaudible.]

They have no confidence in them and for that reason the interests of South Africa will be destroyed if the idea, the policy or the course followed by the United Party is the course South Africa has to follow ultimately. If ever there was a time ...

What is your course?

The solution is obvious.

Hence the strikes.

But who is responsible for the strikes? The people on that side of the House who put the idea into their heads are the cause of these strikes.

What do they pay their employees?

Yes, their employees are not even paid a decent consideration. As far as this side of the House is concerned, we piloted through this House certain legislation last year and I can furnish hon. members with the figures if they want me to prove how successful ...

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

I am terribly sorry, but my time is nearly up. As a matter of interest I may just mention that the works committees that were made possible here last year, have increased to 179, and the liaison committees to 1 099. This is the machinery that was created for the very reason to establish communication between the Black worker and the employer. It is also time to issue a warning to both the Black worker who in many respects has acted in an irresponsible manner up to now—I am not referring to the majority of them who behave in a responsible manner—and the employer that it is essential for them to make greater use of possibilities made available to them by this Government in order to bring about a communication channel between employee and employer.

Mr. Speaker, before I come back to this debate, you will permit me to make a few announcements in regard to next week’s business, for which I did not have the opportunity this morning. For the information of the House I should just like to announce that this debate will be concluded on Monday, when I shall reply to it. After my reply we shall, as usual, dispose of the first three Votes, namely those of the State President, the House of Assembly and the Senate. After that we shall proceed with legislation for the rest of the week until Friday. On Friday the Prime Minister’s Vote will be considered. I hope that we shall conclude the discussion of that Vote, as well as the Votes of the Minister of Finance, on Monday. The legislation with which we shall proceed next week will be, firstly, the Defence Further Amendment Bill followed by the Publications Bill.

Where we have come to the end of this lengthy—I might almost say tedious—debate, I am now faced with the very difficult task of replying, as the Minister of Finance, to all I have heard from both sides of the House. I am sure, Sir, that you will agree with me that one cannot help sympathizing with a Minister of Finance in a debate such as this.

We agree.

It reminds me of one of the economists—I think it was a Swiss economist—who a few months ago, when someone asked him what he would do if he were to be Minister of Finance, replied: “Oh, gosh, me? Minister of Finance? That is the most appalling thought! Even in my weirdest imagination I could not entertain the thought of being a Minister of Finance.” That is the sentiment, I think, that must be experienced by all those who have the sorry task of a Minister of Finance.

But, Sir, it has its compensations, too. I hope you will allow me, before I move the adjournment, to relate a personal experience as an example of the compensations experienced by a Minister of Finance. I dreamt the other night that I had departed this life. When I arrived on the other side, Peter was waiting for me; he welcomed me with open arms. Then Peter told me: “You will be entrusted with the task of putting the financial affairs of this place in order, because we are in a state of financial disorder here. You see, no Minister of Finance has been allowed in here for a very long time.”

Sir, I wish to conclude by referring to the speeches made by the other side of the House. In this regard I want to remind the House of a saying by Aesop.

†I think it was the fox who said to the crow after a noise made by the crow: “You have the voice, madam; but what you lack is the wit.” During the past week I have heard the voices from the other side of the House. These voices have come to me in torrents, in streams, like an avalanche. I would like to have some time to go back to examine these voices coming from the other side of the House in order to ascertain whether these voices also contained a measure of wit. I think it will be a very difficult task, and for that reason I wish to move—

That the debate be now adjourned.

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—