Mr. Speaker, for the information of the House I should like to state briefly what the business for the next week will be. We are, of course, starting today with the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister, with which we shall be proceeding on Monday as well as with the Finance Vote. On Tuesday we have the Post Office Budget and after that we shall, I hope, proceed with Finance once again. Late on Tuesday afternoon we shall discuss the motion by the hon. member for Sea Point. On Wednesday, Thursday and Friday we shall be taking the various stages of the Post Office Appropriation Bill and proceed in the meantime with the Committee Stage of the Publications Bill. If time permits, we shall also proceed on those days with the Bills as they appear on the Order Paper. On Monday, 9 September, the Defence Vote will be taken and on Tuesday, 10 September, the Foreign Affairs Vote.

Mr. Chairman, permit me, at the outset of the discussion of this Vote, to pay tribute to our deceased friend and former colleague, ex-Minister Blaar Coetzee. I believe that it came as just as much of a shock to all hon. members as it did to me late yesterday evening when I heard of the sudden death of a man who was the friend of all of us. In truth, I am convinced that all members of this House knew him as their friend and remembered him as their friend.

Mr. Coetzee had an exceptionally long career in public life, a career which extended from 13 September 1943 to 22 August 1972. It is not given to many people to serve in the Provincial Council, the House of Assembly and the Senate over such a long period of time. Not many people are aware that he served in the Provincial Council of the Cape Province from 13 September 1943 to 13 February 1948. In addition he held the position of provincial councillor and member of the Executive Committee in the Transvaal from 1 February 1949 to 12 March 1953. On 15 April 1953 he became a member of this House for the Vereeniging constituency. With effect from 5 April 1966 he was appointed as Deputy Minister, and served as such until 11 August 1968. From 12 August 1968 to 22 August 1972 he was a Minister and served as such in this House. Afterwards he represented South Africa for a short period as ambassador in Italy.

Our deceased friend was a colourful personality. He was a person who did things and went about his business in his own inimitable way. He was a person who threw himself passionately into everything which he did and said. His conduct over the years in this House testifies to that. He was a person who had strong and definite opinions on matters and who did not hesitate for a moment, whether it was right or wrong, to express himself very clearly. Above all, as I have said, we shall remember him as a faithful friend and as a person who, although he presented a robust appearance, was nevertheless very soft-hearted. That is how we will remember him, and it is in that spirit that I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to pay a word of tribute to his memory and express our deepest sympathy for his wife, his daughter, his son-in-law and his two sons. I think it was to the benefit of all of us to have known our deceased friend, and in humble tribute we should like on this occasion to lay a garland on his grave.

Mr. Chairman, this is not a formal motion of condolence and I accordingly ask for the privilege of the half-hour.

We on this side of the House would like to be associated with the remarks of the hon. the Prime Minister concerning our old friend and worthy enemy, Blaar Coetzee. During his 29 years in public life he was, as the hon. the Prime Minister has said, a colourful character. The first thought which came to my mind when I was asked to comment on his death was that we had lost one of the most colourful characters in our political life in South Africa. We knew him as a tough and hard fighter, as a great debater and as a fine parliamentarian, not so much in the manner in which he observed the rules, but in his ability to get round them when it was necessary for his own purposes. He remained a loveable character, a man without malice and one who had very few enemies except in the political sense. Our sympathy goes out to his wife and children. We have memories of somebody who was very loveable indeed in this House.

We are here today to discuss the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote. As we all know the Prime Minister commands the overall responsibility for the policies of his Government and the grand design of government in this country. That means that in the last resort he is responsible for the security both of the country and of all its peoples—White, Black and Brown. The buck stops with him, and it stops with him today. It stops with him today when we face some of the greatest challenges of our time and when there is a sense of growing urgency amongst all the peoples of South Africa. I believe the people want answers and that they want them today in this debate. They are disturbed by the evasions and diversionary tactics and by the deliberate refusals to face up to the realities, tactics which have characterized this Government in recent months.

I made mention earlier during this session of recent events in Portugal and in our neighbouring territories of Angola and Mozambique. I suggested that they created a new situation of the most serious kind for the whole complex of Southern Africa. What has happened in only a few months? Many of the things which we have come to rely on as being permanent or, at worst, subject only to slow erosion, have been shaken to their foundations and are never going to be the same again no matter what we think about them. New concepts have suddenly been introduced into our strategic and political calculations. We are going to have to think, and think fast, and hard and bold. I do not propose today to try and trace the course of these guerilla wars in Mozambique and Angola, but I do want to draw attention to a few factors which are of interest to South Africa. These wars have not differed from other insurgent wars in our period. Just like in Algeria and Vietnam the strategy of the insurgents has been to achieve drastic political and social change. They set out to do this either with the support and acquiescence of the local population. I was most interested to liberty or by the threat that they will destroy its resistance. Military power alone cannot defeat this type of insurgent activity, because they disperse before strength, they concentrate against local weakness, and the only ultimate method of defence you have is the minds and the hearts of the local population. I was most interested to read what a contemporary historian, Arthur M. Schlesinger, had to say in summing up the Vietnam war. He put it this way:

Portugal, despite her ideological convictions and the military determination of her people, has felt the predictable, practical results of a war of attrition. First of all, she came under growing international pressure. Secondly, the liberation movement received increased communist support, better training and better arms. Thirdly, the high cost of fighting guerilla war and terrorism, which is always higher for the defender than for the attacker, diverted essential sources which were necessary for her economic growth in metropolitan Portugal itself. The result, fourthly, was that thousands of young Portuguese started emigrating from the country. They saw it as the backyard of Europe and went elsewhere in the Common Market countries. Fifthly, the army, until then the main support of the traditional Portuguese system, became convinced that a purely military solution could not succeed. Meanwhile, and it is important to note this, economic and constitutional development in the territories was very limited. Prime Minister Caetano in 1971 and 1972 introduced certain reforms, and was faced with difficulties with the hardline traditionalists in Portugal. In 1973 there was development in Mozambique, but up to the end there was very little real power in the hands of the territories themselves and frustration became all too evident. I think it was Gen, de Arriaga in Mozambique who recognized that a military campaign would never be successful if you could not kill terrorists faster than your own people were defecting to the enemy. The result, as I think will be testified to by our members of Parliament who visited Mozambique last year, was a tremendous effort to develop the country economically, even at the cost of spending money on military objectives. But whether those steps came in time, remains to be seen.

Then came Gen. Spinola’s Portugal and the Future. He had become convinced in Guinea that in Africa you could not win an insurgent war with military weapons alone. His book had such a reaction amongst the hardline traditionalists in Portugal that he was sacked and lost his job. That resulted in the action of the army against the Government and the return of Gen. Spinola as the strong man in Portugal. For this reason, his ideas have to be of interest to us, though it may seem in retrospect that he perhaps came to power too late and not too soon. I think it is quite clear that what he is working for is a peaceful settlement, that he is prepared to pay big prices for it and hoping at the same time to retain sufficient initiative and bargaining power to proceed with the rest of his programme. What his chances are of achieving that programme, is very difficult for me to assess. The Prime Minister is in a much better position to assess that—perhaps he will let us into the picture today—just as he is in a better position to tell us what he believes the future course of events is going to be in those territories. But, obviously, self-determination is going to leave the way open to a rejection of the General’s federal concept and a claim to full independence. What happens to us then? I believe it would be wrong to assume that the present Portuguese Government is already committed to a policy of total withdrawal from Africa and the surrender of its authority to independent movements. But whatever the outcome, South Africa is going to have to live with it. After all, we are part of the continent of Africa. For that reason I welcome the statement by the hon. the Prime Minister a little while ago that South Africa has no intention of interfering, that it was interested in stable government in the neighbour states and ready to co-operate with one or more Black governments to this end. But, of course, this is not the crux of the problem for South Africa. Good relations with neighbouring States should not be difficult of solution, but what is disturbing is the long-term implication of continuing insurgent initiatives throughout Southern Africa. It is in this regard that the changes are so significant to South Africa, for whatever their nature may be and whatever may result from them, they will dramatically reduce both the time and the space which stand between us and possible insurgent initiatives against South Africa itself.

I believe that if the Portuguese Government succeeds in its intentions, it may buy valuable time for South Africa. The ideas which they have are, in the first instance, government by the consent of the African people to make them less vulnerable to insurgent warfare. In the event of independence and a Black majority Government, probably the same considerations will apply. Such a Government, while not hostile to South Africa directly, may yet willingly or unwillingly under pressure make itself a base for insurgent pressure against South Africa. Fortunately for us the interdependence of South Africa and Mozambique in particular is so considerable that it could create strong disincentives even to such an independent Government to aid or sponsor insurgency across our common frontiers. We know of the great mutual advantages both to us and to Mozambique of the Mozambique Convention and the related agreements. We know that those advantages have grown over the years and they would not likely be jeopardized by any Government. We know about the arrangements in regard to labour, about the deferred payment of that labour and we know about the use of Lourenço Marques as a guaranteed port for the main mining and industrial areas of the Southern Transvaal. We know about the flow of trade and the high degree of interdependence. We know that these are further being re-inforced by the Cabora Bassa scheme and the agreement in this regard. We know that with regard to Angola there is the Kunene River Basin Agreement. Whatever the new régimes in these territories may be, it is likely that these benefits are going to flow in the future more directly to the local Government and less to metropolitan Portugal as in the past. Obviously we shall have to seek to develop these mutual interests even further, because I believe that they provide a compelling inducement to retain political relationships on a sane and sensible basis.

What plans are the Government making; what have they in view? I believe it would be wrong to assume that our major defences against insurgency have already been dismantled or that the land spaces which act as a buffer between us and the insurgent bases of the North are of no further value. However, I believe it would be equally wrong—this is the point—to underestimate the reduced dimensions of space and time that must now be brought into strategic account or to fail to learn the lessons of recent history in the countries to the north of us. One of the gravest errors of all would be to delay so long in reaching a just accommodation with your own population, that one will eventually be forced to seek agreement with the forces of insurgency and terrorism from outside.

What are the lessons to be learnt? What are the lessons that are important to South Africa? I believe that the first of those lessons is that time is of the essence. Once one understands the true nature of insurgent warfare, then it becomes evident that you can achieve victory but you can only achieve victory if you make use of the time available to you to create conditions in which insurgency cannot succeed. That is a lesson which is going to be of particular application in certain of our homelands on our northern boundaries at the present time.

The second lesson that we have to learn is that traditional concepts and outmoded policies very often lead to mental blockages at a time when swift action and swift adaptation have to be taken. We know that the verkrampte elements in Lisbon were far too long deaf and intolerant of the pleadings of the enthusiastic patriots in their ranks. I believe, Sir, that we have similar patriots in our ranks. I wonder if we are giving enough attention to some of the things that they are saying. I wonder whether we have listened enough to what a man such as Gen. Hiemstra said about the Coloured people. I wonder whether we listen enough to what people like Chief Mangope and Prof. Ntsanwisi have been saying or whether we regard them too lightly. I want to remind the House of what Prof. Ntsanwisi said on 27 July this year—

There is a third lesson to be learnt. That is that the stubborn delay by Portugal in seeking a remedy for the isolation of the growing international hostility which had impeded her revival of growth, was undoubtedly one of the main causes of the collapse of her policies. Portugal and her overseas territories were of tremendous strategic importance, like South Africa. Despite that she was slowly rejected by the Western world to which she essentially belongs, she was slowly pushed out of the inner circle of the community of nations and she finished up very much on her own. I believe that while it is right to resist interference in the conduct of one’s domestic policy, it is nevertheless right to recognize that domestic and foreign policy have grown inseparable today. The only way to maintain full domestic sovereignty is to ensure that one’s conduct of affairs is within the limitations of toleration of the international community of nations. Once you incur the hostility, once you incur the enmity of the people who should be your allies, you cease to be able to apply your own domestic policies. It is no longer possible today either to live or fight in isolation in this modern world.

There is a fourth lesson we have to learn from the Portuguese experience and that is the danger of creating representative institutions in name only, representative institutions which have no real responsibility, because power continues to be held elsewhere. Unless there is a real sharing of power, of meaningful participation in those matters which concern their daily lives and are of real importance to them, you can never satisfy the aspiration of any people at all. We on this side of the House have tried to read the message from the Portuguese territories, as we have grasped the compulsions of the times in which we live. It is precisely for these reasons that we have accepted that meaningful and urgent change is necessary and vital to the defence and security of South Africa. I say that, Sir, because we realize—nobody knows that better than the hon. the Prime Minister—that the Whites alone cannot ensure the safety of South Africa. They have the money; they have the know-how to give them a semblance of power, but the great preponderance of Blacks, their dispersal over wide areas sparsely populated by Whites, makes it impossible to boast that we can go it alone in South Africa at the present time. The Prime Minister knows this as well as I do. He knows that his responsibility is for the safety, not only of the Whites, but of the Blacks and the Black homelands as well, and of the Indians and Coloureds. In spite of all the talk and all the theorizing which we have had from this Government, when it comes to the crunch this Parliament, in which we sit, which is elected by 3¾ million people, is the only Parliament that has any real say in the destiny of South Africa. This is the only one. What the others say is advisory and consultative, but it is in this Parliament that the power rests. Sir, what I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister today is this: What sort of team-work does he think he can rely on in respect of all races in South Africa when the pressures of our time are beginning to build up, when there is an urgent need for preparation to ensure South Africa’s safety? I know he will tell me that our peoples are all loyal and that they are all patriotic, but it is also vitally necessary for our safety that they should be welded into one properly co-ordinated team. You see, Sir, we take White co-operation for granted, but no security is possible without a strong economy. The Blacks and the Browns and the Indians together provide 75% of our labour force; they keep the wheels of industry turning and increasingly Blacks and Indians and Coloureds are going to be entrusted with our safety in the armed forces. There is another side of the coin, too, Mr. Chairman, and that is that the non-Whites are going to be the first target for subversive activity in South Africa. Vast areas of this country are going to be at the mercy of agitators, and while the rural areas may, so to speak, be in the front line, those more sensitive and more susceptible to political subversion are settled in the very heart of South Africa, in the urban areas, and their contribution to national security on the homefront is of the very greatest importance indeed. Sir, for all these groups, scattered as they are over the length and breadth of South Africa, to be efficiently and effectively co-ordinated into a team capable of meeting the new challenges with which we are likely to be faced, requires total commitment and dedication from all sections of the population. Mr. Chairman, I think the time is past when you can expect that total commitment from people who have no real say and are, in fact, meaningfully able to consult with each other on matters of mutual and vital concern. It is for these reasons, Sir, that I have suggested in the past and call again today most urgently for the establishment by the hon. the Prime Minister for a permanent multi-racial advisory council for South Africa. The Prime Minister has a body of this kind in South-West Africa. If it is good enough for South-West Africa in world opinion, why is it not good enough for South Africa? So far, Sir, I have had no adequate reasons given me. The hon. the Prime Minister knows that I would like to see something much more meaningful, something with real powers that could weld our people in a great national effort, something like a federal assembly, constitutionally recognized. Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister is in power; he has other ideas. I believe that the least for which he can settle if he wants real team-work is an advisory council of this kind.

Sir, having said that, let us take a look at the population groups in South Africa and ask ourselves exactly what the position is. What sort of team-work can we expect from, for instance, the Coloured community today? We got their answer from a man like Mr. Curry when he said—

Sir, he is not an extremist agitator; he is deputy leader of the Labour Party.

We have heard that before.

The hon. gentleman says he has heard it before. I hope he has read it and absorbed it; I hope the truth of it has got home to him.

Sir, this is a dangerous state of affairs as far as South Africa is concerned and I think we have to ask ourselves whether we are not making exactly the same mistake with the Coloureds as the Portuguese made with some of their people. Have we not given them a representative institution in name only, the Coloured Representative Council, with no real power at all and with the same fatal results as we see in the Portuguese territories? The Coloureds have rejected their representative council. All the parties want direct representation in Parliament. The present arrangement does not satisfy their aspirations. There is long standing frustration and smouldering dissension. Yet, in recent meetings between the hon. the Prime Minister and the leaders of the Coloured political parties there seems to have been an implicit assumption that this is a problem which can be solved at our leisure, after long consideration and eventual agreement on various constitutional reforms. Have we really learned so little from the Portuguese that we do not realize how vitally important time is in this regard, and how urgent this matter is? Does the hon. gentleman not realize that as long as the Coloured people are denied what they regard as being their fundamental rights, they are going to seek the political power to achieve those fundamental rights? Consequently, they are making accelerated political demands to try to achieve those rights, perhaps faster than our own constitutional structure and the social and economic capacity of their own community can absorb. Surely that is the path to further frustration and further conflict. Would it not be a more sensible approach to resolve some of these fundamental grievances now? They are mostly social and economic. They will have to be put right anyway in time. Is it not right to try to resolve them now, before a change is forced upon us by political confrontation? If this could be done, and the confidence and dignity of the Coloured people can be guaranteed, I believe the nature of their eventual political participation is something which might well be negotiated in a relaxed atmosphere and a feeling in which there is reciprocal patience and goodwill. It is for this reason that I welcome the ferment in Government thinking on the future of the Cape Coloured people, because it shows that even in Government ranks there is a new tide and a new trend of events in South Africa.

What I want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister today is where that trend is taking us; where is he leading his party? We had a remarkable speech from the hon. member for Moorreesburg a few days ago in which, if I understood him correctly, he rejected a separate homeland for the Coloured as well as renewed representation in this House. He also rejected the idea of permanent “baasskap” of one nation over another living in one State, just as he rejected the idea that if there were two Parliaments, one would always be subservient to the other. He spoke about escaping from the dilemma of discrimination and of the Coloureds as Brown South Africans. He said that Whites and Coloureds belonged to the same side, and he emphasized the necessity of increasing points of contact. He spoke of two things which struck me particularly: The development of a relationship between the Coloureds and the Indians and the White nation, the White people, in South Africa which could not be called permanent subordination, and the possibility of a statutory consultative body between the Coloured Representative Council and the White Parliament which the hon. the Prime Minister has touched on before. Sir, there has been a great deal of speculation about what that speech actually meant. The hon. the Minister of the Interior said that he agreed with it, but subsequently he made a speech in Pretoria before the Rapportryers, I think, reported in Die Burger on Monday, which seemed to give a slightly different impression. But that does not interest me. What does interest me is whether the hon. the Prime Minister agrees with it. That is what we want to know. We want to know whether he agrees with it and what his plans are in respect of this statutory consultative body. We also want to know what its function will be in respect of that common ground which he accepts exists between the Coloureds and the Whites in South Africa. If we are to achieve that team-work which is essential for our security, then this is not, I repeat not, a matter which can be left to our children to decide. The time is now.

Who said so?

I said so! I said it could not be left for our children to decide. It has to be decided now. If such a body is going to be given real power, if its planning is at an advanced stage, it could herald a great step forward in the field of race relations. It could perhaps serve as a model for co-operation with other groups and could form an embryo for a body in which other race groups could be represented.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, it would appear that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has not completed his argument. If this is so, I should like to give him the opportunity to do so.

I am grateful to the hon. the Prime Minister. The problem of the Cape Coloured people is quite obviously not the most intractable problem to be solved in South Africa today, but it is in the nature of things the most contemporary and the most immediate. I want to say that if the Government can find no incisive way to resolve that problem then there are two conclusions which must inevitably be drawn. The first of these is that the Government has neither the ability nor the courage to deal effectively and timeously with the other great problems which loom up behind this one. The second is that failure to deal quickly and effectively with this problem will complicate the others enormously and multiply the obstacles. I believe that the Coloured people have put the sincerity and courage of the Government’s race policy to a critical test. Both at home and abroad the reputation of the Government is going to depend on its ability to deal quickly and justly with just this issue. They are no longer in the comfortable field of theory and postponed promises. They are concerned now not with a matter of party-political advantage or party-political polemic. It is the peace and safety of South Africa itself which is at stake in solving this matter, not the safety and security of the Nationalist Party. I want to say that so far as the United Party is concerned, we have no doubt that our duty to South Africa lies before our duty to any party. If the hon. the Prime Minister acts in the true interests of South Africa he need have no doubt in regard to the response of the United Party. I want to say to him today that if he were to be deterred from doing his duty because he feared the reaction of recalcitrants in his own ranks, I hope he would be fortified by the attitude of this side of the House.

If there is a question mark behind the team-work and co-operation of the Coloureds, what is the position in respect of the urban Bantu? In respect of their treatment, I believe that we have transgressed and infringed every single lesson which we should have learnt from the Portuguese experience. The way we are treating them flies in the face of everything that we should have learnt from what we have seen to the north of us. Their political insitutions are meaningless to them. The denial of home ownership and the invasions of their enjoyment of undisturbed family life are in obedience to out-moded policies which are obviously causing mental blockages in refusing to recognize the permanency of these people. Thirdly, nothing does more to place us beyond the pale in the international sphere than our treatment of the urban Bantu in South Africa at the present time. The manner in which they are organizing strikes in the economic field makes it perfectly clear once again that time is of the essence in dealing with these people. The Government’s policy denies these people the very elements of stability. They live in a sort of political noman’s land; yet they are of vital importance because they are integrated in our economy and they have a double-barrelled effect—they could, in the first place, be dangerous if they got under the wrong influence and at the same time their goodwill is absolutely essential for our economic security on our home front. Yet they are a people with a mixed loyalty. They are discouraged from having loyalty to South Africa but encouraged to have a loyalty to an emergent homeland, which they do not know in most cases and which they find difficult to develop. The system under which they work and live has brought in its wake injustices, grievances and humiliations which could make them receptive to the propaganda of any group of people or any party promising to relieve those injustices for them. They are the most sophisticated group amongst their people, but the most receptive to propaganda. I hope we are not going to find what the Portuguese found; when there was talk of a cease-fire they found elements of the terrorist groups in the heart of their industrial areas and in the living quarters of towns like Lourenço Marques and Luanda, respectively in Mozambique and Angola. The Portuguese never realized they were there. I hope we are not going to find that the result of these grievances is going to be that we are going to find amongst our own Black embryo insurgent and terrorist friends when the time comes. This is a force which is not to be underestimated. It is a force of immense strength which has not yet been activated or which has been activated only to a limited degree in the economic sphere with the organization of strikes which to date has been the most pertinent and dangerous sign of non-co-operation with the Whites in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister makes great play of his consultation and contact with the Black people of South Africa, but unless I am very wrong judging from the statements in the Press, it seems to me that the hon. the Prime Minister relies on the homeland leaders to interpret for him the feeling of the Blacks in our urban areas. They are a completely different type of person with different thinking, different aspirations and different ideas. It does seem to me that they have an entirely different social structure and entirely different standards from those who pertain in the homelands. I wonder whether one could say for one moment that the hon. the Prime Minister is getting a correct and accurate reflection of their thinking from the homeland leaders with whom he consults. We talk about labour unrests and the hon. the Prime Minister and his Ministers talk about better communication, better dialogue and more consultation. Surely that is just as important, if not more so, in the field of government and administration in the ordinary every day going of our lives. I believe that the situation has become so urgent that the Government cannot continue to perpetuate the myth that urban Blacks are no permanently settled in the so-called White areas. Until they realize this, they are not going to be in the position to accommodate them neither in a political sense nor in a sense that will satisfy their grievances. I believe that the lack of solution for the urban Blacks is going to have a spill-over effect into the homelands because the homeland leaders necessarily will be involved in putting the case for these people for whom they are the only means of contact. In the event of any kind of guerilla warfare or insurgency, economic peace is essential and this depends on your urban Blacks. Our security is dependent upon their goodwill, it is absolutely essential that we should have that for peaceful development and it is absolutely essential that they should identify themselves with our objectives. A matter which has the most interest for these people is their negotiations for better working conditions with their employers. Here again I have expressed my disagreement with the present system and offered the Prime Minister an alternative. May I emphasize here once again that unless there is a proper channel of consultation with these people—and I believe that such a channel could be by representation on a permanent multi-racial advisory council—the very base on which our security depends could be in danger.

Mr. Chairman, the argument concerning our security advanced by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is very far-fetched. He made the accusation that the political institutions established and envisaged by the Government for the non-White race groups are meaningless. He linked this to the example of what had taken place in the Portuguese countries on our borders and also, necessarily, to the political institutions for the non-White race groups which existed there. I want to accuse him at once of making an absurd comparison. It is a comparison which does not hold good. But it is also a dangerous comparison in these times we are living in. To compare the political institutions which are already being made use of by the non-White race groups in South Africa, with those which existed in our neighbouring Portuguese states, is a sign of ignorance. The hon. member should ask the hon. member for Durban Point, who has personal knowledge of this, what is comparable in this regard. Since I do not want to offend our Portuguese neighbours I shall not take the argument any further.

Go ahead and say it.

Surely it is common knowledge that the difficult situation in these neighbouring states of ours arises from the fact that Gen. Spinola and whoever is governing Portugal now, are in the uncomfortable situation of not knowing with whom to negotiate because no representative political organization exists in these regions. There are only militant fighters in these regions. For the sake of relations with our Portuguese neighbours, therefore, I do not want to take this argument any further and say that they neglected their duty. However, when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition lays accusations at the door of the Government on the basis of that argument, he is doing a dangerous thing. In the times in which we are living, it does not behove us in this Parliament to tell any race group outside Parliament, or to suggest to them, that if it so happens that they are not happy with their political institutions at the moment, they are to bring pressure to bear since there are other people who are of the same opinion. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to lay this charge at the door of the Government, I want to ask him to have more than one look—because sell it he cannot, in any event—at the policy which his own party presents at this level. What does the United Party offer the non-White race groups in this country? Since the hon. Leader has been talking about the Coloureds now, I want to ask him what his party offers the Coloureds? In its latest policy statement, the United Party intimated that it would establish a federal umbrella-body. He was too afraid to call it a parliament. The Coloured population group, inter alia, would also be given representation on this body via two Coloured Representative Councils. The extent of their representation would depend on their contribution to the welfare of the country. How that is to be determined, no one knows. In other words, a dispensation for the Coloureds that is completely in the air is being envisaged for them. If this umbrella federal parliament were to be given the full power and this parliament were to surrender its powers to that parliament, in which, according to these proposals, the Coloureds would have minimal representation, surely this would satisfy no one. On the other hand, however, we also know, after all, that in the meantime a struggle is still in progress within that party concerning the question of this Parliament. [Interjection.] Yes, and the United Party also states that in this Parliament, as we are assembled in it at the moment, the Coloured will have no place. We know that in the meantime there is still furious argument on that side of the House about the question whether this Parliament should hand over its powers to that federal body, which they do not even want to call a Parliament. Some say it should, for others it is meaningless. Others say, “That will be the day”. That being so, who is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to come and complain that the political institutions created by this Government for the non-White races are meaningless?

Time will not allow me to indicate to you what has been done by the executive of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council over the past 4½ years of its existence.

And what are they saying now?

The question is not what they are saying now. Politicising and a search for leadership is taking place in their ranks at present, and now the hon. member wants to take a hand in that. Should the hon. member not rather ask what has been achieved by the executive of the Coloured Persons Representative Council? Hon. members and I, too, should be grateful to them for this, because they did it in the interests of their own people. What is more, they did this under a system which enabled them for the first time to do something positive in this way for their own people.

I want to mention as an example, a Budget of R46 million in the first year, a Budget decided on by the executive and the Coloured Persons Representative Council.

They have nothing to say about it; all they can say is “yes”.

They have a great deal to say about it. They decide how it is to be applied. This House decides what the total amount will be, but they decide on its allocation to the various services. Who is better able to judge the priorities in regard to services for their people than the Coloured Persons Representative Council itself? That amount has already risen to R111 million. Another example is that today the staff of the Administration of Coloured Affairs, which has been extended over the past five years, is today manned by Coloureds to the extent of 94% and they had to be trained in the process. The training of staff for service within the Administration and in other places is progressing with rapid strides. The number of schools and school-going children has risen impressively over these five years in comparison with any previous period in the history of the Coloured population of our country. I could continue in this way by mentioning innumerable examples of how the people have in fact been given bread and not stones, how, through the activities and the zeal of their own people and by means of a political body of their own, positive foundations have been laid for their progress.

But I want to go further and say that over the past five years, numerous resolutions have been adopted by the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council as a whole under this dispensation, which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says is meaningless. Some of them have been carried out by this Government; others it has not yet been possible to carry out. But I want to give you a few examples of resolutions, which have been adopted and implemented. Inherent in the resolutions adopted, was the urge to make use of the system of political dispensations of their own and to utilize the benefits flowing from them. I want to mention the resolution adopted by the Coloured Persons Representative Council in which they asked for the next rector of the University of the Western Cape to be a Coloured man of learning. That was carried into effect.

That is how it should have been originally, since the establishment of the university.

The hon. member and his colleagues called it “a college in the bush” at the time, and now he says that the rector should have been a Coloured from the outset. Very well, if that teaching staff had been available, then I say that one had to make a start somewhere in realizing the ideal one wanted ultimately to realize. But is the hon. member living in a fool’s paradise? Does the hon. member not know that we are dealing with a population group that has to be helped from the bottom up?

Your progress is too slow in this regard.

I want to mention other examples. The Coloured Persons Representative Council has adopted a resolution that more management committees for Coloureds are to be created with local authorities. The number of management committees, which were originally nominated, but which are now elected with the elected members in the majority, has risen tremendously as a result of the interest taken in the resolution of the Coloured Persons Representative Council and the attention given to it by the executive of that council. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am glad to have the opportunity of discussing further the issues which are affecting the Coloured people of our country. I am also grateful to have the opportunity to support my hon. leader in the plea he made this morning for a better dispensation for the Coloured people in our country. He stressed the urgency of the matter and I do not believe that he in any way overstated the case. I think the whole of South Africa must be grateful to the hon. Leader of the Opposition for raising this pertinent issue. What distresses me is the reply of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Coloured Relations.

However, I do want to take this opportunity to congratulate him on being appointed to this post. I wish him well in the carrying out of his new responsibilities. He has undertaken a big task and I am sure that he will give it his very best attention. We on this side of the House wish the hon. the Deputy Minister well.

In his speech the hon. the Deputy Minister evaded all the issues that my hon. leader posed in this debate. The hon. the Deputy Minister spoke about our policy, but it is not our policy which is the subject of this debate; it is the Government’s policy about which we are talking. We want answers from the hon. the Deputy Minister.

There was no time to reply to all the questions.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says there was no time. I hope that we shall get the answers then from hon. members before this debate is over. We are not the only ones who demand such answers; the whole of South Africa demands answers, especially the Coloured people. These issues cannot be evaded any further.

The hon. the Deputy Minister raised the question of the Coloured Representative Council. I believe that that institution has done a great service for the Coloured people. I believe that there is much to commend in what has been done. I think what is most commendable is the tremendous effort which the Coloured people themselves have made to make a success of that institution. Many members co-operated. They also tried to make the system of management committees work. They tried to make the whole structure of local government for the Coloured people work. I think that we can take our hats off to the Coloured people because they tried to make the system work.

In 1961 Dr. Verwoerd made a very important statement in which he outlined the whole approach of the Government to the Coloured people. In that statement he said that within ten years from that date all matters relating to the Coloured people would be in their own hands. Fourteen years have elapsed since that statement was made and I do not think that with the wildest stretching of our imagination we can say that anything like all the matters appertaining to the future of the Coloured people are at present in their hands.

Can you name these matters?

That is why we have had that resolution which all the parties in the Coloured Representative Council supported rejecting the present form of the Coloured Representative Council. It was not only the Labour Party, who had the majority votes at the time, but also the Federal Party who supported the motion, and this party’s main political plank all the years has been to co-operate with the Government and to try to make the Council work. The reason why they passed this resolution is simply that they do not believe that the Government has fulfilled the promise of the late Dr. Verwoerd which he made in 1961, that in 10 years from that date all the powers appertaining to the Coloured people would in fact be in their hands.

Are you prepared to name the powers that must go over but have not gone over?

There have been welcome indications recently from the Government benches that they are prepared to take steps to bring about a greater measure of goodwill between the White and Coloured people. The Government is prepared to take steps to defuse the feelings of hate and frustration which are building up at an alarming rate amongst the Coloured people. We are grateful that the Prime Minister is having meetings with the Coloured people; we are grateful that he has planned further meetings. I do not know what it is about, but I believe that out of these discussions something will develop. The Prime Minister must decide to indicate not only to the Coloured people but also to the country and the Opposition, how he sees the future of the Coloured people. The late Dr. Verwoerd spelt it out in 1961. He then made a very clear statement of the Government’s policy.

I am asking you again to tell us what we have not done that we should have done.

I want to answer the Prime Minister. The late Dr. Verwoerd said that all matters pertaining to the Coloured people would be placed in their hands. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister what say a Coloured man has in the planning of Coloured group areas. The hon. the Prime Minister’s Department of Planning is responsible for allocating group areas, defining their boundaries and managing their planning. What say has the Coloured man in that particular department on an issue which vitally affects his future? That department decides where he will live, how he will live, how far from his work. At this stage, 14 years after Dr. Verwoerd’s statement, the Coloured man still does not have that authority. Not even in the planning of the Coloured townships, which is done by the Department of Community Development, is there a single Coloured representative to say what kind of houses should be built, what they should look like, or what facilities and services should be provided. These are all done by the Department of Community Development in which the Coloured people have no say.

What say did they have in District Six? They are not on the Community Development Board.

What say have they in their taxation? What say have they in deciding how the revenue which accrues from the taxation which they do pay, is spent on their affairs? They have no say whatsoever. To return to the late Dr. Verwoerd’s statement, I believe that we have not fulfilled that promise. And because we have not fulfilled that promise we have had this motion in the Coloured Council. With all the urgency at my command I say that the Coloured people are losing faith in the White man of South Africa. This is an extremely serious situation, a situation which we simply cannot ignore. There are many things which we can do that will not cost South Africa a single cent. The first one that I want to name is the question of courtesy, and here I want to back the hon. the Prime Minister who said that in our relationship with the non-White people of South Africa we must learn to be courteous and to behave in the right way. I believe that this was a wise and sensible statement. It can cost us nothing; it can only pay dividends of goodwill. Sir, it will cost us nothing to give the Coloured people representation today in the department of the Minister of Planning; it will cost nothing, but the voice of the Coloured man, speaking on those things which vitally affect the future of the Coloured people, will be heard. Exactly the same can be done in the case of the Department of Community Development; it will cost us nothing.

In fact, in all Government departments.

Let us consult these people in planning beaches and other facilities for them. We have some of the most magnificent beaches in the world in South Africa; it will cost us nothing to develop them. Let us give the Coloured people a say in deciding where those beaches will be.

Sea Point.

Sir, do you know what the Coloured people say? They say that if you see a beach which is marked “Moenie daar swem nie; gevaarlik”, it is usually a beach set aside for the Coloured people. Sir, Coloured people are saying this; I am not saying it; this is the feeling they have. [Time expired.]

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat did his best to support his hon. Leader and did not make very much progress. I want to point out that the Government, in all its attempts to create a new dispensation for the Coloured population in South Africa, is encountering two important stumbling-blocks. In the first place we have a group of the Coloured leaders corps, led by the Labour Party, which adopts a completely negative attitude to the opportunities created for them by the Government in recent years, so negative that some of their own people, from their own ranks, are beginning to express serious doubts as to whether they will achieve anything with it. But what is more, Sir, added to that is the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, and hon. members on that side, play along with those people and tell them in so many words that they are on the right road. In other words, one has here a kind of alliance which is totally negative ...

Unholy.

... and which even prevents the Coloureds from utilizing the opportunities which are being created for them.

Opportunities such as what?

Sir, I want to put this question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and to hon. members opposite: The Leader of the Labour Party declared in the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council that they want representation in this Parliament, and then he envisaged that at least 40 elected Coloured representatives should have representation here. They want to come here and speak; those are the words he used. They want to come here, have representation and speak here. Sir, I now want to put this question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who indicates that he is in agreement with these people in their aspirations: Is he prepared to give them 40 representatives here; to say to them: “Come and sit here, come and speak here?” Is he prepared to comply with their request? He must enlighten us on this score. Then I want to put this question to the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party: Is he willing, since he indicates to them and to the world that he will create a new dispensation for them, to make everything possible for them here, to give them that representation? Is he prepared to confer with them? On the basis of what we have seen of the Progressive Party policy, it is a meagre, token representation which the Progressive Party is prepared to give them; it is a token representation, it is no effective representation. Sir, what does this Government offer the Coloured population in terms of the present situation, and on the bodies which have been created? I want to repeat that the Coloured population has at least been afforded an opportunity to govern themselves. I am prepared to admit that the degree to which they govern themselves at present is very limited, but it was at least a beginning, and the hon. the Prime Minister and this side of the House have never said: “This small portion you may have, and then it must stop; you can have charge of your own education or your own local authorities, but not of other matters.” A start was made with government for the Coloureds by Coloureds, and I want to say here in all certainty today that it is the standpoint of this side of the House and of the hon. the Prime Minister that along this course there is a world awaiting them to develop and to exploit. And let us admit that the Coloured population is still relatively inexperienced—and this they admit themselves—in the science of government of a country or of a population group. They have tremendous problems of poverty, of over-population and of poor housing among their own number. The problems confronting them are so great that they cannot cope with them without the help of the White Government. But now they are being prevented even from making a proper start by the propaganda which is constantly being pumped into them that they should refuse to accept it. On more than one occasion I have attended the opening of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council, and I must say that on each occasion I was shocked by the negative attitude of the Labour group. For what they have there, they can find nowhere else, not only as regards the building, but also as regards the opportunities they have before them. And if we have to discuss the matter further with them now, the question in my mind is this: What opportunities do you want to give them, except that you are creating the suggestion that they may come to this Parliament and govern over Whites, and occupy a place and play a part in White politics in South Africa? Is that what is being suggested to them? Is that what we are suggesting to them? Then we say on behalf of the Government and on behalf of this side of the House, the National Party, that this is precisely what we want to prevent. We cannot place a lesser developed population group in a position of power in a two-party system to come and play football with politics and with the government of the more developed part of the population. On the White population and its Government in South Africa rests the responsibility not only of looking after its own interests, but also of acting in a protective way towards the Bantu, the Coloureds and the Indians in South Africa, and of guiding their development and their welfare to the best of its ability and in accordance with the funds which it has at its disposal. The Coloured population has a tremendous backlog to make up. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to a representative in the planning department, and representatives here and there, control over housing, etc. There is absolutely nothing to prevent the Coloureds from having a say in these matters in future, but it has to grow out of the bodies which they are themselves engaged in developing, and it has to grow out of the sense of responsibility, the sense of fairness, the just actions of these people themselves on the bodies which have been created for them. And until such time as this happens, their own people will say to the Prime Minister that he should please not deliver them into the hands of irresponsible people. The Government, through the Department of Coloured Administration, is training an entire corps of administrative officers from the Coloured population to do that responsible work. In the past hon. members opposite took a delight in disparaging all these things. When a start was made with the University of the Western Cape, it was denigrated and described as a “bush college”. In other words, it was really being suggested to these people that they should not utilize this amenity, this opportunity. Who cleared the way in South Africa for a Coloured to become rector of a university in this country? Who cleared the way?

The National Party Government.

The same Government which established the “bush college”. Under their dispensation was it ever possible for a Coloured, anywhere in South Africa, to become head or rector of a university? Could he? Never! But now that that opportunity is there, now that the number of students at that university is growing, now the cry is raised: “But he should have been a Coloured from the start”. A few years ago we said that this would eventuate—more professors, more responsible people and a Coloured rector. Now that this has been borne out, the cry is: “It is a little too late.” The National Party Government will create the future for the Coloureds. It will establish and develop a policy which will afford these people an opportunity of governing themselves completely.

Mr. Chairman, I think the speech of the hon. member for Piketberg has been as disappointing as was the speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister. We are here this morning to learn what the policy of the Government is in regard to the future of the Coloured people.

You are the expert on Coloured affairs.

It is not our policy that is being debated but the Government’s policy. They have employed the same tactics today as they have employed during other debates. They have avoided the issue. [Interjections.] I hope when the hon. the Prime Minister replies that he will have more clarity in regard to this matter than we have had from the two hon. members whom I have referred to. The hon. the Minister is looking at me as though he wants to tell me something. I am looking hopefully back at him because I hope that this is the case. The hon. member for Piketberg raised the question of the rector of the University of the Western Cape. Our argument at the time when that university was established was that there were Coloured people available to do the job. There was a trained man available to be appointed to this post and we said: Appoint him now.

There were no people available at that time.

The present man was available.

There was a disturbance at the university and then, lo and behold, the man who was available at the time when the university was established, a man with the same qualifications, the same ability and the same energy, was appointed to this post. A few years have been wasted in this regard. This was our argument at the time and this is our argument in respect of the remarks of the hon. member for Piketberg. He said that the Coloured people are still a developing people. He said that they still have to go a long way before they can have a greater share in the decision-making processes of government in South Africa. I believe he is underestimating the Coloured people. I believe that there are thousands of Coloured people throughout South Africa who are capable of great things. I want to say for the benefit of the hon. the Minister of the Interior, the leader of that party in the Transvaal, that there are thousands of Coloured people in the Transvaal who are playing leading roles in that province. They are people who are fully developed, intelligent and educated.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No, I am sorry, my time is too limited. My point is that the hon. member for Piketberg is underestimating the extent of the development of the Coloured people. That is why we on this side of the House are prepared in terms of our federal policy to share power with the Coloured people. However, it is not our policy that is being discussed now. We want to know what the hon. the Prime Minister is going to do. He indicated that he believed that the Coloured people had the opportunity to come forward with the suggestion of a liaison or a liaison committee between this Parliament and the Coloured parliament. He expected them to make some suggestion in regard to the format of that liaison committee. I think that, the time has come and I think it is the duty of the hon. the Prime Minister to give the lead in this matter. He must come forward with the proposal. He must submit that proposal to the Coloured leaders. I believe it is his duty to tell the Coloured people what kind of link he is suggesting. According to some of the Press reports we saw, this would be a statutory body having legislative powers that could be binding on both the CRC and this Parliament. I do not believe that the hon. the Prime Minister will go that far at this stage.

I never said that.

I have never suggested that the hon. the Prime Minister said that. It was a Press report. I am just mentioning it. I believe that the time has come for the hon. the Prime Minister to tell us how he thinks links should be constituted, what their powers should be and what they will offer the Coloured people in future. If the hon. the Prime Minister believes that this should be done after further discussions with the Coloured people, I shall be prepared to accept that because we of this party believe in talking with the Coloured people, taking decisions with the Coloured people and not taking decisions for them.

I want to raise another point as to why the Coloured people are frustrated in South Africa today. It is not only a fact that their political expectations have not been fulfilled, but also that their dignity has been hurt. An immigrant can come to South Africa; he can work where he likes, live where he likes, he can get a salary which is commensurate with his ability, he can send his children to whatever school he likes and he has the freedom of South Africa. That is the position of the immigrant who comes to South Africa. The moment he arrives here he has all the liberties and all the benefits this great country can offer. I ask hon. members opposite to consider what liberties the Coloured man has who has lived in South Africa all his life, who has worked hard for South Africa and who has come from families who have defended South Africa in times of war.

Why did you not give franchise to Coloureds in the north?

He has not even the right to decide where he wants to live. If a Coloured man who is living in the Cape wants to go and work in Transvaal, he does not even have the opportunity, even if he knows that there is a job at the other end, to decide where he can go and live. He does not know whether there is a plot available for him on which he can build a house and he does not know whether there is a house available for him. These are the things which hurt the Coloured people. Yet the moment an immigrant arrives in this country, he has more freedom and liberty than the Coloured man who has devoted his entire life to the interests of South Africa. These are things which can be rectified overnight. What hurts the Coloured people is the fact that they cannot attend the Nico Malan Theatre. I know this is old hat, but this is a thing that hurts these people deeply. A man who comes from overseas can attend that theatre but a Coloured man who belongs here and whose roots are in South Africa, is denied that simple privilege. If he went to that theatre he would go as a first-class citizen. My hon. leader stressed the point that in the situation in which we find ourselves we shall need all our people to defend our borders and that the time has arrived for us to accord to the Coloured people first-class citizenship. We want them to do for us a first-class job when South Africa is threatened. If we want them to become first-class soldiers—and we shall need them all—I believe the time has also come to give them first-class citizenship. I hope that later in this debate, or in the very near future, the hon. the Prime Minister will give us a clear insight into how he sees the future of the Coloured people. The late Dr. Verwoerd did it in 1961 and I think it is an outstanding document of forward planning although I do not necessarily agree with the policy. It sets out step by step the development of the Coloured people. More than ten years have elapsed since then and I believe a new plan has to be drawn up and that is the responsibility of the hon. the Prime Minister.

There is another matter I wish to raise. I have taken the immigrant as an example and I have said that when he arrives here he works and gets paid according to his ability. But what is the position of a Coloured man? In some of the professions there is a discrimination in salary that is only connected with the colour of his skin and has nothing to do with his ability. I believe that this is one of the most important things this Government has to attend to. It is one of the most urgent matters that needs attention. My leader suggested a crash training programme for these people three years ago in order to train more artisans and skilled people. The Government then laughed at us and said that we did not know what we were talking about. But if we had done that and were prepared to pay the Coloured people the rate for the job, they would have been placed in a position to develop their own economy, to develop their own townships and to make a far greater contribution to the welfare of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think it is an absolute spectacle that is being enacted here. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is in a privileged position in that he is a member of an authoritative commission which is investigating the weal and woe of the Coloureds. This moring, however, he came along with this confused contribution which amounted to nothing but prompting the Coloureds. I know that I shall not be allowed to say that the hon. member is an agitator.

Order! The hon. member may not suggest that.

I shall therefore not refer to him in that sense,

The hon. member must first withdraw that.

I do so, Mr. Chairman. The fact is that there is no greater agitator in the ranks of the Coloured community today. The hon. member spoke about the University of the Western Cape and the hon. member for Green Point joined the chorus. But it is they, after all, who were continually sowing suspicion of that institution among the Coloureds. If we look at the history of the University of the Western Cape today and the reaction of that party towards it, we will note that it is the same pattern as they are now following with regard to the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council. They are now asking, with an air of extreme piety, why we did not start off by appointing a Coloured rector to that university. How did they not suggest, and they were supposedly speaking on behalf of the Coloureds, that the Coloureds did not want that university in the bush! We were supposedly depriving the Coloureds of the basic freedom to attend other universities. Today, now that the university is a success, they are joining in the conversation. When Coloureds have an ordinary grievance, as the Coloureds at the University of the Western Cape had normal student grievances recently, that side of the House allows itself to be used to blow it up into a race grievance. Today, in a very elevated speech, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, rubbing his hands together, referred to the reprehensible statement by Mr. Currie that he did not see his way clear to letting his son die on the border because he was not a part of South Africa. It would have been far better for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to have displayed the sense of responsibility to have reprimanded Mr. Currie rather than to have echoed him. After all, it is not only Coloureds who are dying on the border. Many more Whites have died on the border. And for whom are those Whites dying on the borders of our country? Only for the Whites of South Africa, or for Currie and his henchmen as well? After all, we cannot carry on like the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central who says that we should give the Coloureds “first-class citizenship” because the immigrant who comes to South Africa, shares all the rights and privileges which the Coloured does not share. Sir, let us be practical. Whereas this hon. member is now trying to create a rift between the immigrant and the Coloured, is he prepared to give to the Coloured what he gives to the immigrant?

I am prepared to give him similar rights.

Sir, the immigrant may go and live in Bishopscourt or Rondebosch. He can go and swim in the Sea Point swimming bath. His child can attend St. George’s Grammar School. Sir, must we go on? Will the hon. member tell me whether he and his party are prepared to say honestly that what the immigrant enjoys, they will give to the Coloured, too? It lies at the root of our problem today that people such as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, very piously and with fine words, create expectations among the Coloureds which they themselves are not prepared to realize. In this situation, which has been absolutely overheated by a liberal Press, which these hon. members go along with ...

Is that Rapport?

Rapport, among others. In this situation the hon. the Prime Minister, in his great wisdom, appointed a commission, the Erica Theron Commission, with the object, in his own words, of bringing into being an authoritative work, of taking stock and of identifying the bottlenecks for us. Now, one is given the impression—no one will persuade me otherwise—that at this very stage, while this commission is engaged in compiling an authoritative work—of which that hon. member is very well aware—a feverishness in the Press and a feverish haste among the Opposition to try and shunt the Prime Minister and the National Party in a particular direction in respect of the Coloured has developed recently, because they are aware that time is running out for people to be able to talk about the Coloured without having any knowledge whatsoever of the Coloured. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition revels in that process. He came along this morning and associated our situation with the Portuguese situation in Mozambique. In a debating society he would have made an excellent point, but what analogy is there between the situation in Mozambique and that in South Africa? Was there colour inequality in Mozambique? Were the Whites, any more than the Coloured races of Mozambique, allowed free expression in the field of politics, as is the position in South Africa? After all, these people were part of a Portuguese dictatorship. Do hon. members want to compare that with the South African situation? I think that our whole Coloured politcal scene today still attests to a lack of political knowledge and political maturity. This is so clearly demonstrated by the fact that Coloureds are still continually changing their party alliances in the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council. In this arduous process of becoming a nation which the Coloureds are going through—or call it, for the sake of argument, the development of a Brown personality—the Coloured, under the instigation of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, inter alia, and the liberal Press in South Africa, and the backlog he has to make up is reduced to the single concept of “colour”. He reduces his ordinary grievances to colour. I have already told you how the student grievances have been reduced to colour. In this process the United Party’s hands are not clean. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who airs his views on petty apartheid every day and is not prepared to take what he says to its logical conclusion, is one of the greatest culprits in that respect. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Tygervallei seems to take issue with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for having raised the Portuguese situation and having attempted to draw an analogy between what happened in those territories and what could happen in South Africa. I think that one must always be careful when one tries to draw too detailed an analogy between one State and another or one territory and another because circumstances are always different. Yet I am in agreement with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that there are certain important lessons which we in South Africa should learn from the situation which evolved in Mozambique and Angola. One can discuss the nature of the pressures which in the end, from the point of view of the Portuguese metropolitan State, became irresistible; one can talk about the impact of the insurgency, one can talk about the international pressure or about the internal sympathy which existed for the guerilla movement, but there is one lesson which I believe we in South Africa cannot evade. That is that basic to pressures in that society and basic to the pressures which are going to build up in our society, is the fundamental urge of each human being, of each citizen, to be a full human being and to be a full citizen of the country to which he or she belongs. I believe that this is quite fundamental to an analysis of what happened there and I believe it is fundamental to any assessment which we are going to make of the future of South Africa.

The second lesson is the question of time. If you are going to make adjustments, if you are going to make adaptations, if you are going to face up to pressures, then face up to them in time, because if you do not face up to them in time, if you do not make adjustments which are necessary in the face of these pressures, you will cause these factors within that society which are still negotiable to disappear. There will then be no area for negotiation left and instead you will be left with the inevitability of conflict and confrontation.

I believe that we can expect from the hon. the Prime Minister and from all the parties in this House an awareness of this fundamental urge of people to be themselves, to be full citizens. We should have policies which are going to enable us to meet this urge, and to meet it in time. The hon. the Prime Minister, in responding to the censure debate, suggested to us in the Progressive Party that we had no policy and that we should find one. May I say to the hon. the Prime Minister that he should consult his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Defence, for the Minister of Defence has said that our policy is desperately dangerous for the future of South Africa. You cannot, on the one hand, have no policy and on the other hand have a policy which is desperately dangerous for the future of South Africa.

I want to make it quite clear that we accept the concept of full citizenship for all individuals who are citizens of South Africa. We believe that there is an inevitability about this. Whether you can achieve this on the basis of a territorial separation, either through Bantustans or homeland development, or, as the hon. the Minister of the Interior has indicated, through “aparte tuislande” for the Coloured people or nor, we believe that the concept of full citizenship is an important inevitability in South Africa and we must all face up to it. We believe that in the economic field, as I outlined in the censure debate, and in the social field South Africa is going to move in the direction of an open society. This does not mean that one must adopt the technique of the Government and force social patterns on people. We believe that South African society is going to evolve into an open society in which various groups and classes will find their own level without dictation from the Government or from any element within that society. We believe that political opportunity is going to have to be extended to all the citizens of South Africa. We believe that this can best be done within the framework of a geographic federation in which there are a number of self-governing autonomous States. In drawing the boundaries of those States, we believe that you must take into account political, social and economic developments. This will include taking into account homeland development which may have taken place under the present Government. We believe that in the central Parliament of South Africa, in order to get an orderly transition towards including all the people in the government of South Africa, it is necessary to extend participation in this Parliament on the basis of those people having reached certain minimal qualifications which will enable them to identify with the modern society in South Africa.

What are those qualifications?

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make it quite clear that we see these qualifications as a device in order to ensure the orderly progression from the present caste society to an open political society in South Africa. As evidence of our good-faith, we would not advocate qualified franchise unless it went hand in hand with the Bill of Rights entrenched in the Constitution, which would guarantee to each individual equal opportunity to attain the qualifications for those rights. This is fundamental. The hon. the Prime Minister might argue that he does not like this policy. He might argue that it is not moving fast enough but we believe that it faces up to the fundamental requirements of full citizenship for each citizen in South Africa. By contrast neither the Government nor the Prime Minister, has indicated a sense of urgency or a willingness to face up in real terms to the concept of full citizenship. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he really believes that within the framework of “aparte tuislande”, independent homelands, limited to the 1936 Land Settlement Act, he can provide effective full citizenship for the Black people of South Africa. Does he really believe this, Mr. Speaker? Does he really believe that the State of Lesotho, Basotho, Qwa-Qwa can provide a home with full citizenship for 1,4 million people of the South Sotho community? Does he really believe that his policy, if there is a policy for the urban Black, for the millions and millions of Black people who are going to work in our factories, our homes, and our mines for as long as we can see into the future, will provide full citizenship for these people? Has he any policy for the full citizenship of the Indian people of South Africa? Has he got a policy?

Mr. Speaker, we come back to the hon. the Prime Minister’s Achilles’ heel, i.e. there is the question of full citizenship for the Coloured people of South Africa. I wish to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that I admire him as a politician but quite frankly I find it slightly embarrassing as a fellow politician listening to the Prime Minister and his party trying to explain away their Coloured policy in this House. He is not only embarrassing people who want to come to grips with the real issue. I I believe that the Prime Minister is embarrassing tens of thousands of young supporters of his own party who do not believe in this fiction of parallel lines that never meet. Sir, more and more people, including people in his own party, believe that we are either going to move closer together as one South African society or that we are going to move further and further apart. We are either going to have a shared society, shared socially, politically and economically, or we are going to have a totally fragmented and separate society.

*We are either going to have a unitary State or we are going to have fragmentation into homelands.

†Sir, one can ask, how do you arrange that “unitary State”? One can talk about either the race-orientated federation of my colleagues on my right, or about the policy of geographic federation of this party, but, Sir, the ineluctable choice is between either a shared society or fragmentation, with all that that means. The hon. the Minister of the Interior has faced up to this himself; he has said that he is prepared to face up to it. But, Sir, the Prime Minister must face up to this. Either there is going to be fragmentation for Coloureds as well as for Whites and Blacks and Indians or one of these days we are going to have to accept the ineluctable alternative of a common political society.

Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister is also embarrassing South Africa outside of our country by all this nonsense about parallel lines that are never going to meet. There are many people in Africa and in the world who, while they do not agree with his rationale, understand what he is getting at when he says that through separation, through partition, you can do justice to the concept of full citizenship. But, Sir, that rationale comes crashing down and every moral argument that the hon. the Prime Minister raises is just so much dust on the ground when you start examining the policy in relation to the Coloured people. There is no way, in terms of the situation under the Nationalist Party policy at the moment, in which you can justify their Coloured policy on moral grounds. Sir, I do not mind if the hon. the Prime Minister says, “Let us mark time”. [Time expired.]

Sir, I shall probably not follow up, to any great extent, on the arguments of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I just want to say to him this morning that notwithstanding all those fine words, it is very clear to us that it all leads to a policy of “one man, one vote”, and that, the voters of South Africa will never accept. Sir, I think that the hon. member and his party and its kindred spirits can go and test that policy in a constituency in Pretoria one of these days, and then we shall see how far they progress with it.

Sir, I want to say to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central that he made a scandalous and a far-reaching statement in this House this morning when he referred to beach resorts at which there are supposedly notice boards stating “Do not swim here”. I wonder whether the hon. member knows that some of our finest beaches are at the disposal of our Coloureds today. [Interjection.] But why does the hon. member repeat it? He should personally go and ascertain whether it is really true; should not simply come and say things here without establishing whether they are correct. Sir, I want to refer you to Silverboomstrand. I want to refer you to Swartklip and I want to refer you to Diasstrand near Mossel Bay. I wonder whether the hon. member has been there? Possibly the hon. member does not know this, but a few years ago Muizenberg was a fine beach; subsequently it was swamped by Coloureds and Blacks and then a prominent United Party member of Parliament—he is still a member of this House today, but unfortunately he is not present—and a former member of the Provincial Council came to the Provincial Administration of the Cape and said: “Come and help us” because the Cae Town City Council did not want to help them. It was the Provincial Administration which put up notices and recovered the expenses incurred from the Cape Town Municipality. Sir, I want to tell those hon. members that they should consider these things. Or do they merely talk and then sit there in their hypocrisy without coming to the fore with anything definite and positive?

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

I withdraw it, Sir. It is very clear to me that there are certain people and certain English language and Afrikaans language newspapers in South Africa today which want to exploit the situation surrounding our White/Brown relations and which want to try to break the National Party and tear it apart by those means. Sir, I want to put it very clearly this morning that the National Party, this Government, will most decidedly not allow itself to be brought off course. For 26 years this party has displayed its creative ability. This Party, this Government, has not become stagnant, and an open discussion in this country at this stage, concerning the question of White/Brown relations, is itself evidence of the political maturity and the political ripeness achieved by this party and this Government and out of which only the best will emerge for the future and specifically for our Coloureds. Sir, I am very sorry that the United Party should also participate in this game with such pleasure. I am reminded of the words of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in the debate on the motion of censure when he said, inter alia—

And then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition went on and said—

I maintain that this is cheap political manouevring on the part of the Opposition. I also maintain that to say such things does not serve the aim of bringing about good relations in this country, but only bedevils those relations. We must bear in mind that neither the motion nor the amendment submitted in the Coloured Council referred to the United Party. The leaders of the Coloureds did not come to the hon. the Prime Minister and say: “Sir, could you not take over the policy of the United Party because we prefer that policy.” No, they did not ask that and nor will they ever ask it, and I shall tell you why not. They will not ask it because that party’s past speaks too loudly. The Coloureds know what kind of treatment they received at the hands of the United Party. After all, that Opposition was also in power at one stage in the history of this country. They did, after all, have the opportunity to give these people the franchise, but they did not do so. No, the Coloureds will not ask this because the present policy of the United Party is totally unacceptable to the Coloureds. The Coloureds will not come and ask for the franchise in the federal council which is based on income, because then there will always be people in South Africa who will not have the vote, and under this Government every Coloured has the right to record his vote. [Interjection.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition speaks about the treatment the Coloureds have received at the hands of the Government. What treatment have they received? Sir, we are not ashamed to open our books. We are not ashamed to look back on 25 years of government. We are not ashamed to say what we have done for the Coloureds. Let me make this statement this morning, that in the past 25 years more doors have opened for the Coloureds than in all the years before that.

And the doors on which is stated “Whites only”?

Oh, really, you came in through a door you should not have come through. Now emphasis is being laid on a door which is supposedly closed, namely the door of this Parliament. Sir, after all, this door has never been open. The door of this Parliament has never been open as requested by the motion in the Coloured Council. Nor was it open when the Opposition was in power. The Coloures did not have the right to come and sit here then, either. That door has never been open and now it is being said that an hon. Minister had supposedly said that this door was now closed. Yes, it was slightly ajar, but that meant absolutely nothing for those people. Sir, we opened doors. For example, we are reminded of participation in local managements and of the fine Coloured towns which have been established in South Africa. Let me tell you that I am proud of the Coloured town of Oudtshoorn, and I am proud of houses which are standing there today and where the Coloureds have the right of ownership. Sir, I was born here in Cape Town and I know the area very well. I grew up here when the Opposition was in power and I know what went on in Windermere and in Kensington and other parts. I know what slum conditions existed here in Cape Town. But this Government cleared them up and it laid out towns, fine towns, of which we may be proud today. And we shall continue to expand them. I believe that these Coloured towns should each have their own name and that in the future each will have its own municipality for which they will vote and where they will be able to run their own affairs. No, I want to admit that we have perhap progressed a little too slowly, but there were reasons for that, but I believe that in the future, as circumstances allow, we shall give attention to the matter and that we shall carry it out in full. I believe that we shall give greater and more responsibility to the Coloureds as he asks for it and as he shows the ripeness to manage his own affairs. I want to refer you to the major door which was opened to establish bona fide Coloured farmers in certain agricultural areas. We are continually engaged in obtaining more areas of land for these people in order, by this means, to enable them to further practise and develop the agricultural industry. I want to refer to the progress of the Coloureds in the business world. That side of the House should do some arithmetic and try to determine how many Coloured businessmen there were before 1948. They should also see what the Coloured Development Corporation is doing annually and how many Coloured businessmen there already are today, businessmen of whom we are proud. We could mention a great deal more. Reference has already been made to the University of the Western Cape. This university has its own Coloured rector. I believe that in the future, as the Coloureds develop, the university will eventually be under their full control and that they will provide the professors and lecturers for that university. We are reminded of schools; we are reminded of compulsory education which has been introduced; we are reminded of the Commission of Inquiry into the Socio-economic Circumstances of the Coloured Community which was appointed to identify the bottlenecks. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Oudtshoorn referred to a few matters here to which I first want to reply. He began by saying that the National Party has not been forced to change course and will not be forced to change course. I should like to know what course he was referring to. Is it the course of the hon. member for Moorreesburg or is it the course of the hon. the Minister of the Interior? He should tell us what that course is. The second point he dealt with, was when he spoke about the treatment of the Coloureds under United Party rule. I want to ask him how he can feel at liberty to talk about that. Perhaps his memory is a little poor. What did his Government do when they came to power? They abolished the age-old franchise of the Coloureds. They disenfranchised the Coloureds.

How many?

What more terrible thing can a Government do than to disenfranchise a person? That is what his Government did. What did the United Party do in that connection? The United Party fought against it for years and years. To come along now and talk about the treatment of the Coloureds under United Party rule, is so much rubbish.

What is your present policy?

The hon. member went further. He said that more doors had been opened to the Coloureds under National Party policy than ever in the past. I just want to put this question to him: What about all the doors in Government buildings which have been closed to the Coloureds? What about all the doors in Government buildings with the notice “Whites only”? What about the petty apartheid applied by that Government? Is he proud of that? Will he tell his grandchildren about it? Then the hon. member says that he is so pleased that under National Party rule the Coloureds now have a greater share in local management. Has the hon. member forgotten that the Government disenfranchised the Coloureds on the municipal voters’ roll in 1970, as a political trick? That is what they did. Is he proud of that, too? I do not believe it is necessary for me to deal any further with the arguments of that hon. member. It only shows me that he should not have taken part in this debate because he has no knowledge whatsoever of the history of the Coloureds under United Party policy nor has he any recollection of what his own Government has done to the Coloureds since its assumption of power.

During the censure debate the hon. the Prime Minister made two extremely important announcements. The first announcement he made, was that there was ground which was common to the Coloured and the White and that there should therefore be a channel of communication between the Coloured Parliament and this Parliament. That was the first statement which, in my opinion, was extremely important. The second statement which the hon. the Prime Minister made, was that the machinery for the liaison which took place at present between the Coloured Persons Representative Council and the hon. the Prime Minister, even had the potential to develop into a statutory consultative body. I say that these two statements are extremely important because they hold out the prospect that Coloureds will govern themselves by means of a Parliament because the Coloured Parliament and the White Parliament would be linked by a statutory consultative body. I think that this is very important because I consider this to be a development of the policy of the National Party and I think that we should dwell on it for a moment. Arising out of these statements are important questions which I should like to ask. I can only mention a few, because there is a long list of questions and I do not believe I have the time to ask them all. I should like to know what powers the Coloured Parliament is going to have. At this stage we hear that the Coloured Persons Representative Council is going to be the body which will be developed until it eventually becomes a Coloured Parliament. At this stage the Coloured Persons Representative Council has no powers whatsoever. I think it is very important ...

But surely that is not true.

... that the hon. the Prime Minister should tell us what powers he is going to give that Coloured Persons Representative Council, for it eventually to have the powers of a Parliament.

It has powers and he will develop them gradually.

No, there is not question of that; it has absolutely no power as it is today. If it is to be converted into Parliament, we should also like to know what departments the Coloureds will have. This is important because at this stage they do not really have departments. One of the matters one could touch on here is the fact that there has always been a Department of Coloured Relations. What does the hon. the Prime Minister hold out as a prospect in regard to this department? Is that department going to disappear or is it to remain? How is that department going to be linked with this Parliament? Then I should like to know what the hon. the Prime Minister proposes in regard to the way in which the Coloured Parliament will exercise its powers. At this stage there are no powers whatsoever to exercise. It is difficult for me to accept that the Coloured Parliament will actually be capable of being a parliament at some stage and that it will have powers, which can be entrusted to a parliament. I should like to know whether the sovereignty of the White Parliament concerning the matters entrusted to the Coloured Parliament, will be withdrawn in its entirety. It is important to know this. I have just mentioned the Department of Coloured Relations, and to me it is very clear that if this department were to remain under the National Party Government, the sovereignty of this Parliament over the Coloureds would remain. How on earth, then, can the Coloureds have a Parliament? After all, one cannot have a Parliament which does not have sovereign powers. I should like to know from the hon. the Prime Minister how he is going to go about dealing with this matter.

Then I come to the next point. How will the executive authority of the Coloured Parliament be brought to fruition? At this stage the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council has an executive committee which takes certain decisions. Those decisions are not carried out until the hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet decide about them. How is the Coloured cabinet of the future going to give effect to decisions which are taken by its parliament or which are taken by its cabinet, the existing executive committee?

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

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition opened the discussion of this Vote by referring mainly to three matters. In the first place the hon. the Leader referred to the developments which had taken place is Portugal and which of necessity had their effect in its African territories, and then he applied himself more specifically to the developments which had taken place and were about to take place in Mozambique, and how those developments would affect us. In that regard the hon. the Leader put certain questions to me. For the rest no attention was given to those matters on the other side, but so far this debate has dealt mainly with matters relating to the Coloureds and has mainly been conducted as if the Vote being discussed here were that of my hon. colleague the Minister of Coloured Relations. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also referred in passing to the urban Bantu.

In regard to the urban Bantu—and these were the attacks that were made by hon. members opposite all the time—the main point at issue has been the fact that hon. members opposite want to establish certain —we may as well mention the word—parliaments for the urban Bantu, while we on our part want the urban Bantu’s link with their homelands to be retained. In so far as the political rights of the urban Bantu are concerned, it is our view and belief that these must be exercised and practised in the homeland territories. Hon. members opposite believe that this is an absurdity, that this simply cannot be done—at least, some of them do, because there are others who have other views on this matter. There are important members of the United Party who hold other views in this regard, such as the general secretary of the United Party, the hon. Senator Horak. I shall come to that. We say—and we stand by this; we have fought elections on it and we have put our views to the electorate and the electorate has agreed with us—that our views are the ones I set out above. My problem with the hon. members opposite is the same as that of the hon. member for Turffontein—and one finds this throughout this session—namely that the hon. members opposite have a certain policy which is being altered, I do not want to go so far as to say from day to day, but which is in fact being altered very frequently.

As circumstances require. [Laughter.]

I shall content myself fully with the answer given by the hon. member for Durban Point. He is an honest member, but, you know, Sir, circumstances do change very often as far as the United Party is concerned! And I must give them credit for being able to change as few others can. There is no doubt about that. For instance, in respect of trade unions they entered the election with one standpoint and came out of it with another, without motivating it.

Are you going to legislate against Black trade unions?

That is not relevant now. I am talking now about the policy of these hon. members.

Are you going to legislate against Black trade unions?

I say that is not relevant. When it is relevant, I shall come back to it and let the hon. member have an answer, but now I am making my speech 2nd advancing arguments on the complete change in policy on the part of hon. members opposite, which they have not yet motivated for us but have merely announced here ever so calmly.

As was done in the case of your sports policy.

I shall be dealing with all those matters. I say the hon. the Leader merely announced it.

I also motivated it.

No, the hon. the Leader may as well take another look at his Hansard. It descended upon us out of the blue. But let us leave it at that.

I say that in respect of the urban Bantu the hon. members have been casting it in our teeth that our policy of political representation will not work there. My colleague and friend the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration has already put this case on so many occasions, but now I shall have to put it to hon. members again. They are continually talking about the urban Bantu only, but the Bantu living in the rural areas and on the farms receive little or no attention whatever from them. When we debated this matter in the Other Place, the hon. Senator Horak conceded on the highest level that this was within the framework of the United Party’s policy and that they too would change, for the information of the hon. member for Durban Point, and that if the urban Bantu wanted to be represented in the parliaments of the Bantu homelands, they would be able to do so.

He did not say that.

The hon. member should not tell me that he did not say so, because he said this to me and I shall show it to him in Hansard. The hon. Senator went even further by pointing out how good their policy was because of the fact that they were making provision for all contingencies. They are shooting with a double-barrelled shotgun. At the time I raised the question of the rural Bantu with him, and his reply to that was that they would have to integrate with the homeland governments. The fact of the matter is that they appeal as a matter of principle to the fact that these people have been living here for a long time and have for a long time been present in the area known as White South Africa. But the rural Bantu, the farm Bantu, have been here for much longer than have been most of the urban Bantu. They have been present there for generations and generations and generations. If that is the case, surely this is not an argument which hon. members may use? But you see, Sir, they cannot make an emotional thing out of the rural and the farm Bantu, that is why they are merely pushing them aside, but it is in fact possible for them to advance an emotional argument concerning the urban Bantu. They conveniently forget that the urban Bantu are in fact taking an active part in the elections in the homelands; that some of those urban Bantu have stood for election and that amongst those urban Bantu there are indeed some who are Ministers in the cabinets of homeland governments. Now, is this a policy which cannot work? Is this a policy which does not give expression? But, what is more, Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wanted to create the impression that I was boasting of having talks with homeland leaders but that I was not concerned about the urban Bantu as far as that aspect was concerned. Sir, from the talks I have held with homeland leaders it has emerged very clearly, and they have also said this to me, that they prized the citizenship of the homelands and the loyalty of their urban Bantu to the homelands. Go and speak to the Chief Minister of KwaZulu; he will tell you this; go and speak to Chief Minister Lucas Mangope; he will tell you this. But, what is more, Sir, I myself have after all had talks with the urban Bantu for days on end, talks at which these leaders of theirs were not present, and the standpoint which they adopted towards me there and put to me in no uncertain terms was that they prized their loyalty to the homelands and their links with the homelands and their nationality.

Sir, the second aspect to which I want to refer is what was said by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in respect of Mozambique and related matters. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition elaborated in detail on terrorism, the combating ated in detail on terrorism, the combating of terrorism, etc. I have no fault to find with three-quarters of what he said. To tell the truth, those are things which I myself said in the days when I was Minister of Justice. But the Leader of the Opposition has the gift—and I wish I had that gift—of making an old fact look like a new truth. However, with three-quarters of what he said in that regard I have no fault to find, but here and there I did gain the impression that he was blaming me and the Government for what had happened in Portugal. But I want to agree with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: For all of us there are lessons to be learnt from these events, and it is a foolish person who does not learn lessons from events. But before having to learn the lessons that are to be learnt from these events, we should acquaint ourselves with certain basic things, and I am not saying this in a reproachful tone of voice; I am merely stating this because it is a fact; nor am I saying it disparagingly; I am merely saying it because these are the truths with which we are faced, namely that the policy of Portugal in its African territories is not the policy of South Africa. On the contrary, it was diametrically opposed to the policy of the National Party. In fact, to a large extent it can be compared with the policy of the Progressive Party. To a very large extent it strikes a responsive chord in the policy of my hon. friends, the official Opposition, as the Whip over there rightly remarked, and this must give certain grounds and food for thought. Let me say this at once, Sir: From the talks I had with Coloured as well as Bantu leaders, it has become clear to me that there are two things which they will not accept. To my hon. friends the official Leader of the Opposition and the little Leader of the Opposition, I also want to say this, through you, Mr. Chairman: Both of them are flogging a dead horse. If they believe that the non-White leaders are ever going to accept the policy of discrimination as far as the franchise is concerned, on the basis of educational qualifications and on the basis of qualifications relating to possessions, they are making a mistake. It seems to me the hon. member agrees with me. He agrees with me because this is his policy.

It is a part of the policy.

Sir, it is getting more and more clear to me that no non-White leader is going to rise before his people and say the following: “I shall negotiate with the Whites for the franchise, for the common franchise or any franchise of whatever nature, but I am going to tell the Whites that there are some of you whom I am going to omit because you are not educated enough.” Sir, I cannot blame any non-White leader who would say this. There is not one non-White leader—nor could one blame them for this being the position—who would get on a platform and tell his people: “I am going to negotiate with the Whites about the franchise in such a such a meeting and in such and such a constellation, but I will agree with them and I will tell them that amongst you, amongst my people, there are some whom I cannot take along with me in those meetings because you are too uneducated.” Sir, surely one does not expect any politician to do the impossible by saying this to his people. One would be expecting the impossible if one expected the non-White leaders to go and say this to their people. My experience, my conviction is that one would be flogging a dead horse if one expected that. If one gives the franchise, in whatever way and in whatever meeting, one has to do so without imposing any qualifications. One has to give it to men and women. One has to give it to a person irrespective of the standard he achieved at school. One has to give it to him irrespective of the possessions he has. If one did do that, one would simply be rendering the leaders of that population group powerless. One would not only be rendering them powerless, but also be creating a source of agitation and of ferment which would lead to the greatest violence in the world. That is my conviction. I have arrived at this conviction as a result of my talks with these people, and I challenge any person, in or outside this House, to address a Coloured leader or a Black leader by saying to him: “You must go and sell this standpoint to your people.”

Can you sell separate development?

Yes, Sir, I shall come to that. So as not to disappoint the hon. member, I shall come to it at once by telling her that in all my talks with these people I have found that they differ with me in respect of certain things, that they differ with me in respect of many things. I have never tried to hide this. But what I have also experienced in connection with the Black leaders is the basic acceptance of the policy of separate development. I have never yet found that it is being rejected. I want to go so far as to say that it does not matter to me what government comes into power tomorrow: it will not be able to undo what the National Party has done in the political sphere. It will not only be unable to undo it, but, in so far as the Black people have any say, it will not be allowed by them to undo it, except on one basis and on one condition. That condition, which the Black people will accept, is that it will tell them: “We shall undo it and, instead of that, introduce ‘one man, one vote’, irrespective of educational qualifications and irrespective of qualifications relating to possessions. We are going to sit, according to our numbers, in a common parliament.” I am being quite honest in saying that if one were to offer the Black people that alternative, they would accept it. But, Sir, that brings me to another point. There is not one single hon. member in this House whose policy this is, or who wants to propagate this. This is not the policy of one single political party represented in this House nor of any political party outside this House. Then I ask myself: Why then should we hold out prospects; why should we rouse expectations in the minds of people which we know in our hearts we do not want to or cannot satisfy, even if we wanted to? These are the questions we should ask one another. These are the matters we must consider.

But, Sir, I am going further. Once again I want to make this very clear, and I am by no means saying this in a disparaging or reproachful sense: The policy of Portugal was a policy of assimilation. Sir, all over the world it is being said—and this reproach has often been levelled at us indirectly in this House—that assimilation is the magic word. It has been said, especially in the outside world, that assimilation is the magic word which will also solve South Africa’s problems. But it has not safeguarded Portugal against terrorism. On the contrary, we are now in a position to learn lessons. The fact that these territories were situated far away from Portugal did not make any difference. If they had been situated next to Portugal, we would have seen exactly the same thing. Sir, one must not take a person’s nationhood away from him. If one does, one is in for trouble. We as the Government can be reproached with many things by hon. members opposite, and there may be some substance to some of them, but there is one thing in respect of which they cannot reproach us, and that is that we have suppressed the national feeling and the nationhood idea of people in this country. On the contrary, our policy is aimed at, and this is basic to our policy, our encouraging these things and trying to develop them along with these people. In the face of whatever weaknesses we may have according to the Opposition, we have cherished and pampered the preservation of language, culture and what is inherent in people. We have been doing this because we attach importance to what is our own and know how we had to fight for these things: We also know how sensitive people are about these things if one should try to take them away. Even if those territories were situated next to Portugal, I foresee that those problems would have developed all the same.

We are now being confronted with that situation, whatever its causes may be. I could expatiate on that at length, but that would not take us any further and it is not relevant either. The fact of the matter is that we are being confronted with that situation. It is because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition commented on Mozambique that I am replying on the situation in Mozambique as I see it. I want to say at once that since the time when these radical changes took place, this Government has allowed no opportunity to pass without maintaining liaison with those with whom it had to be maintained or without asking assurances from those from whom assurance had to be asked, and I want to state here that positive replies were given to the assurance that was asked. For reasons which hon. members will appreciate, I do not wish to take this matter any further. At all times, on all levels, on all fronts and by all ministers involved in the matter, we have been maintaining the necessary liaison and trying to serve South Africa’s interest to the best of our ability. Furthermore, we have planned for all eventualities. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will agree with me that the position is extremely fluid that command changes hands very frequently and that a person who is in command today may no longer be there tomorrow. Of course, this makes matters very complicated and very difficult. In spite of this position I want to assure hon. members and, through them, all our people outside that what could and had to be done in that regard was in fact done by the Government.

As far as Mozambqiue is concerned, there is in my opinion one fact which we can all accept, and that is that sooner or later—in view of the circumstances it is not easy to say that that time will come on such or such a date—an indigenous government will be established in Mozambique. I think it is reasonable to accept something of this nature, and I think it is reasonable to accept that everything points to the fact that this will indeed be the case. At the first opportunity that offered I stated my standpoint in that regard very clearly, and I honestly do not know on what grounds the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can make the accusation that “evasions” have now become a characteristic of the Government in regard to these matters. This is merely a statement that is made without its being motivated. What is more, it is silly, because in respect of every event we took up a standpoint the moment it was necessary to do so. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, because he does not yet have any experience of governing, that there are times when it is much better for a government to keep quiet than to speak. After all, I did state my point of view very clearly, with due regard to the fact that a new, indigenous government could possibly be established. I did say everything that needed to be said in that regard, namely that it was not South Africa’s policy to lay down what kind of government they should have there or who should serve in that government. The cornerstone of South Africa’s policy is non-interference with the domestic affairs of its neighbouring states. All I was prepared to say was that South Africa, and not only South Africa but also Mozambique, was interested in seeing a sound and stable government established there. Once that sound and stable government has been established, South Africa will cooperate with that government. It goes without saying that South Africa will take the first opportunity to make contact with that government and to reach an understanding with that government. It is not only in South Africa’s interests to do so, but, pre-eminently, in the interests of that government as well. Mozambique is a country with potential, a country which is already developing to a certain extent. I believe that far greater development can still take place there. But Mozambique is not a country which can stand on its own feet at the moment without co-operating with South Africa. I think any expert will agree that it is not only in the interests of South Africa, but also in the interests of Mozambique itself that the ports of Beira, Nacala and Lourenço Marques should be kept open, that there should be order in those ports, that there should be good administration in them, and that the railway lines to those ports should be kept open. Mozambique obtains a great deal of revenue through those ports, mainly from South Africa and Rhodesia. It is therefore in its absolute interests that those ports should remain open. Furthermore, it is in its interests that such law and order should prevail in Mozambique that it will once again be able to lure tourist traffic from South Africa, for that tourist traffic used to provide it with a considerable sum of money in revenue. There are hotels and other facilities which are geared solely to tourism from South Africa. It is in its interests to govern the country in such a sound manner that tourists will not be rebuffed but feel that it will be safe for them to go there. What is more, as matters stand in Mozambique at the moment, it cannot employ all its people itself. Especially in view of the setback which its economy has probably received now, it is impossible for that country to employ all its people. From an economic and a human point of view, it is absolutely essential for it that it should find employment for its people. For generations and generations its people have found employment in South Africa. It is therefore in its interests that that arrangement be continued. Under the old Portuguese régime millions upon millions were spent on the construction of Cabora-Bassa. With the best will in the world Mozambique cannot use all that power, and the other neighbouring states cannot use that power either. If they do not want the biggest white elephant in Africa and if they do not want to waste all those millions of rands, it is essential that Cabora-Bassa be completed and that the power be sold to South Africa so that they may obtain that revenue, which is going to be considerable, for developing their territory. I am only mentioning four points; there are many other matters which I could mention in that regard. I therefore sum up this position by saying that if and when an indigenous government is established, they can do one of two things. They can attach importance to and have appreciation for these economic facts which I have just mentioned, and they can organize their government in such a way that these things I have just mentioned may be done. Then, of course, we shall have no problems. Irrespective of the colour of that government, we shall then have the heartiest cooperation between South Africa and Mozambique in the economic sphere—even though there may be differences in the political sphere. If, on the other hand, an indigenous government is established there which says that these things mean nothing to them, that Cabora-Bassa may go to rack and ruin, that Lourenço Marques, Beira and Nacala may come to a standstill, that they do not mind about there being thousands of unemployed in their country and about their having to forfeit the revenue from tourism, then, of course, it will be a different matter. In that case it will, of course, be a matter about which I cannot do a thing. If they should have a government which adopts the attitude—and I do not think that such a foolish government will ever come into power there; I simply cannot conceive of that happening—that it will use Mozambique as a starting point against South Africa for attacking South Africa, it stands to reason that we shall have to defend ourselves. I need not elaborate on that. In that case it is self-evident what the consequences for Southern Africa may be. I want to conclude with that aspect. I want to repeat what I also said in public, namely that people should be careful about drawing conclusions too prematurely. We should play the waiting game carefully and see what course matters are taking before we draw conclusions and before we take any steps. I want to make it very clear here—and I am pleased that this is by and large being accepted in the world outside—that it is by no means South Africa’s objective to interfere in the affairs of Mozambique and that South Africa has no intention of invading Mozambique, as is being propagated by people who are conjuring up spectres and making propaganda against South Africa. South Africa’s policy in that regard is common knowledge, and the only thing South Africa will ever do is to defend itself with its full striking power in the event of its being attacked. This is something no country in the world can be denied by any person or any organization.

I believe that I have now replied to the questions by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition; if not, I should appreciate it if he would interrupt me in the event of this not being the case.

I shall leave it at that.

The hon. the Leader is leaving it at that; then I shall do so, too.

Now I come to the other leg of the attack made so far by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, namely the Coloureds. In spite of the fact that it is not my hon. colleague’s Vote that is being discussed at the moment, I do want to take this opportunity to reply at length in respect of certain aspects. The hon. the Deputy Minister, as well as the hon. members for Piketberg, Tygervallei and Oudtshoorn, did a very thorough job in presenting to hon. members certain aspects of the policy and standpoint of this side of the House. I am grateful to them for the special contributions made by them in this regard. I want to agree with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition at once that, as far as the Brown people are concerned, the major problem, as he put it, is their socio-economic position. That is true; we know this. It becomes very clear from all the talks one has with the leaders that they, too, see and accept it this way. I believe that in that regard there is not only a duty on the Government, but that every citizen, every employer, every person has this solemn duty. This is not only a matter for the Government. It is a matter for everybody, including the Brown people themselves. They, too, have a very positive task to perform in this regard. I want to say at once that I am speaking as a person who has the greatest sympathy with the Brown people and who not only professes this, but also shows it. Even those leaders of the Brown people who differ sharply with me, cannot but agree with me that I have at all times expressed the greatest measure of sympathy and that I will go out of my way to do so; and what holds true for me, holds true for all my colleagues and for the National Party.

This aspect of the debate has actually turned slightly sour for hon. members opposite and for certain Press organs in that they hoped and believed that the advantage they had taken of the speech made by the hon. member for Moorreesburg would bring discord in the ranks of the National Party.

The speech by the Minister of the Interior.

The matter has gone sour because there is nobody on our side who is quarrelling with the hon. member for Moorreesburg.

Not openly yet.

None of us have any fault to find with the principles the hon. member for Moorreesburg spoke about. I myself differ with his views in only one respect, i.e. in his speech the hon. member for Moorreesburg referred in passing to senior and junior partners only. Personally I differ with him there. I do not speak of partnership in that regard; I speak of neighbourship. The hon. member for Moorreesburg himself also spoke elsewhere of neighbourship, and quite rightly so.

Neighbours can also be partners.

Yes, Sir, but I am referring to equal neighbourship. That is what I am referring to. Unlike the hon. member for Sea Point, I am prepared to accept the full consequences of my policy and it is not my intention to carry out an egg-dance in regard to the Sea Point swimming bath.

I want to agree with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the socio-economic problems constitute the major problem.

Did you say “equal neighbourship” or “equal neighbours”?

I say I believe in equal neighbourship. I shall explain it further to the hon. the Leader. I speak of equal neighbourship in the sense that I grant the Coloureds—in principle I conceded at once that, in so far as a need for this exists, they are entitled to it—what the Whites grant themselves.

That means sovereignty.

Yes, I am coming to that. I am not like the hon. member, who said he was going to win 35 seats and then arrived here with 11.

I do at least have 11, not an empty hand.

I do not know what those 11 seats are going to mean to the Coloureds. I think very little, for they do after all mean nothing to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Since that is the case, just how are they going to mean anything to the Coloureds?

Where is the sovereignty?

I am coming to that. It is being acknowledged, even on the part of the Coloured leaders who are hostile to us, that in the socio-economic sphere this Government has done more for them than all previous Governments did. This is true, Sir, and there is appreciation for it.

But compare the per capita expenditure on the Coloureds with that of the Whites.

The hon. member can argue about that now, and once he has argued about it, he will be given a reply in that regard. If I could give him some advice, it would be that he should not speak on my Vote as well. He should not speak on every matter that is raised in Parliament. He should take some time to do his homework and then speak when my hon. friend’s Vote is under discussion.

I thought you were in charge.

Order! The hon. member must contain himself.

No, I think the hon. member should give himself a chance to rest. I say that there is appreciation for the fact that a great deal is being done for the Coloureds in the socio-economic sphere. Not for one moment do I wish to say that everything that should be done has been done. We can argue about that. When I sit round the table with the Coloureds, I can argue with them about whether we have done enough. In a certain sense it is a pity that my Vote is being discussed now. It would have been a good thing if it could be discussed after my talks with the Coloureds have been concluded. In this regard I read in the Rand Daily Mail to my amazement, that my discussions with the Coloureds next week were the result of the speech made by my hon. friend from Moorreesburg. Heaven only knows how people are informed by such political correspondents. The date was arranged a long time ago; the meeting was arranged the day Mr. Leon and his people came to see me.

Let us now take a look at one very sensitive matter, namely housing. Housing is a particularly sensitive matter, and it is true that there is a shortage in this regard. I have asked for figures and the following were supplied to me: When one takes a look at the Cape Peninsula, it is interesting to find that from 1 August 1920 to 31 March 1948 19 601 dwelling-units for Coloureds were built in the Cape Peninsula, whereas from 1 April 1948 to 31 December 1972 no fewer than 115 016 houses were built.

Half of those are group area removals.

Sir, it does not matter what purpose these houses are used for. It happens to be true that probably not even one tenth of them were used for that purpose.

You are wrong.

It is simply a fact that in the course of the industrialization that has taken place under this Government, very large numbers of Coloureds, thousands of them, have poured into the cities. This Government has had the task, not only in the Cape Peninsula but also in all the cities of South Africa, of providing housing within two decades. Within two decades we have had to provide houses which would normally have been provided over a period of 50 to 60 years, but we have had to do that because the industrial development has been taking place so rapidly. Now, one may argue and say that enough has not been done. But, for Heaven’s sake, surely one cannot do more than the money at one’s disposal allows one to do. Surely one cannot do more than the manpower and the material at one’s disposal allows one to do. Sir, I am told by the Department that provision is being made in the Estimates for approximately 6 000 houses to be built in the year 1974, 9 500 in the year 1975, 10 500 in the year 1976, 11 000 in the year 1977 and 11 000 in the year 1978. We as the Government will do our best—I cannot take this any further—to find additional money for expediting this programme and building more houses. From the nature of the case I cannot commit myself in this regard, nor do I wish to do so. However, I just want to indicate that we have a very sympathetic understanding of this situation and that we shall do everything in our power.

Do you intend catching up with the shortage over a specific period?

Yes, we are doing our best, and if we obtain better co-operation from local authorities, things will be even better. I can say that if we obtain better co-operation from people holding political views different from ours, things will also be better. Quite often it is not our people, i.e. people supporting this side of the House, who are involved in this regard. It is high time—and I am saying this to the hon. member for Sea Point—everybody swept before his own door so that the streets of Jerusalem might be clean.

The fact that there is a wage gap is being laid at our door—and this was evident once again in this debate, too. In this regard there is something which I find terribly interesting. I am sorry that the hon. member for Pinelands is not here at the moment, for he would have been able to throw interesting light on the matter. I would appreciate it if Mother would convey the message to him.

I do not have a son; they call me “Auntie”.

I am sorry that I have burdened the hon. member with a son she does not have. I must say that in certain respects I do not want him as a son either. But let us leave the matter there. It is interesting to note from what quarters we are being accused about this gap. This is, after all, an historic gap. It is a gap which existed when hon. members opposite were governing. It is a gap about which no Government before us saw its way clear to do anything. But it was this Government that adopted the attitude that it would narrow the gap and that it had to be narrowed. It is this Government which did not merely talk about the matter, but in fact did something about it. I must say that there is appreciation for that. Why, then, is this being laid at our door and why are we being quarrelled with and blamed for the existence of this gap? Surely we all know that the gap exists. It has been there all along. Let us rather advance arguments concerning the future so that we may see whither or not we are doing enough to narrow the gap. Then we shall be able to argue. After all, one should not be raking up old stories at this stage. And, what is more, these are not even my stories; they bear the mark of hon. members opposite. These are measly stories. As I have said, one has to do here with an historic gap, just as one has to do with an historic gap concerning the difference in wages paid to men and women. This, too, should be narrowed one day.

I should say so.

Yes, it should also be narrowed. I cannot defend it on moral or logical or any other grounds. But, Sir, one is concerned here with historic difficulties which one is doing one’s best to iron out as time goes by. To tell the truth, Parliament did this a long time ago. The hon. member for Houghton gets the same salary as do other members; I hope she will also get the same increase we do, and accept it.

I deserve it more than most.

Sir, I found it interesting to read the following in The Star of 17 June 1974—only the other day—under the heading—

They went on to say this—

The magic year. [Interjection.]

Yes, Auntie must pass that on—

But the important thing is this, Sir—

*But we are being reproached, Sir, and that I do not find fair. I want to repeat: Every person should at least sweep before his own door occasionally, and it would do no harm if a church, too, would occasionally put its own affairs in order.

Sir, now I come to the socio-economic sphere, and this includes education. I do not wish to go into detail now, for those details will be furnished in the debate on the Vote of my hon. friend. But, Sir, since the introduction of the new dispensation in Coloured education, surely Coloured education has made tremendous strides; openings which never existed before have been made for Coloured children, and training colleges, etc., have been established in an attempt to meet, on a very large scale, the growing need for teachers. Once again we may argue, Sir, that this is not enough, and I shall also argue out this matter round the table with the Coloured leaders. We must at least put the matter in perspective and we must show gratitude. We should not incite people without showing the other side.

That brings me, Sir, to the Thereon Commission.

Are you going to deal after that with the question of political sovereignty?

Sir, you see from the question the hon. member has just put to me that their concern is not with the welfare of the Coloureds; their concern is not with the welfare of the Coloureds at all; their concern is with making political capital out of the Coloureds. The welfare of the Coloureds is quite secondary, and it was secondary in the days when Coloured Representatives sat in this Parliament. At the time hon. members on that side salved their consciences by saying that if a handful of male Coloureds in the Cape Province had the franchise, they had done everything that had to be done in respect of the Coloureds. To hon. members opposite the Coloureds in the Transvaal, the Coloureds in Natal and the Coloureds in the Free State did not even exist. Apart from the handful of male Coloureds who were able to get on the voters’ roll, the Coloureds who did not have the qualifications did not exist at all, and the Coloured women simply did not exist. I do not allow my conscience to be salved by that, Sir. It is this Government—and this should be put on record once again—which did not give the franchise to a handful of Coloureds in the Cape Province only, but gave the franchise to men and women throughout the Republic of South Africa, without any qualifications.

A second-class franchise.

The Government did not give them anything.

Sir, let me make a note of the hon. member’s question, otherwise I might forget it. I am now going to deal with the Thereon Commission. This commission was not forced upon the Coloureds by this Government. This commission originated in talks with the Coloureds. It was decided upon round the table, where all the Coloured leaders, except the Labour Party, were sitting. I think this is good and right and I want to state this once again, even at the risk of being accused of repetition, namely that it is time we had an authoritative document on the position of the Coloureds so that people will not talk without having knowledge, and those who know least have most to say about it. That is why I, as do other members, am looking forward to this commission’s report. It is not my intention to anticipate that report nor is it my intention to undo that commission. Since letters from people saying that there is no point in giving evidence before that commission have now appeared in the Press, I want to tell those people in all courtesy that they are wrong in their views. I want to encourage every person who has something to say in this regard, and especially Coloured people who have something to say in this regard, to avail themselves of that channel so as to put their point of view to the Thereon Commission in order that the members of that commission may have every possible piece of information at their disposal if and when they write their report. I want to say that because the commission consists of eminent people, I expect great things of that commission. But from the point of view of the Coloureds—and I find it a pity that some of them have no appreciation for it, although others do—two principles have emerged and been stabilized very clearly in that commission, namely that for the first time Whites and Coloureds are serving on the same commission, that for the first time it is not only Whites who are deliberating on the fortunes of the Coloureds, but Whites and Coloured people who are conferring together on an equal footing in that commission.

It is the second time.

Oh, Sir, the previous one was very limited in scope and did not cover the same field by far. And, secondly, the only Coloured person who served on that previous commission was Dr. Abdurahman, and he served on that commission by virtue of the fact that he was a member of the provincial council.

That does not matter.

That does not matter? Of course it matters. He served on select committees of the provincial council by virtue of his membership of the provincial council. I say it consists of eminent people; I have a great deal of appreciation, in anticipation, for the work they are going to do, and I am not going to do anything to frustrate that work. But I say that the principles which have been stabilized here are that the Coloureds were appointed to that commission from the public ranks of the Coloureds and that they are receiving equal pay for equal work on that commission. If anything proves the bona fides of the Government, then it is this. But now it is no good for the hon. member for Green Point to state piously, when we are discussing the University of the Western Cape, that a Coloured person should have been the principal of that university from the very start. Sir, he could not become that because at that stage he did not identify himself with this thing. He did not want to have anything to do with it. Surely the hon. member knows this. [Interjection.] Surely the hon. member knows, and I am not doing Dr. Van der Ross any injustice by saying that at that stage he was not agreeable to something of that nature. But then the hon. member should not level reproaches of this kind at us; because once again I do not think Dr. Van der Ross would take it amiss of me if I said this: There were vacancies at the Cape university. It is not my people who are serving on the council of that university and it is not my people who are serving on the senate of that university. But on more than one occasion Dr. Van der Ross applied for a post at that university, for which he was the best applicant, but he did not get the appointment. He applied more than once—the hon. members are free to go and ask him—for a post for which he had the best qualifications, but he did not get that post. A person may differ from me, but he should not come to me with this kind of pious talk and then, when a certain thing has to be done, it is not done. What is more, however, is that the hon. members opposite who have now waxed so lyrical here know, surely—they must be aware of this—that their propaganda was such that it was very difficult for a Coloured person to identify himself with that university in the beginning. They disparaged that institution to such an extent and created such an atmosphere that they made it virtually impossible for a Coloured person to identify himself with it.

What happened when the University of Cape Town wanted to appoint a non-White person?

I say that when they could appoint Dr. Van der Ross, they did not do so. If the hon. member does not want to take my word for it, he can make inquiries and he will find confirmation for what I am saying now.

The University of Cape Town in fact wished to appoint a non-White to its staff, but the Government would not allow it.

I am aware that there was another occasion when they also wanted to cause embarrassment. I am aware of that, but that is not relevant now. [Interjections.] I shall go further. How they disparaged the Coloured Persons Representative Council when we started with it! As far as these talks with Coloured leaders are concerned, we would have made much more progress by now if the Labour Party members, who represent a considerable part of the Coloured population, a section one must take into account ...

The majority.

The Labour Party did not poll the majority of the votes during the last election. After all, that is the only test which one can apply. Be that as it may. The fact of the matter is that I am also taking their standpoint into account. I was anxious to take their standpoint into account and for that reason I, as was my duty, sought contact and made contact with the then leader of the Labour Party. He came to see me, but as a result of that he lost his position. Over the years I have been doing my best to find contact with these people, because it is out of talks that opportunities are born. It is through talks that one finds it easier to proceed along the road ahead. I am pleased that in spite of the lost years that have passed, I am now able to have talks with the leaders of the Labour Party as well. I on my part am possessed with the intention to conduct those talks in such a spirit that good fruit will be yielded, because my concern here is not with this or with that; what I am concerned with is that the best interests of the Coloureds should be served. That is my task and my duty, and I shall do it to the best of my ability. Now the hon. member for Durban Point wants to know, “But what about the political rights of Coloureds?” I want to repeat that a handful of male Coloureds had political rights under the Constitution which the British gave us in 1909. It is not we as South Africans ...

South Africans asked for it.

In 1909 the Constitution of the Union was passed by the British Parliament and it became possible for South Africa to become a Union. It is immaterial who asked for it. The question is who gave it. Among all political parties ...

Everybody was grateful, especially the Transvalers.

Surely hon. members opposite and their ancestors never started any agitation for Coloureds to come and sit in this House. Why is the hon. member angry with me now about the statement I have just made? Has the hon. member ever started any agitation for this to happen?

The Cape wanted it and it was put that way in the provincial council.

I am asking the hon. member whether he started any agitation for Coloureds to come and sit here in Parliament.

The others were against it.

Because the others were against it, he did not speak. Why is he reproaching me now? The fact of the matter is that hon. members opposite accepted it and still accept it today. Why are they quarrelling with us now? I find it interesting that some hon. members on that side of the House are pretending to have noticed it. If my memory serves me correctly, I identified this dilemma in 1968, the dilemma resulting from the fact that the Coloureds have their parliament and we have ours, and that they are not represented here. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said that I was to cut the knot now and say what form the liaison was to take. If I had done this in the first instance, what would the reaction of hon. members opposite have been then? They would immediately have said that I had forced it on these people. However, now that it is being left to the Coloureds, it is suddenly not good enough. This is not my creation, but their own creation. I have now opened another door for them, and because it is a political organism which must grow, I do not wish to take it any further. While we are looking for another method of liaison at the moment, I have opened this door for them.

But Connie is closing it again.

The standpoint taken up by the hon. the Minister of the Interior is the standpoint of all hon. members on this side, i.e. that representation of the Coloureds in this Parliament is not the policy of the National Party. The sooner the hon. member realizes that, the better it will be for him and for his party.

The hon. the Prime Minister says that representation in this Parliament is not his policy. He also says that he does not want to anticipate the findings of the Thereon Commission. Is the hon. the Prime Minister aware that the Thereon Commission has put to the Coloured people eight alternatives including direct representation in this Parliament? Is he prepared to consider that on its merits should that be a recommendation of this Commission?

Surely those two have nothing to do with each other. After all, I am telling the hon. member that this is the policy of the National Party at this moment. On this basis, too, the election was fought, and this is the policy of the National Party. Whatever investigations may be made by the Thereon Commission in this regard have no bearing on this matter. I am telling the hon. member what the policy of the National Party is. It is a policy which is endorsed by all hon. members on this side of the House.

In other words, it does not matter what the recommendations of the Thereon Commission are?

Now, in a court of law it may be considered to be smartness on the part of the hon. member to ask that, but surely I am telling the hon. member now that this is the policy of the National Party. When the Thereon Commission makes its recommendations, this party will consider its recommendations.

And alter the policy?

Am I now to reply to an academic question while I do not know whether they are going to make recommendations or what those recommendations are going to be? I want to make it very clear to hon. members that the political policy of this Government is made by its congresses.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question? Is the hon. the Prime Minister prepared to consider representations by the Coloured people in a new central legislative organ above this one?

If the hon. member is asking me what my standpoint is in that regard, I must tell him that I think it will be a monstrosity. I do not think that is something which will be viable, nor do I think it is something which will work. What I think will work is when all the Coloured leaders sit round a table and those talks give rise to a statutory consultative body. I believe that if that happens, it will yield very good fruit and will to a very large extent eliminate problems which exist at the moment. As far as the powers of a Coloured parliament are concerned, I want to repeat that this is a body which is still in its initial stages. It has hardly had any opportunity to function. It goes without saying that I believe in that body; I have made that very clear. I believe that that body has brought the Coloureds obvious benefits, and I believe that the executive committee has won special things through that body and through the liaison body for the Coloureds. Furthermore, I believe that if that body has shortcomings, those shortcomings must be removed. Now we find the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central holding up a document of Dr. Voerwoerd here and praising it to the skies. Surely the hon. member did not praise it in 1961, when Dr. Verwoerd was still alive. I am convinced that the chances are good that the hon. member will one day, after my death, sing my praises, too. Since the hon. member held up this document, I want to ask him whether he endorses everything that is stated in that document.

He said he did not agree.

Does he endorse the basic principles of this document?

I said that I did not agree with that policy.

The hon. member says that he endorses what is stated in this document and the policy set out in it. [Interjections.] I heard that distinctly. The hon. member may withdraw it if he so wishes. He said: “I agree with the policy in that document.” Did the hon. member say so?

I said that I did not agree with the policy stated in that document.

I am sorry I misheard him. Let me tell the hon. member now that the policy advocated in this document is the policy of the National Party. The policy advocated in this document is the policy which my colleague and I are trying to implement.

I have now spoken for long enough. If there is any time left for me later on, I will in any case go on to refer to this document again.

Before you resume your seat, tell us ...

Get up

Order!

The hon.member should not simply remain seated when he wants to put questions to me. Surely he knows what the rules of the House are when an hon. member wants to put a question.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question? He promised us—and that is what I said—that before he sat down he would explain to us how the Coloured people would exercise their sovereignty under his policy. How will they influence foreign affairs? How will they influence defence? How will they have this equal “buurskap”?

Order!

But surely I have told the hon. member the dilemma is that that field is not covered when there are only two separate parliaments. If there is a channel of communication and if there is consensus between them and us, then that position is covered. That consensus between them and us is attained in the consultative body, and the legislation arises from that consensus. Surely that speaks volumes for itself. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to warn the hon. member for Yeoville. He should not persist with making interjections.

I want to tell hon. members that through their agitation they may succeed in creating greater problems for the Government than it already has. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition quite rightly said at the beginning that we were faced with very big problems. However, I want to conclude with the same words with which the hon. member for Moorreesburg concluded his speech, namely that the policy of the National Party will ensure that those problems are bridged over. In the implementation of that policy, however much it may hurt hon. members opposite, this party stands as unanimous as any party has ever stood for that.

Mr. Chairman, it was once my privilege to attend a Press conference given to 400 pressmen in the United States of America by the chairman of the American Goals Committee. He looked the pressmen up and down and said: “The central theme of my report was distributive leadership. I have read every single Press report to do with this commission’s report and nowhere have I seen the phrase used.” I thought, when I sat down this morning, that the central theme of my speech, my appeal or plea to the hon. the Prime Minister, was for the establishment of a permanent, multi-racial advisory body or committee on which there would be representatives of all the races in South Africa so that we would have teamwork to face the dangers with which South Africa is faced at the present time. However, not one word have I heard from the hon. gentleman in that regard.

That was just a passing remark. If you want a reply to that, I shall give it to you.

The hon. the Prime Minister says he felt that it was just a passing remark. The odd thing is that, when I raised it once before, the Prime Minister also treated it as just a passing remark. I think that today we would like to have from the hon. the Prime Minister his reaction to a plea of this kind, some thing which I regard as absolutely vital if we are to have harmonious race relations in South Africa. We are not going to get people working together as a team unless there is proper consultation, unless everyone knows what the feelings of the others are and unless they learn to work together. That was the essence of my plea to the hon. gentleman.

The hon. the Prime Minister has been at pains to say that this side of the House has been responsible for policy changes from time to time. Who is he to talk about policy changes? What is left of the Loskop Dam sports policy under this hon. gentleman? What has happened to the Government’s immigration policy since the hon. Dr. Dӧnges was Minister of Immigration? What has happened to the Coloured policy of this Government? Before 1948 they were going to give the Coloureds representation by members of Parliament who were going to be second class members of Parliament. The next thing we heard was that they were going to be on a separate roll but that they would be represented by 1st-class members of Parliament. Then we heard they were going to get a Coloured Representative Council and that it was not going to affect their representation in this Place. Finally, their representation in this hon. House has vanished and they still have a Coloured Representative Council which does not conform to the promises made by the hon. the Prime Minister at that time.

What about the repatriation of Indians?

What has happened in respect of Dr. Dӧnges’s promise to use before the 1948 election. viz., that he was going to repatriate all the Indians from South Africa? What has happened in regard to labour training? Does the hon. gentleman really think he is making debating points when he accuses us of having changed our policy?

He says we have changed policy with regard to trade unions. Of course we have. We told him so during the censure debate, and I told him so in my reply to that debate and I told him exactly why. I told him that the machinery he had created was not acceptable to the Black people. I told him that they saw it as different from that given to the Whites and that they regarded it as discriminatory. I told him that in one part of Natal there had been 222 strikes in a few months in which 78 000 employees were involved. I told him that his machinery was breaking down and was a complete disaster. I told him that Black trade unions were mushrooming all over South Africa and that they were operating outside of the law. I told him that it was no good the hon. the Minister threatening to prosecute these people; because whether he liked it or not, the employers, to protect themselves, would have to negotiate with those trade unions. Then the hon. the Prime Minister said I gave him no reason for changing our policy. I not only gave him reasons for us changing our policy, after careful consideration by a conference called by the hon. member for Hillbrow in which he had consultations with a broad section of people in South Africa, and which made a unanimous recommendation, but I had hoped that I had adduced sufficient reasons to persuade the hon. the Prime Minister to change his policy. I want to tell him that if he wants the goodwill, co-operation and team work of the Africans living in our urban areas, he is going to have to change his system of collective bargaining, otherwise he is going to have that industrial unrest and strife in South Africa which will undermine his ability to resist pressure from outside. That is what I have been telling the hon. gentleman. What have we had so far? He says he understands that I have changed my policy, but he gives me no reason why he is not prepared to change. He has not dealt with the matter; he has not said a single word about one of the most vital questions in South Africa at the present time. If there is one thing which is a danger at the moment, it is the danger of industrial unrest. And what does he do? He talks about the rural Bantu and tells us that he does not know, according to United Party policy, whether they are going to have political rights in their homelands or not. We have told him so often that these people are scattered about the country. In some cases they would be nearer to a legislative assembly controlled by a homeland, in other cases nearer to a legislative assembly which would be representing the urban Bantu in South Africa. As far as the areas were concerned, we would give them the choice as to which would be the most suitable. What is wrong with that? The hon. the Prime Minister smiles. At least it gives them something; it gives them meaningful rights where it matters for them.

We come also to this whole question of Mozambique, and Angola as well, because the two are inextricably intertwined. I do not propose to take the matter further. I appreciate that the Prime Minister may have difficulty in replying to some of my questions for security reasons. But there are certain lessons to be learnt as the hon. gentleman agrees, from what happened in those territories. In his treatment of the urban Bantu, he is flying in the face of every single lesson that can be learnt from what the experience of the Portuguese was in those territories. I made it very clear to him. He seems to have forgotten how urgently time is moving forward in respect of these people. He seems to have forgotten that their political representation is meaningless to them, one of the most dangerous things that there are. He seems to have forgotten that outmoded ideas, theories and policies are resulting in the most ordinary, everyday, normal rights of a human being being denied them; the right to own their own homes in these urban townships, the right to have undisturbed family life, the right to have a real say even in their own local government, the right to secondary education in many cases in these urban townships. These are things which it is absolutely evident are the basis of unrest in this country. They can make these people the prey of the agitator. We have often put these things to the hon. the Prime Minister. These are lessons that can be learnt. Is the hon. gentleman so blind that he is really not going to have any regard to these things? We put certain questions to the hon. the Prime Minister in regard to the Cape Coloured people. He told us that his policy was “gelyke buurskap”. By that I presume he means equal neighbourliness—it is not an easy word to translate—that we will be good neighbours. You can have for yourself what you can get for yourself and I’ll have for myself what I can get for myself. That’s what it can be summed up as. Through this Parliament the hon. the Prime Minister is in charge. He has the say. This is the sovereign power in South Africa. He tries to abrogate his responsibility and turns around to us and says: I leave it to the Coloureds to suggest what the “skakel”, what the connecting link should be between this Parliament and their representative council. Is the hon. gentleman not prepared to take responsibility for that?

But surely you are talking nonsense now.

The hon. gentleman says I am talking nonsense. I am talking the most sincere common sense that I have ever talked in this House. The hon. gentleman spoke here from 19 minutes past two—I took the time—and we have had no answer at all in regard to what he envisages for these people. He has talked and he is going to talk again. He hopes that the talks will be successful. What does he regard as success in respect of the talks? That they are going to have another talk? Are they going to give some ideas about the future? What does the hon. the Prime Minister hope to get out of these talks? He is the leader of the country. Which way is he taking things? Is he moving in the direction of some sort of link which will result in decision-taking? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned how frequently the National Party had allegedly changed its policy in the past. However, when we come to what is basic to the existence of each one of us in this country, we find the National Party still standing exactly where it has been standing throughout the years. I want to put this to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: The fact that they have granted recognition to Black trade unions in the twinkling of an eye, is simply being passed off as though it does not constitute any specific change in policy of any kind, as though it is simply a natural development. Let us look at what the position of this Parliament is as stated in this pamphlet which hon. members opposite distributed prior to the last election. The pamphlet is entitled “Federation”. In this pamphlet one reads of their attitude towards this Parliament. They say—

In other words, sovereign power. They go on to say—

After the election we hear no more of this so-called “solemn pledge” of theirs and of the referendum that should be held. What happened to the referendum?

We are still going to hold it.

Oh, you are still going to hold it?

Yes.

When?

As soon as we are sitting on the opposite side.

As soon as you are sitting over here? What are hon. members opposite going to ask the electorate after what was said by the hon. member for Durban North in the censure debate this year, i.e. “Our policy will be absurd if this Parliament retains its position”?

He did not say that.

Yes, that is exactly what he said. He said: “It would be a fraud”. Why do these people still want to hold a referendum if it is to be on a change in policy? Sir, this whole situation would have been rather amusing were it not such an extremely dangerous one. Lately a competition is in progress on the opposite side to prove that the one is a more effective opposition than the other, and there is speculation about which of them can do best as an Opposition party. Yesterday they made a farce of the whole House by wasting its time ...

We want to do better than you are doing apparently.

... simply to show which of them could be a more effective Opposition by taking up more of the time of this House and in so doing gain the larger amount of publicity.

Why have they brought you into the debate?

Why have they brought you into this House?

Yes, one may well ask: Why have they brought that hon. member into this House? Sir, here we have the official Opposition and the hon. members of that party, and one begins to doubt whether they really are an Opposition. It is much more likely that they are the representatives of a power group outside. There are very few of them who are not in the service—some of them very directly in the service—of big business in South Africa. Here they want to give out that they are speaking on behalf of voters; but they constitute a group of people who have no chance whatsoever of making any progress in South African politics, except if they can do so at the expense of the United Party. Against the National Party they have no chance whatsoever. They are constantly talking about dialogue, they proceed from one dialogue to the next. The dialogue they have, is dialogue with the leaders of the Coloureds, people who were put there by a creation of the National Party. Sir, those homeland leaders and Coloured leaders are now being used by hon. members on the Opposite side of this House in the first instance and amongst other things in an attempt to get rid of the National Party.

Can’t we even consult with them?

Yes, but how do you consult with those people? Those people are invited to address their congresses to tell them what their policy should be, and if there is any objection to that, The Star, of which the hon. member for Parktown was the editor right up to last year—perhaps it was he who wrote this—says, as it said on Wednesday, 22 August, after Harry Schwarz had said, “We ‘SCHWARTZE’ (Blacks) understand one another”, because Nationalists had objected to the fact that these people attended their congresses—

You see, Sir, this is what is going on that side of the House. These people are making common cause with the non-Whites in order to, and this is the only object they have in view, get rid of the National Party.

Now how does one do that?

You incite them, agitators, to create trouble in this country. Sir, can you imagine what our position would have been in this country and what our position would have been overseas if, instead of speaking of Afrikaans, Nationalists spoke English? I believe we would have had a completely different situation in South Africa.

The Rhodesians speak English.

But this is the style in which they are carrying on. Those two sides of the House are trying to see, in the most reckless manner, how much they can break down. They have long forgotten the question of being a possible alternative Government, because the policies they state, do not hold any water whatsoever. It would be conceited of me to go into the matter once again after the hon. the Prime Minister had done this so effectively. The only difference I have with the hon. the Prime Minister as regards the points raised by him, is that he said there was a complete right about turn on the part of the official Opposition. It was not a right about turn; it was a left about turn. There is a marked movement to the left. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Fauresmith appears to see ulterior motives in everything. The fact that yesterday the official Opposition and the Progressive Party were combined in an effort to oppose the Publications Bill is not of course considered by him on merit. He thinks it was because there was competition for publicity. I want to assure the hon. member that the feeling against that Bill was very high indeed and that it had nothing whatever to do with the ulterior motives he ascribes to us. I want to say also that I take the strongest exception to his comments about this party and its relationship with what he calls “die geldmag”. Now this is not the first time that we have had this accusation flung against the Progressive Party.

But some of your party are in the direct service of “die geldmag”.

That is none of your business. A lot of members on the other side, on your side, are in the direct service of big Afrikaans corporations. So what? I want to know since when success is considered a disgrace in this country. I always understood that this was a free enterprise country and that Capitalism was the official policy of South Africa. But when you have a party that wins seats in what are known as the more affluent areas of South Africa, there seems to be something sinister about it.

Not sinister but significant.

Then it can only mean that the “geldmag”—and there is always something especially sinister about that—is trying to capture the political scene in South Africa. Now I want to say that I have absolutely no excuses to make about the areas in which we stand and fight and win seats. In those areas are living, admittedly, successful businessmen and successful professional men, men who provide employment for hundreds of thousands of South Africans of all races and all colours, and since when is that considered a disgrace? And in all those seats I may say, there is a cross-section of the population. In my own area there are people who are among the less well-endowed, pensioners and so on, and without whose considerable support I could not have won my election by nearly 4 000 votes.

Where do you get your money?

We get our money from exactly the same sources that other parties get their money from. We get our money from big donors, just as the Nationalist Party gets its money from big donors and the United Party used to get money from big donors, but I do not know whether it gets any money at all now. But the Nationalist Party certainly gets its money from big donors. And we get our money from the thousands of Progressive Party supporters who are prepared to give regular donations to keep the party going. We are more than happy that a Select Committee has been appointed. We have nothing to hide and, indeed, we laugh at the ludicrous amounts which we are supposed to have spent on the general election.

I want to come back to the Prime Minister’s Vote. I just wanted to take the opportunity of replying to the idiotic assertions that are made, as if we ought to be ashamed of representing seats, as I say, that consist of the cream of South Africa’s citizens who provide the entrepreneurship and jobs for thousands of people and whose initiative has in fact helped to develop this country to the extent that it has developed, together, as I say, with ordinary citizens less well endowed who are a cross-section of the whole community.

(Inaudible),

No, the hon. member is quite right, except for those who voted for us.

I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that I agree with him certainly in one respect, in what he said this afternoon and that is that there is one section of the Black population of South Africa which is always neglected when we have our political discussions or, indeed, any discussions. I am referring to the Black farm labourers, who have lived for generations on White farms. There must be at least 3,5 million of them. They are probably just a little less in number than the Africans living in the urban areas of South Africa. About these people one hears very little. It is not only the United Party that does not give us any idea of the political future of Black farm labourers; the National Party does not either. To expect farm labourers living in the White rural areas of South Africa to consider their political ambitions to be fulfilled by our giving them votes in far-off homelands, is, I would say, less than realistic to put it in a masterly understatement. While we are about it, we might have a word or two about the socioeconomic conditions of those people. I want to know whether the National Government still adheres to the policy which was propounded by the present Minister of Immigration when he was Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. He said, “Once a farm labourer, always a farm labourer”. I want to know whether that is the policy of the Government. I can think of nothing more disheartening to a man than to know that he has been born in a certain lowly status and that there he has to remain the rest of his life.

May I put a question?

No, I am sorry; I have only ten minutes.

Do you speak first-hand or do you speak from what you saw in the Press?

I speak from a good deal of study that I have made of this situation. I am repeating what the hon. the Minister said at the time and I want to know whether that is National Party policy. If that was incorrect, then presumably anybody on that side would tell me so. “Once a farm labourer, always a farm labourer”, must be to my mind one of the most deadening pronouncements that has ever been made in South Africa. I wonder if the hon. the Prime Minister ever in his calculations sits down and thinks what he is going to do about the future of the Black farm labourers in South Africa whose wages are the lowest in the country.

I am pleased to report that that is not true,

Well, there may be areas where the wages are higher, but I can assure the hon. member from agricultural surveys, not from guess work ...

How do their wages compare with the hotel wages?

They compare very badly with the hotel wages, let me tell the hon. the Prime Minister. I have no worries about that at all. I doubt if there is a farm labourer in this country who earns anything like the wages being paid by the hotels. That is something I wish to commend to the hon. the Prime Minister. There are million Black citizens about whom nothing is ever done in this Chamber, to assist them to improve their socio-economic position. Certainly nothing is ever said about their political position.

I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister, who I am sure is genuinely concerned about the housing problem of the Coloured people, because he told us so this afternoon when he pointed out how many houses had already been built, whether he will not seriously consider the suggestion made by my hon. leader, viz. that group area removals be stopped until the backlog of housing is caught up. I am not asking the hon. the Prime Minister to change his policy, because that would be a waste of time. What I am asking him to do is to delay the implementation of a policy of which I, of course, profoundly disapprove, at least until the backlog is caught up. The Government must stop taking people out of houses, which, while not palaces, are certainly much more reasonable than the shacks they find they have to go and live in if they have to be moved. This is quite wrong, because the natural increase of the population means that many people are living in very bad conditions, because half the houses which are built in the Cape by local authorities are taken by the Community Development Board to house people in terms of group areas removals. That is one thing the hon. the Prime Minister can do within his policy. He can simply call a halt to group area removals until we have caught up with the housing backlog.

Then I also want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he is not perturbed about newspaper reports which tell of rent increases which the various boards which are now under Government control, like the West Rand Board and other boards, are going to impose on Africans living in the urban townships. We all know that the majority of people in those areas are earnings wages which are still below the poverty datum line. Despite the increases, and there have been considerable increases over the last year, they have not managed, because they start on an absolutely low figure, to keep up or catch up with the burgeoning cost of living. We all know that. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, as always, one listens with attention when the hon. member for Houghton addresses the House, but as always she has revealed the role which her party plays in this House. We have had a debate this afternoon and a speech from the hon. the Prime Minister—a most important speech—about a mighty adventure, moral, intellectual and political, that is taking place in South Africa. Instead of taking part in this debate and analysing and thinking about the great things that are being considered and done in South Africa, she came up with a few specific grievances which had nothing to do with the great importance of this debate, grievances which could equally well have been raised under the Votes of the Ministers concerned. The Prime Minister’s Vote is the Vote where one considers matters of great policy. It is no wonder that she started her speech by trying to justify the existence of the Progressive Party. I want to say at once that as far as many of us are concerned, the Progressive Party is a political accident. The Progressive Party is an eruption upon the sick skin of the moribund United Party, nothing more. It could not be in this House if the United Party had not been moribund. The hon. member knows this. I am not concerned about whether they represent the cream of South Africa. I am very proud to represent the solid, good, middle classes of South Africa.

*What I have just said, fits in with a theme which developed in my mind while I was listening to this debate. There is no doubt whatsoever that what we are engaged in is an adventurous, fine and bold enterprise in the sphere of ethnic or race relations in South Africa. Hon. members may agree with that or they may not agree with that; hon. members may want to see the pace accelerated in certain respects and may feel that the pace is too fast in other respects, but this experiment is taking place and is succeeding as is being proved to us by numerous major facts in South Africa. I think it is tragic that both the official Opposition and the Progressive Party opposition dissociate themselves from this adventure. Not only do they dissociate themselves, but through their actions they are doing their utmost not to let major and important sections of the people of South Africa have a share in this great spiritual, intellectual and moral adventure. By constantly harping on petty aspects and exaggerating grievances, an attempt is being made to exclude our non-Whites from this experiment. This experiment is to a large extent being carried out in their interests and to their advantage and progress. An attempt is being made especially by the Progressive Party and practically all the English-language newspapers in South Africa to exclude the English-speaking section of our people from this mighty experiment and to keep them ignorant of the positive aspects thereof. An attempt is also being made to exclude the Afrikaans-speaking minority which still supports the United Party and the 10 or 12 Afrikaans-speaking people in the Progressive Party, and to keep them ignorant of and to make them prejudiced against this experiment. Fortunately they fail in every respect, because English speaking people are joining the National Party in increasing numbers.

Be careful!

I would not have been sitting here this afternoon, and I would not have been able to speak here this afternoon were it not for the considerable number of English-speaking people who voted for the National Party for the first time during the last election. Non-Whites of different races are realizing more and more the great practical and real value this experiment has for them as leaders and as peoples. Even if they do not accept the policy of the Government with its full implications, they are grateful for what is happening to them and on their behalf under this policy. Even abroad they are able to say that they do not agree with the Government, but they admit that they stand there with authority and with status and that they are speaking on behalf of their respective peoples, thanks to the policy of the National Party. I think it is absolutely tragic that we have the position that thousands of our people are, in this way, through the organized propaganda organization of the Opposition parties and its Press, not allowed to know what is really happening in South Africa.

I was interested in the discussion that took place on the Coloureds in South Africa this afternoon. I heard things I did not know. I heard of the money which is being spent, for the first time and to an extent hitherto unheard of in the history of South Africa, on the promotion of the Coloured population. For the first time I learned this afternoon that, on average, every two years more houses are built by the National Party Government than had been built in 20 years before the National Party came into power. I did not know this. These are not the kind of reports we read in the newspapers. [Interjections.] No, but I found it interesting to see that the immediate reaction of the hon. members sitting in the front benches of the Progressive Party, was to try and belittle that achievement. It was interesting to see how they were searching for points to hide the meaning of this fact from the people of South Africa. When I joined the National Party, I had the opportunity to meet Indians, who came to see me from Natal, who thanked me for joining the National Party. These were prominent Indians. They pointed out to me—and the hon. member for Houghton must listen now ...

I am listening.

These Indians pointed out to me that under the United Party Government, of which she was an apologist in the United Party Women’s Council on the Witwatersrand—she became a member of Parliament by defending the policy of the United Party, just as I did—it was not possible for them to own houses. They were the victims of restrictive laws. There were no positive indications for them as to where they could safely buy and own houses. They said I should come and see what kind of towns they have in Durban today, and the kind of houses they own. At that time they received a university education with great difficulty, but today they have their own university. They had to be content with being coolie labourers on the sugar plantations and waiters in hotels. Today one can have a look at the Zastri Technical Training College where Indians are trained to practise trades they were unable to practise previously and where they are trained to uplift their own people and to serve them. These are the positive things that have been created, but we never hear a word about them. We never hear a word of gratitude or a word of appreciation. These people, who have access to the media that can most easily reach the outside world, such as English-language newspapers and magazines, keep silent about these things and concentrate all their attention on the negative and petty things and on the shortcomings. No one denies that these exist; there are shortcomings. Why must we conduct a debate or dialogue in South Africa only on shortcomings without positive attention being given by the Opposition to the positive aspects and achievements of this policy with a view to improving it ever further? I am thinking, for example of the policy in respect of our Natives. We hear all the time—and I am pleased about it—that we should endeavour to uplift these people and to help them to earn more, to increase their standard of living and to realize their aspirations and to find themselves. Surely, one of the first requirements, if one wants to achieve this goal, would be for these people to become involved in and be brought into bodies of their own for their administration and progress in life.

Such as trade unions.

They have their trade unions, should they want them. My hon. friend knows that. He and I have discussed trade unions for the Natives for many years. We have always agreed on that score. I do not know what has happened to him now. It was not I who changed him. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to say that although the hon. member for Turffontein has suddenly developed a wonderful admiration for the Government, we cannot take him seriously at all. We recall that the hon. member, when he was sitting on this side, said—

At the time he was speaking in general terms, but subsequently he also referred specifically to the non-White situation. What did he write in this regard in an article in the Star in 1972? He said—

On what grounds can he suddenly come here now and propound lessons to us? On another occasion he said—

We are in complete agreement with him. I can continue in this strain. On another occasion he said—

This is very strong language indeed, and under those circumstances he cannot expect us on this side to take his statements in any way seriously.

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

No, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member knows that I only have ten minutes, and besides, he always asks stupid questions. [Interjections.] We have now experienced a peculiar approach in this debate. The hon. the Prime Minister said that we should not discuss Coloured affairs but that we should raise it under the Vote of the Minister in question, and that we should not discuss Bantu affairs ...

What you are now saying is untrue.

Of course you suggested that. I shall tell him why we are raising these matters under his Vote: Because we received absolutely no replies from his Ministers and indeed, we are not receiving any from the hon. the Prime Minister either.

Take the single example of labour. In the censure debate a strong attack was launched on the Government by this side. Sir, what replies did we receive? The bulky member for Vanderbijlpark kicked up a little dust here. We know that when the Government is in trouble they always call upon him to throw up a smokescreen, but not a word was said by the hon. the Minister of Labour. When he is not here, he becomes exceptionally garrulous. When he was attending the Natal Congress of his party, there among the faithful, he was not merely garrulous, he was quite bold. He threatened the businessmen and stated how he was going to make and break them. But here he did not say a word. I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Labour is not here, because I should not like to say something about him in his absence! At this specific congress there was something else which he also got off his chest. He said that if we are in any way working in the direction of trade unions for Blacks here—this is what we advocate—all that we would achieve would be a 1922 strike. I want to tell him that I think this was an irresponsible statement and something which is to a large extent to be deprecated. You see, Sir, it is this Government which always creates the wrong psychological climate. After all, it was they who said for years: “The United Party wants a kaffir to take over your job.” Put under their régime it is now happening on a greater scale than ever before in the history of our country; and it is happening because it has to happen. We say that Bantu trade unions are going to come. I am saying now to the hon. the Prime Minister: “As surely as I am standing here, and as surely as he is sitting there, we are still going to have trade unions for Blacks.” But statements of that kind by his Minister create a totally wrong psychological climate for the kind of adjustment we will have to make.

We cannot bring the hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet so far as to express themselves clearly on specific points. We are now asking him a cardinal question: Are the Black people who are here a permanent part of our labour market? The hon. the Prime Minister does not reply to us on this score; nor do his Ministers. They do not want to tell us whether the Black people are here permanently. His Minister of Bantu Administration and Development says on one day that they are here on a temporarily permanent basis; the next day we hear that they are here on a permanently temporary basis. Sir, what does this mean? His Deputy Minister, who at least does not indulge in this kind of semantic nonsense, says they are going to be here for many years to come. On certain days when his master, the teacher, is not here, he says they are going to be here for many, many years to come. But he gets no further than that either. Nor does he want to say whether they are going to be here permanently. You see, Sir, it is under these circumstances, because the Government does not want to take this cardinal decision, that he is of course forced to be evasive. It is under these circumstances that the Government is always forced to say what the hon. the Prime Minister recently said in his interview with Mr. Buckley. I should like to discuss this with him a little further, if I may. He adopted the standpoint, which he adopts repeatedly, that there is migrant labour overseas as well. Apparently it is a case of, if there is migrant labour overseas as well, these two things which are both wrong making a right. But in point of fact the migrant labour situation overseas is in no way comparable with our situation here. If one draws that kind of comparison, it indicates that you are uninformed, and you are in fact embarrassing South Africa. Because, Sir, there is a world of difference between the migrant labour system there and the migrant labour system here, both as regards its legal basis as well as its social consequences. Permit me to indicate these briefly here. Overseas the control is in the form of immigration control, viz. to control the free influx of aliens to one’s own country. That, I think, is quite acceptable. The kind of control we have here in South Africa, is control over one’s own population, which may not move from one point to another, and this applies only to a section of the population. However, Sir, if you have a white skin you can work wherever you like in South Africa; if you have a black skin, you may not do so. If you are a migrant labourer overseas, your wife and children may accompany you. You know what the position in our country would be if this were tried here. If a person is a migrant labourer overseas, he may live where he wishes; no one prescribes to him where he should live. Here, however, there are strict limits which are imposed on where one may live. If you are a migrant labourer overseas, you may buy your own house, you may buy a palace if you can afford it. Here in South Africa a non-White may not buy a house in the so-called White areas. If one is a migrant labourer overseas, you are obliged to be a member of a trade union. If one is a migrant labourer in South Africa, you dare not be a member of a legal trade union. If one is a migrant labourer overseas one is paid according to the rate for the job. Here in South Africa you do not receive the rate for the job if you are a migrant labourer. If a person is a migrant labourer overseas, you can progress from the lowest to the highest level in an organization; you can become the managing director. If one is a migrant labourer here in South Africa, the Minister says that you cannot even become an apprentice. If you are a migrant labourer overseas, you can acquire full citizenship and you can eventually become enfranchized. Surely we know what happens in South Africa ...

You are talking nonsense.

If one is accepted and if one obtains permanent domicile there, one receives citizenship and in that way the franchize. Here in South Africa we know that one cannot receive this. To draw this kind of comparison, to say that in France and Germany they have migrant labour as we have here, and that there is nothing wrong with our migrant labour system, is to display one’s ignorance. The two systems differ fundamentally from one another. Indeed, there is a workers’ charter overseas to protect their rights. [Time expired.]

I did not intend participating immediately in this debate again. But the hon. member for Hill-brow now compels me to say a few things. The hon. member has now permitted himself to make personal attacks, in a very derogatory manner, on several members on this side. I ask myself who the hon. member is; with what authority he can make personal attacks on any member in this House? The hon. member’s popularity in his own party is such that even if he wanted to give it away to someone, no one would take it, so little is it. It does not pay him to make personal attacks on people. He referred derogatorily to the hon. member for Turffontein and others. I ask the hon. member what his relationship with his former M.P.C. is. That is how important this matter is. But the hon. member said two things to which I want to react, before I return to certain aspects in regard to the Coloureds on which I still have to furnish a reply to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. The hon. member for Turffontein referred to the incitement which is taking place. Now I want to indicate, with the words which the hon. member has just spoken, what irresponsible statements we get from hon. members on that side of the House. The hon. member comes here and states blatantly that if one has a white skin in South Africa one can go where one wishes, but if one has a black skin one cannot. When that hon. member stands on the election platform and he is asked whether he will abolish influx control, he says “no”. [Interjections.]

He did not say that.

Yes, he did.

Who is being dishonest then, when, on the one hand, one arouses feelings against the National Party here in this House and incites people by saying that one cannot, under the National Party regime, go wherever one wishes if one’s skin is black—and this is the case because there is influx control—and when, on the other hand, a person and his party states when an election is being fought: “We also stand for influx control”? Where does honesty come into it? Surely it is then true that if the United Party should come into power tomorrow, Black people will not be able to go wherever they wish either; surely some of them, in exactly the same way as under our regime, will also be prevented from doing so by influx control. Why should one now castigate and crucify one’s own country for something which one is undoubtedly going to do oneself if one comes into power?

He did not say that at all.

Of course he did; I wrote down his words. His argument was that if a person has a black skin, he cannot go wherever he wishes, but if a person has a white skin, then one can.

We are not children.

Sir, I know that well enough. Umhlatuzana does not think that the hon. member is a child either; that is why they returned him to Parliament with 300 votes.

Thirty.

The hon.member did a second thing. When it suits his purpose, he says that there are no opportunities for Black workers under this Government; then he pours abuse on us and he casts suspicion on us here and overseas and everywhere, but when he wants to use a debating point against us, he says—and I wrote his words down—

But when it suits him, Sir, he crucifies South Africa and this party by saying that a Black worker has no hope at all of finding work here; but when, on the other hand, it suits him in his opportunism, he produces stories of this kind. This simply does not hold water.

Sir, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to group areas and the participation by Coloureds in this. The hon. member created the impression that Coloureds had no say or involvement (inspraak) whatsoever in this matter. If this were the case, Sir, it would be wrong and I would rise and state unequivocally here that it is wrong. But I have now been able to acquaint myself with the facts through the Minister of Planning to whom this matter has been entrusted. What is the procedure which is adopted in group areas (translation)?—

This is what was done in the past. Therefore there can be no question of the Coloureds not having an involvement (inspraak) in this matter. But I want to go further, Sir, and I want to associate this with what I said in the debate on the motion of censure and what I have already foreshadowed in my limited discussions with the Coloured leaders. I said that a Government is not concerned only with what is to be done here in Parliament; there are many bodies and organizations which are concerned with the implementation of government policy in any country. Because neither the Coloureds nor the Indians have a homeland area in which they may ultimately obtain their independence, I must in future take this aspect of the matter into consideration. I have given this matter a great deal of thought, and my colleagues and I have done a great deal of consultation in regard to it. The hon. member for Moorreesburg referred to an adventure which is taking place under National Party government, and he stated it well and correctly, for that is in truth what it is. It is the policy in respect of this area which is common to the Coloureds, the Indians and the Whites, and in respect of those councils and commissions dealing with that common area, and it is a consequence which arises from the policy of the National Party, that as accomplished Coloured persons emerge, as circumstances justify it, as the need arises, and as the discussions which are being held by us progress, so the Coloureds will to an increasing extent be called upon to involve themselves in these matters (inspraak hou) with the Whites. To reply now to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, where the Coloured people are being consulted in this manner, it is being done within the framework of the policy of the National Party and I can foresee the day when they will not only be consulted in this manner, but when it will be possible for them to have a far more direct involvement (inspraak), as members of such a board. These are the prospects which I open up for them; these are the doors which I open for them. I am aware that the Coloureds are sensitive and I cannot blame them for being so. In fact, I want to agree with them that certain positions were closed to them in the past. I have already opened up many of those positions, but it will to an increasing extent be the policy of this Government, as and when—I repeat—accomplished, responsible and well-equipped people are there, to involve them more and more. This is a process of evolution, a process of gradual transition, but it is a process which will take place. While I am speaking here now, various possibilities come to mind, for it is in that direction which I believe it has to develop. If there is a consumer council—the Coloureds are consumers in precisely the same way as all the other people, and the Indians as well—then it is well and good that they should also have representation on it. I am thinking now of the carnage on our roads. They have as much of an interest in road safety as we have, and consequently I can foresee the day when they will be included. I say that I opened those doors in my speech during the censure debate. In future hon. members will to an increasing extent see that in respect of those common prospects, the Coloureds will receive their share. The hon. member stated that I should grant them their full civil rights now. There are Coloureds who have also said this to me. Unfortunately, in the limited time in which we conducted, our discussions, it soon became clear that there was no unanimity as to what full civil rights are. Everyone can attach his own interpretation to this, and indeed different people can attach different interpretation to it. To tell the truth, I told the Coloureds that we have to clarify this concept, for then we could argue whether they already have it or not. If they do not already have it, it has to be established what is lacking. That is why discussion is necessary—so that we may identify whether we are talking about the same thing and whether we have the same thing in mind. I make so bold as to say that this is the responsible way in which one should set about it. I believe that it is the orderly way in which one should set about it. I believe that it is the permanent way in which one should set about things in this regard.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition accused me of abdicating my responsibility if I set about it in this way. I cannot understand how he can make that charge against me. I want to go so far as to say that it is the highest form of responsibility, because it means that I am not making a policy for the Coloureds from an ivory tower, but that I am sitting down with them around a table to ascertain for myself where the problems lie and what we Can do in that regard. It goes without saying that in this process demands will be made on the Government with which it will be unable to comply. It also speaks volumes that if the hon. members opposite had been in power, demands would have been made on them as well, with which they would have been unable to comply. We shall always have this. I want to repeat—I shall reply at a later stage to the other points because I do not want to say too much today—that if the necessary goodwill is there, that if persons and newspapers do not intervene, and that if there are no agitators—the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also admits that there are such persons; he also mentioned them—who intervene, then I believe that there is no problem whatsoever in South Africa which we cannot solve to the satisfaction of all the population groups in South Africa. Speaking of agitators, I want to make it very clear here—in case it was not spelt out clearly enough in the censure debate, and if I have the opportunity I should like to discuss this matter on Monday—that there are people who believe that the pressure from without is building up against South Africa. Now I am not referring to the hon. members on the opposite side of the House, but to the agitators, of whose existence both the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I are aware. There are agitators in South Africa who as, in their opinion, the pressure from without increases, do their best to increase the pressure within South Africa. We have had examples of this, and I think we shall get round to discussing this on Monday. I want to give this House and the country in general the assurance that as long as this Government is there, it will not allow those agitators to create chaos in this country. I am saying this in passing, for I assume that we shall still debate this matter. It is on this point that a cardinal difference between hon. members on the opposite side and we on this side exists. Hon. members opposite believe, and they believe very devoutly, that agitators should be fought only by means of the courts. As Minister of Justice I have debated this matter over the years. I have debated it in this House, and I have also debated it in the Other Place. In the Other Place Senator Jordan and Senator Conradie conceded, and this has been recorded in Hansard, that given the position of South Africa it is necessary for the Government to take administrative action and a Government would be failing in its duty if it shrugged off its responsibility in that connection. It has a duty to take action in this regard, and it has to accept the responsibility. It has to accept the criticism, and everything which goes with it, but it is its duty to take action in that regard.

Mr. Chairman, in this kind of debate the advantage is, of course, always with the Government. The hon. the Prime Minister can talk whenever he wants to; he has unlimited time while we get ten minutes at a time during which we must try to make our point.

The hon. the Prime Minister accused me of being personal, but all I did was to quote from previous outpourings of the hon. member for Turffontein. If when you quote what a man says it becomes personal, then all of us are guilty of being personal. The hon. the Prime Minister would then also be a culprit.

The hon. the Prime Minister asked me if we accepted influx control. Of course we do, but there is a vital difference. The Government has influx control for political reasons while we would have influx control for social reasons. We would control our non-White people coming into the urban areas, because we do not wish to recreate the shanty towns and the miserable conditions under which they lived. Provided there is housing and adequate jobs for them, we will allow them to come to the urban areas. That is the difference. What I want to say further is that we will not do what this Government does, namely to separate husband from wife and to separate parents from children, because I cannot see how anybody can condone that. Yet this is precisely what happens under the Government policy.

I want to come back to an issue we have raised before, namely the machinery for bargaining for Black workers. We made a key issue of this in the censure debate and my hon. leader motivated it very adequately and did so again today. We have indicated that we believe it is important that bargaining machinery for Black workers should be improved immediately, because it is leading to an explosive situation. At no time have we had any indication from the Government, no meaningful argument whatsoever, as to why they will not follow the procedure which we have suggested. We have indicated that under the circumstances in which we find ourselves at the present time, we must amend the Industrial Conciliation Act so that its control and its protection will be extended to Black workers. We have not heard a single meaningful argument from the hon. the Prime Minister or anyone else on that side as to why this should not be done. I believe we should analyse this in further detail. The hon. the Prime Minister says that he is happy with the present bargaining machinery. I think that he must be one of the very few people who are happy about it. The industrialists and the employer organizations certainly are not. A survey was made recently and more than three-quarters of them said they thought that Black workers should be unionized. I do not think that the trade unions can be said to be happy about it; Tucsa certainly is not. Tucsa has done a survey among its own members and the vast majority of them ...

What about the Konfederasie van Arbeid?

Oh, give me a chance. You can get up and speak just now. We would like to hear you.

†Tucsa has done an extensive survey amongst its own members and as a result of this they came to the conclusion that the vast majority of them support the unionization of Black workers. I know that whenever we mention Tucsa here we get the kind of reaction we have just had; “these are the left-wing groups in this country”. The Konfederasie van Arbeid can hardly be seen as a left-wing organization, and their secretary, Mr. Wally Grobler urged the Government two weeks ago to appoint a commission of inquiry to deal specifically with industrial representation of Black workers. If he were happy with the situation, why would he ask for an inquiry? What is happening is that the trade unions in this country—this includes the Konfederasie as well as Tucsa—are unhappy about the present situation because where the trade unions represent only 20% of the workers you will quite soon get to the situation where they will have no bargaining power whatsoever since they no longer are representative of the work force in South Africa. I cannot understand the Government’s reluctance to make this adjustment. The Government tells us at every conceivable opportunity that the Industrial Conciliation Act is a wonderful piece of legislation; indeed they want to export it to the outside world. We in fact confirm this, we agree with it because it was this side that put that legislation onto the Statute Book. If it is so sound a piece of legislation, if it is so good, why should its protection be denied to the Black workers in this country? That is surely discrimination. This Act is extended at the moment to cover Coloured workers and Indian workers. If it is good enough for Coloured workers and for Indian workers, I want to ask why it is not also good enough for Black workers. Are they inferior? Why can they not be dealt with in the same way? This is the unusual situation in this country. Black workers are being armed, they are being made members of our Defence services, they are being made members of our Police services, and quite rightly so, but somehow according to the Government they cannot become members of a trade union. What is the logic ...

They can.

Illegal trade unions that have no standing. I am asking whether the Government ...

Why do you keep on telling these untruths?

Will the Government legalize these trade unions? Will they be permitted to become members of legal trade unions?

They are legal.

Can they indulge in bargaining ...

You keep on putting your foot in it!

Mr. Chairman, I am surprised that this hon. member for Turffontein is opposed to this simple recommendation which we are putting here. If this is so easy, the Government must do exactly what we are asking. What we do not understand is that whenever we have raised this matter the cry from that side was: “Ah, you want them to strike”. Now the Government has changed its own legislation. They can in fact strike so that that objection naturally falls away. The choice before us is not whether we are going to have Black unions or not—as the hon. member has said, they are there; they are being formed—but whether they are going to operate within the law or outside the law. At the moment you have the worst of both worlds. You have the situation that unions exist, unions which receive legal recognition in the sense that they are not illegal, but they have no legal bargaining power. The hon. the Minister of Labour indicated here two days ago that he would stop it if any organization tried to bargain with Black unions, so I do not know what the hon. member for Turffontein is talking about. We have the worst of both worlds here; they exist but they have no legal standing and, what is more, they operate outside the parameter of the law. There is no control over their funds. In any normal trade union movement it is stipulated that they cannot indulge in political activity, but there is no provision of that kind which applies to Black workers. Consequently, what you inevitably will find is that these Black unions which are mushrooming everywhere are going to become political activist organizations. The Government will talk about agitators and say that the industrial problems we have are caused by agitators. Of course that is correct; I am not denying the fact that there are agitators, but you are creating a climate which lends itself to the agitator to operate in, because there is a vacuum, and that vacuum will be filled by agitators. Worse still, if you go on in this way, you will not only have outside agitators; we have five million Black people who are economically active in this country and, unless the Government makes this kind of adjustment, you will end up with five million agitators. That is the situation we must try to avoid.

Already there is another development which is most undesirable, namely that the Black workers are forming themselves into their own Black unions. This is highly dangerous because you immediately exclude the responsible influence of the White workers. There is only one way in which this can work, and that is for our own White workers to organize the Black workers. If you do not do this, you are certainly looking for trouble. The existing machinery is completely inadequate. It is rejected by the Black workers because, as my hon. Leader has said, they see it as different and inferior. Technically, in terms of numbers of organizations in this country, you could have over 100 000 works committees in this country. Have you ever considered that, Sir? You will create an absolute Tower of Babel. How can you negotiate and have proper bargaining procedures when technically you could have over 100 000 works committees? The thing is absolutely absurd. What is worse too, is that in this climate which exists at the moment, this vacuum which is being created, the homeland governments are beginning to step in. We have seen examples of this down in Natal. The homeland governments will naturally say, as they have been doing: “We will bargain and negotiate on behalf of our own people.” In other words, the situation which is being created is one in which normal industrial issues will become a matter between governments and in which you will find that governments can indeed exploit normal industrial issues for party political gain. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point made a very good remark as to why the party’s policy changes so often. It has changed with regard to labour matters since we met here last year, has it not?

The hon. member must please speak up a little.

Has your party’s policy in regard to trade unionism changed since last year and earlier this year?

The hon. the Leader has said so, has he not?

And we are perfectly aware of the reason why it has changed. The United Party changes its policy every time pressure is exerted on it, and immediately after the election tremendous pressure was exerted on it as a result of the Senate elections. They had two members, but not three. Bargaining then had to take place. The bargaining power was to change this policy so that they could, with the co-operation of the Progressive Party, get a third member in the Other Place. That was the deposit they paid for their policy. But I can assure them, they who have so much to say about change, that there is only one approach as far as I am concerned. Change is good, but then it should always go hand in hand with responsibility and that, in turn, should go hand in hand with being accountable for one’s actions. When the United Party accepts the policy of trade unions for all the Black workers, they must also accept responsibility for it, and they will have to account to posterity for a Black Government having to govern this country.

We know the history of trade-unionism. We debated it in this House last year. I shall repeat to you briefly the history of Bantu trade unions. The first trade union was established by Clements Kadalie in 1918, just after the war. This trade union, the Industrial and Commercial Works Union, grew to a membership of 100 000 in 1927, but it was gradually destroyed by internal corruption and political interference. Towards the end of 1928 the Communist Party started establishing trade unions in this country in the clothing, baking and furniture industries. These, in turn, were destroyed by internal ideological differences. In 1930 Max Gordon, a Trotsky Communist, formed 20 Bantu unions. In 1941 John Marks, another Communist who later died in Moscow, formed the Bantu Mineworkers’ Union, which once again led to strikes in 1946. In 1944 the Council of Non-European Trade Unions was formed with 119 affiliated unions. This was disbanded because they did not pay their subscriptions and also as a result of political interference. That was one of the reasons why the Suppression of Communism Act was debated in this House in 1950. In 1953 the South African Congress of Trade Unions was established, and in 1961 it had nearly 100 000 members. As one might have expected, this organization was active in the ordinary business of trade unions. But it was also active in the political activities of the ANC, which then led to the banning of the ANC. In 1959 Fosfatusa was formed. Its president was Jacob Nyaoze, who found a link with the Pan African Congress, which was subsequently banned as well. That is the background and the history of Bantu trade-unionism in this country. We can view it at international level, and throughout the world in international trade-unionism there is a distinct line, a parallel line which runs between trade-unionism as it actually should be conducted ...

How many Black trade unions are there under your Government at the present moment?

Black trade unions have nothing to do with it. They may be there, but as soon as we give them recognition they become full-fledged Black trade unions under the Industrial Conciliation Council, and we are not prepared to allow that.

But they do exist.

They exist, but they have no right to Industrial Conciliation Council agreements. I want to demonstrate this parallel to you. The International Labour Organization actually gives us an idea of trade-unionism throughout the world. At its international conference in 1971 this body took certain decisions of which I should like to quote only a few. The first of these is (translation)—

The second quotation reads as follows (translation)—

The third quote reads (translation)—

They mention these two concepts together every time, because they say (translation)—

The final quotation reads as follows (translation)—

Time and again, throughout the history of international trade-unionism, we find a clear association between trade-unionism and politics. Even the leader of the Labour Party in England at present, on his return from holiday and before calling a general election, first goes to the Trade Union Council. We know the power of trade-unionism in England. Even a country such as Kenya placed a prohibition on all strikes and interference by the trade unions last week. But it goes even further than that. A week ago we debated the Nusas report. In Chapter 17, on page 464 of that report we read the following in paragraph 17.3—

[Time expired.]

Sir, I should like to come back to what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said here. I am sorry he is not here now. The hon. member spoke here about discrimination. He said among other things, that as far as the Brown people are concerned, we do not employ them. That was the first remark he made. The second remark he made is that under our policy there is no such thing as equal pay for equal work. Sir, I want to say with conviction that neither of these two statements holds any water. The policy of the National Party is based on the fact that we do not believe in discrimination, but in essential differentiation, and there is a vast difference between discrimination and essential differentiation. The word “discrimination” is used loosely by people, without their having any idea of what the word means or what it entails. Sir, I am asking the hon. member: Why does he not bring his wife along to sit with him here? Is that not discrimination? Why may he not sit in the Cabinet? Is that not discrimination? Sir, when speaking about discrimination, we should at least know what the word means.

Sir, I want to come back to the remark that as far as the Coloured people are concerned, we do not employ them. Sir, it is general knowledge that Coloureds form 95% of the labour force in the furniture industry, the textile industry and the building industry. If the statement is made that we do not employ Coloured people, hon. members on that side should tell me how they explain this fact. If they want to deny it, they must do so.

But who said so?

Sir, the second remark the hon. member made is that we do not believe in equal pay for equal work. But surely we have laid down a minimum wage for every industry in our industrial legislation. We did not lay down a maximum, but a minimum, and these people, whoever they may be, irrespective of colour, race or ethnic origin, receive a wage which has been laid down for that particular industry by the industrial council. These arguments we continually hear in connection with the rate for the job and discrimination simply do not hold any water.

Sir, the hon. member for Hillbrow, who is not here at present either, had quite a lot to say about the question of the employment of Bantu and trade unions for Bantu. I want to say again that our policy is not based on discrimination, but on essential differentiation. The National Party has a policy according to which it recognizes the multi-nationalism of this country. The National Party recognizes the existence of a Zulu people, a Xhosa people, and so forth. We want to guide these peoples to independence in their homelands; we are helping them eventually to be able to help themselves, and surely that is why it is logical that in the White area the Whites will be primary and the Bantu secondary. But when we come to the homelands the opposite applies and we then find that the Bantu there is primary and the Whites are secondary. Sir, surely the Bantu are in White South Africa purely on account of their labour; they are there to earn their living. The question is being discussed here as to whether or not they are here permanently. Of course, they are here permanently. They are here to earn their living of their own volition, by virtue of their own choice. The hon. the Prime Minister rightly pointed out that when we speak about the urban Bantu we should also speak about the rural Bantu. This argument of theirs, of being permanent or not being permanent, fall away completely. There is a vast difference between “being permanent” and “having permanence” and we on this side of the House say that although these people are here, the question arises: What is permanent? The question is also: What is temporary? And that has to be defined. We say these people do not have any permanence in White South Africa; in other words, in White South Africa where the Whites are primary, those Bantu will not enjoy the rights and privileges the Whites enjoy here in White South Africa. In the homelands the situation is reversed. There the Bantu will have preference as far as citizenship and everything connected with it are concerned. But in White South Africa the picture is totally different.

Sir, I want to say something about this question of trade unions. I have now discovered that the United Party has strange bedfellows. In the first instance they are allies of the HNP, because if they are really so convinced of their case in connection with labour matters, why did they not put up a candidate in a workers’ constituency such as Hercules? In that way they would at least have shown an interest in a workers’ constituency. But they did not even put up a candidate against the HNP there. They are running with the hare and hunting with the hounds; they are political opportunists. They are now trying to take over the policy of the Progressive Party. Earlier on we heard about affiliation, and so forth but now it seems to me that they are pleading for trade unions in the true sense of the word. In other words, under the banner of the United Party they now—so it seems to me—want to go one better than the Progressive Party and outdo it in progressiveness, I wonder whether these hon. members have ever noticed, in the light of the prevailing political situation in the world, that trade unions have caused governments to collapse. And what are these people pleading for? The United Party is pleading for trade unions for people who have no permanence in White South Africa. Today I want to tell you, Sir, that under National Party policy they will definitely have no trade unions which will be recognized in White South Africa under the National Government. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Hercules. He is a man who knows a great deal about labour matters. I also listened with interest to the hon. member for Brentwood. Perhaps they did not have the privilege I had. The knowledge I have of labour was gained at the feet of the hon. member for Turffontein. He gave me very good lessons and I listened to him with great interest.

So follow him the rest of the way!

The hon. member for Hercules says that the National Party does not advocate discrimination; it is at present “differentiation, essential differentiation”. I do not wish to take this lofty argument any further, except for saying, Long live that differentiation! He says the Bantu are here permanently by their own exclusive choice. They are here solely to work; that is all. I should like to reply to him in the words of the hon. member for Turffontein, for I think it was he who said that if we had to accept at present that the Bantu was here only by his exclusive choice and that it was actually only the one who wanted to seek work, and if it were to happen the next day that all Bantu, due to some event, suddenly returned to their homelands, we would have to call in the army to shoot the whole lot back into White South Africa once more. It seems to me that the argument that the Bantu is here solely for his own sake, accomplishes nothing. I want to leave the matter at that.

What is of more importance to me is that the hon. member for Turffontein said this afternoon that we in South Africa were involved in a great adventure. I agree with him. One of the greatest adventures is being enacted in the very field of labour in South Africa. And then I listen to the hon. member for Hercules and what does he say? He says trade unions are dangerous things; they bring governments to a fall. If they really are so dangerous, why do we not abolish all trade unions and keep the Government from falling? Of course the argument is transparent. No, the hon. member is again accomplishing nothing.

Let us consider the facts in South Africa at the level at which the adventure is being enacted. Let me put it to the hon. member in this way: A trade union does not need the Industrial Conciliation Act in order to function. No trade union in South Africa today needs the Industrial Conciliation Act. Of course, a trade union is not illegal in the sense that it is against the law.

Have you not also learnt a little from the hon. member for Hillbrow?

He also understands the point very well. The hon. member for Turffontein spoke a little too soon just now.

The point is that a trade union does not need the Industrial Conciliation Act; it can exist on its own. However, the basis of the Industrial Conciliation Act is such that it is responsible for industrial stability between the employer on the one hand and the employee on the other hand.

I am afraid you do not understand that legislation.

I know very well what the spirit of the Industrial Conciliation Act is. The whole objective of the Industrial Conciliation Act is industrial stability between the employer on the one hand and the employee on the other hand. I now come to my argument. Today we have the situation in South Africa where there are dozens of trade unions, some of which are registered under the Industrial Conciliation Act, while dozens are not. I put this question to any hon. member: How many Black trade unions really exist in South Africa? Not one hon. member knows. Are there 20 trade unions? Have 30 or 50 been established already? We do not know. We do, however, know that they exist. We also know that from day to day and from month to month the Bantu are establishing trade unions outside the Industrial Conciliation Act. Does any hon. member want to tell me that those trade unions will not bargain with employers? Of course they will do so. Does the Government want to tell me that they are going to prevent those trade unions from operating? Will we do this?

I understand the hon. the Minister of Labour to have said that he will prohibit the employers from consulting with Black trade unions. That would be just as wrong. I can tell him even now that if something like that should happen, it would lead to something terrible in South Africa. The fact remains that the trade unions are being established. I do not deny that the establishment of Black trade unions might involve definite dangers; we all know that. Of course there are risks involved. However, the House has to decide where the greatest risk lies. In my humble opinion the greatest risk lies specifically in the fact that trade unions are being allowed to become organized and create forums for political activists instead of their being placed under the Industrial Conciliation Act so that a great measure of control can be exercised over the trade unions. To me the choice seems evident. The greatest danger lies in having disorganization. The greatest danger to stability specifically lies on the road of disorganization as far as the trade unions are concerned. The hon. the Prime Minister owes us a very clear reply. He can tell me that, on principle, he does not want any Black trade union and that this is the policy of the National Party. I then say to him that black trade unions are already in existence and that they will cause instability in industry as sure as I am standing here. The number is increasing from month to month. What is he going to do about it? This is a reality, the truth about the industrial situation in South Africa, and no man will be able to undo it. I do not think that any hon. member in this House will say today that he is going to put a stop to the establishment of Black trade unions. What is going to happen? Tremendous disorganization and instability in industry is going to result. What will then become of the White worker, about whom my friends on the other side are so concerned? Economic prosperity and progress depends on stability, peace and the goodwill of people. If that is lost, it does not matter how much money and material one pumps into it, the machine will just not run. All I am pleading for this afternoon with all the gravity at my command and in all modesty, is that the hon. the Prime Minister should give this matter his consideration. We cannot permit this situation to continue any longer while we are just playing politics.

Did the hon. member not listen to the speech of the hon. member for Brentwood?

The fact that those trade unions fell into the hands of politicians and communists is precisely because they were not protected in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act. Those were separate trade unions which were not under the control of the Industrial Conciliation Act. There was no control over capital, finance, policy and the effect thereof. The hon. member for Turffontein taught me all these things, and today it is more true than ever before. That is precisely why those Black trade unions disappeared. Now we are faced with the same problem. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark wants to know whose policy we have now again taken over. I do not care whose policy came before or after me. I am dealing here with a fundamental fact in the economic set-up in South Africa and I believe that policy is in the best interests of all our peoples.

You have yielded to pressure which was brought to bear upon you.

If this is pressure, it is the pressure of necessity and of the best interests of both the Whites and the non-Whites in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to devote my speech to furnishing the hon. member with a reply. I say this in all humility because I do not think I have the necessary knowledge of labour matters and trade-unionism. I should just like to say in passing to him and other speakers who speak so emphatically on these matters, that I think there are other matters of greater importance in regard to which we can come to an agreement and help one another. Instead of playing these matters off against one another and exaggerating them, hon. members opposite can help to bring home to employers the realization that there can be labour peace without any need for serious bargaining and strikes, as the previous calls upon the Government were. If they were to help to inspire employers to pay their people decent wages, they would go far to cultivating sound relations, instead of inciting people and telling them that they must have a trade union before they will receive what they need. It disheartens one when an Opposition, even if one has appreciation for them in a personal capacity, always deals with matters of this kind in a dramatic way, as became apparent again here this afternoon, and also from the newspapers. I am going to reply to a few of these statements.

I am sorry the hon. member for Houghton is not here. The hon. member for Houghton saw fit to carry out her promise to South Africa in the House by “raising this matter in the House of Assembly about the increased rentals at Soweto”. I am slowly becoming tired of this little game, of people competing with one another. Fortunately there are a few members of the United Party who do not participate in this little game. I thank them for that, but I want to ask the others who are not so responsible to stop this competing for the favour of people, and harming South Africa in the process with these dramatic announcements which are always being made in the newspapers, i.e. “I am going to raise this matter in Parliament.” They are always so dramatic. “I shall rectify this injustice in Parliament”—that is the attitude. Such utterances are then published under banner headlines by the newspapers. Let me now, very calmly, tell the hon. member for Houghton that it was not necessary to raise the matter in Parliament. In my capacity as Deputy Minister I informed those people well in advance and without a fanfare of trumpets that they could come and discuss matters with me. Acting on instructions from my Minister, I shall devote my attention to this matter, and I try in all matters, acting on instructions from my Minister, not to create confrontation between people, but to find decent solutions. Hon. members do not succeed in bringing peace through these dramatic announcements of how they are going to rectify these matters in Parliament, and by implying that they are the only ones who have the welfare of people at heart. I want to inform the hon. member for Houghton, and the hon. member for Sea Point may as well convey this message to her, that these matters will be discussed with the people involved. I should also like to tell her that we can reach an agreement on a few other points without discussing them with one another in this House.

I briefly want to mention this. The first point is that Whites are paying higher rentals and, that Whites are also paying increased tariffs for water and electricity. Over the years we have tried to spare those who could not afford it, and I thank the municipalities and other bodies which dealt with these matters. Now that the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards have taken over, there are, however, a few municipalities which thought immediately that their responsibility was now coming to an end, and that they need no longer pay. I want to ask the Opposition parties whether they will support us when I ask the White people of South Africa to pay an increased levy. I want to tell hon. members what they did. When we laid down the consolidated levy, they became the champions of the poor farmers, the industrialists and the mines which are sometimes overtaxed with these levies. Then they sang a different song. Would the hon. members help us to transfer these increases to the employer? I want to ask more. They always adopt the attitude that it is all very well that we give these people these things and that someone else has to pay for it. They say that it is a very good thing that sports amenities should be established, but not in Sea Point. They say it is a very good thing that all amenities should be provided, just as long as they are not affected. I shall tell hon. members what the hon. member for Houghton and the Progressive Party is going to say. Over the years it has been the well-to-do people in particular who have accommodated these people in their backyards. The erection of those outside rooms, with the accompanying amenities, also cost money. If the hon. members have the interests of the non-Whites who are in their personal employ at heart, why do hon. members not subsidize that housing for those people if they are living in the Bantu residential areas? Surely hon. members would then be proving that it comes from the heart, that it is not mere lipservice. For these things have to be paid for. I say to hon. members that this is the kind of propaganda they should make, and I shall make it with them, for many of these people cannot afford it. Subsidize the increased bus fares, for we have to charge increased fares because petrol prices have increased. Subsidize this, and demonstrate our honesty of heart to the world.

With that I leave this topic, and I want to refer to what the hon. member for Hillbrow said. I want to tell the hon. member for Hillbrow to forget about trying to play me off against my Minister. If there is one person for whom I have respect for his years of service and by whom I will faithfully stand, then it is the Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. I want to say that great play has recently been made of this to try to create the same kind of division which prevails on the opposite side here among us. Let me make it absolutely clear that the hon. members will not succeed in doing so with me, that they will not succeed in doing so to my party, for what I have said is completely in accordance with the policy of the National Party. I also want to say that on the day when I no longer agree with the policy of the National Party and its implementation, I shall not remain sitting here for the sake of a seat. I shall leave. But this will not be necessary because I know that that road has always been and always will be a straight road.

This is meant for you, Jake.

The hon. member said that in Europe and I have no knowledge of Europe, a system of migrant labour exists. There they live wherever they like. I want to ask him whether he would do the same in Cape Town. I shall furnish hon. members with the figures of the people who are required here, for then what we are saying is not mere conjecture. The number of people who have come here as migrant labourers increased from 34 000 to 88 000 during the five year period ending last year. This is the number of contract labourers registered here. I hear so much about the story of family accommodation that I am becoming tired of it, because I also believe that the ideal situation is that of family accommodation. However, it was not necessary for the Black Sash to discover this first, for the Dutch Reformed Church of the Cape has been discussing the evils of migrant labour for a long time.

What is the choice confronting us? Let us be realistic, honest, decent and open with one another now. Here in Cape Town last year there were 88 000 registered migrant labourers, despite the work reservation for Coloureds. A total of 88 000 projected over two years, particularly in view of the development at Saldanha, could bring this number up to 100 000, to be conservative, and the average number of people in a Bantu family is six or seven. Is that party, is the hon. member for Hillbrow, prepared to say to Cape Town, to Sea Point and all these other places: “We want to bring these people here on a family basis and we want to establish a town in Cape Town because we believe in family life”? To quote what the hon. member himself said—

I do not believe in it either; I do not like it. If it is simply impossible to do anything else in practice, I want to ask the hon. member whether he will say to the people here that he is going to establish a city of 700 000 people in Cape Town, simply in order to keep the economy going.

[Inaudible.]

If the hon. member wants to put a question to me, he is welcome to do so; I shall sit down. I do so gladly. A total of 100 000 multiplied by seven adds up to 700 000 people which he will have to accommodate on a family basis. Does he see his way clear to doing that?

There is a second possibility, namely that we do not bring them here before the houses have been completed, as the hon. member would say. What does it cost to build one house, together with the infrastructure? I shall furnish the hon. member only with the most conservative possible estimates. Does he think that R2 000 is too little or too much? What does it cost to build 100 000 such houses for only one city which makes use of migrant labour? The hon. member alleges that they will first build beautiful houses for them, and then bring them here. If it is not practicable to bring them here before houses have been built for them, I want to ask whether they will, in the interim before the houses have been erected, say to the industrialists in Cape Town: “I am not going to give you migrant labour.” Just think of the years it took to clear up Johannesburg. Let us therefore be practical and honest with one another. Are they going to tell industrialists that they will not, in the interim, receive any migrant labour?

No, of course not.

Are they then going to tell them: “I shall give you migrant labour” or “I cannot give you labour, for I first have to build 100 000 houses?”

But surely this does not happen overnight.

Mr. Chairman, I am speaking about one city, and there are millions who have to be accommodated in this way. Cannot we as responsible people, without the shrill trumpeting of newspapers and without front page reports, simply continue to work calmly while we know that this seeks to achieve an ideal and is also practicable? Then we can bring about labour peace and peace and order among people. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education has just asked whether we on this side of the House would be prepared to support a higher levy on employers. I should just like to say to him that we on this side of the House do not know what he has in mind with this higher levy. In the past legislation was introduced here purporting to deal with a certain matter and upon reading through such legislation, one found that it dealt with other matters. I should just like to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we on this side of the House should like to see the legislation before saying whether we accept it or not.

Another point mentioned by the hon. the Deputy Minister, was the question of family housing. I should just like to tell him this: There is family housing in Soweto; so why can there not be family housing in every large industrial city of South Africa?

May I ask the hon. member a question? Is the hon. member aware of the fact that thousands of families are accommodated in Cape Town, in Langa and other places?

Yes, I am aware of that, but in that case, why does the hon. the Deputy Minister say that he cannot provide family housing for the 88 000 migrant labourers? Of course it can be done. He should just get cracking, that is all. This is a vigorous Government and I think that the hon. the Deputy Minister is vigorous enough to do this work. I should like to see him making provision for this in the Budget so that this work may be tackled as soon as possible.

I do not want to deliver a speech on Bantu affairs now. Hon. members will remember that I had something to say this morning about what was said by the hon. the Prime Minister in connection with liaison with the Coloureds. He said—

I was dealing with the question of the Coloured Parliament, but my time expired before I could take this matter further. The hon. the Prime Minister dealt further with this matter of a statutory, consultative body, but what is not clear as yet, is whether this body is going to be an umbrella body.

Surely I said it would be a body with regard to which we would have to obtain consensus.

Yes, but a body obtained through consensus could also be an umbrella body.

It would have no legislative powers whatsoever. This flows from the word “consultative”.

The hon. the Prime Minister says that this body will have no legislative powers, but will only be there in order to obtain consensus. In that case I should like to know what powers it will have, if indeed it is going to have any powers at all. It is fine to talk about a statutory, consultative body, but if this is to be a body without any powers, I see no chance for it because it has to receive its powers from somewhere. Who is going to give it its powers? Surely it is going to be the White Parliament which is going to give it its powers. The body will have to be able to act with authority. I should like to have replies to this from the hon. the Prime Minister. It seems to me that the body envisaged by him, is only a very vague idea at this stage. When we on this side of the House talk about our policy, we are always asked to go into details and to give more information on various aspects of our policy. I think that this is something which is more probably applicable to the Prime Minister. He should give us more details of this statutory body envisaged by him. This body will definitely have to give representation to certain people. We should like to know who is going to be represented. Is this Parliament going to be represented? Is the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council going to be represented? Is the Cabinet going to be represented and is the Executive of the Coloured Persons Representative Council going to be represented? These are questions of real interest, and I am of the opinion that the hon. the Prime Minister should tell us during this debate what he envisages. It is impossible to establish what exactly he envisages unless one knows how this body is to be constituted. In that case one will know, if there is going to be representation on this body by this Parliament and not by the Cabinet only, in what way the representatives will be determined. Will there be Government representation only, or Opposition representation as well? These are questions of real interest. We should like to know.

It will not be like the Wynberg divisional committee of the United Party.

Sir, if you have that sort of remark put to you, then you know what you are up against. What we have had here in this debate, I am sorry to say, is a great deal of nothingness all day long. All the questions we have put have been evaded. With all due respect to the hon. the Prime Minister, I believe that he is a champion evader of questions. I would like to congratulate him on having evaded every question that has been put to him here this afternoon. I do not know whether other members on the Nationalist benches take their leaf out of the Prime Minister’s book, but if they do, I would like to say that they are able to follow him very, very closely. I would like to congratulate them on being able to do exactly as the Prime Minister does, because not one of them has given us one reasonable answer to any of our very reasonable questions.

Mr. Chairman, it seldom happens that somebody on the Government side misses a member of the Opposition, but I really miss the previous member for Wynberg. I do not think any improvement has been made.

The National Party faces a challenge today; but it has known this challenge since 1948, this challenge which requires us to use all our strength and intelligence to make a success of the future. We have listened to various hon. members on the Opposition side during the censure debate and the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill and during the discussion of this Vote as well, but they have brought us nothing on which we can build. Accusations have been made to the effect that the National Party is not fulfilling its task and is merely making promises. I must say that I am grateful to have learnt again today what the National Party has already done for the Coloured population here in the Cape Province alone and what it is still going to do in the years to come. We are not saying that progress has been sufficient; we realize that there are tasks which must be undertaken to bring alleviation and to solve problems which are cropping up every day. The National Party is not flinching from those problems for one moment. But likewise the National Party has a task which it must fulfil in respect of the Indians and other population groups, and specifically in respect of the Bantu. This afternoon we heard an hon. member ask why the Bantu could not be housed on a family basis in the towns. I do not want to furnish him with the amounts this would cost—the Deputy Minister has elaborated on that—but can a right-thinking person make such a statement here and expect a small White population, immediately or in the near future, to assume this enormous financial responsibility of housing all population groups, Black or Brown, wherever they may be working, on a family basis? This is impossible; it cannot be done. It is out of the question. But what are we going to do? I wish to say to the hon. member that he is an inhabitant of the Cape Province with experience of what has already been done here in the Cape Province. I am not saying that it has been sufficient. I am not denying that there are things which will have to improve.

Will they be improved?

Time will show whether this will be done in the future. I hope and trust that it will, and I trust that those who come after me will work on this in the future. However, I do not believe that it will ever be possible to achieve perfection.

I just want to return to the accusations made by the hon. members of the Opposition. They have made wild attacks concerning the alleged lack of co-operation between the various groups, the Coloureds, the Bantu and the Indians; but furthermore they have referred to the trade unions as well. The hon. member has said that a necessity exists for any group of persons, but especially for the Bantu, to form trade unions, and that already there are many illegal trade unions in existence. I just want to put a brief question to this hon. member and to the Opposition, who advocate Black trade unions: What are they going to do for the Black worker in the mining industry? Do they advocate that the right to form legal trade unions should be granted to these Blacks who for the most part are immigrants from other countries such as Malawi, Mozambique, Lesotho and Swaziland?

Forget about them.

No, we should not forget about them. The hon. member must please keep quiet now. Those are the people who are working there in their thousands. There are about 600 000 of them employed in the mining industry. Do the hon. members want those people to have the right to form their own trade unions? Sir, is the Opposition being honest in making these accusations? We are asking this today in all fairness. Is the Opposition being honest in these wild accusations it is flinging at the National Party? Are they honest in what they say to the Coloured? I doubt it. I doubt whether the Opposition is honest. I want to say straight out that as far as the trade unions are concerned, I cannot foresee that the multitude, the approximately 600 000 non-Whites who are employed there, will ever belong to a trade union such as our White trade union which we have on the mines today. This I cannot foresee, because migrant labour is being employed on the mines.

What does the future have in store for us? An enormous task awaits this National Party, a task it will have to perform to the best of its ability, because the co-operation of all population groups in this country must be obtained. We want to do it and we are succeeding. We have a Prime Minister today who has penetrated to the various population groups in this country. I am fully confident that those talks which are to be held with the various Coloured groups and their political parties will yield very good results for the future. But I want to make an appeal to those people, and that is to remember that Rome was not built in a day. They, the other peoples, will also have to realize that they have a responsibility resting on their shoulders to make a success of their continued existence. [Interjections.] We have already advanced very far in this direction. What can the United Party and those hon. members who are so talkative show me today to prove what they achieved when they were in power? [Time expired.]

Sir, it is with pleasure that I rise to take part in this debate because what we are really dealing with is race relations, sound relations between people. No I do not think I am being modest when I say that our Prime Minister has set an example by pointing out to us in which way the National Party is co-ordinating these relations. But I first want to apologize, Sir, because I am no jurist, and I, therefore, do not know whether I am allowed to attack the United Party, because I think they are in the process of disintegration. I do not know whether that process is completed yet, and consequently I do not want to risk dealing with those aspects. Furthermore, I want to make a confession, i.e. that I am from the period when people were still wearing skins. When the people of the hon. member whose habit it is to speak about hides were already a civilized people, they bought hides from my people and became rich in that way so as to enable them to come along here today and speak about labour matters and hit out at us left, right and centre on our labour relations.

Sir, I want to refer to this whole conflict which arose in respect of the views of the United Party and the Progressive Party. They are really but one, and I shall indicate in a moment how it happened that they are almost two, how it came about that one-third of the other half is still with the United Party, and how they really came to the parting of the ways. In this connection I am referring to the speech made by the hon. member for Mooi River. In the course of the debate on the Schlebusch Commission, he raised three points. I quote—

Then he raises three points—

Sir, to me these three points are most important. They are of cardinal importance coming from a person such as the hon. member for Mooi River, whom I hold in high esteem. That speech he made, was the result of a study in depth; he spoke in all sincerity. He was not afraid and he knew something had to be done. Before going any further, I want to try to reply to these questions raised by the hon. member. In South Africa we have the unfortunate problem that a large section of our English-speaking people can only speak English. Various speakers have mentioned the fact that many of our people are being fed by the English Press. Because they are not able to read Afrikaans, they have only one point of view, and they are not given the correct point of view. The hon. member for Turffontein made this quite clear, and I agree with him wholeheartedly. Not even he was told what the crux of the matter really is. I want to tell you what it is all about, Sir. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. members may laugh, but I am coming to that now. The real crux lies in the fact that a person, later on in his career and in his views, is known by the home from which he comes. And what happens now if you are vicious and full of hatred and full of problems and full of all kinds of other things? Now I also have to watch my language, because a few self-appointed men are sitting over there in the Press Gallery who have appropriated to themselves the right to say, in respect of the language one uses, how it should be done and how it should not be done. If a person comes from a home where hatred was sown and hatred was spoken, he disseminates that hatred. On account of the statement I make, I go further and say that in view of the vicious attitude displayed by the present generation of young people towards their fellow South Africans and their fellow Afrikaners, it is quite clear that in some of the homes of the people sitting on that side, so much hatred has been sown that the hon. member for Mooi River had to ask this question: What is the ideology of the English-speaking student? Sir, the ideology of the English-speaking student is the ideology of the people sitting on that side of the House, the Progressives. I may just tell the Progressives that they have one or two men among them who, I think, will discover that they are in the wrong camp. Likewise, there are people in the back benches of the United Party too who will discover later on that they are in the wrong camp. But I leave the matter at that. The hatred that was instilled in those homes, is reflected in the young people of today, with the result that we find the extremists among these young people, who think altogether Progressive. And how does one think Progressive? One thinks Progressive in that one wants to put everything on an equal footing and the sting of it all is that the assistance which is being sought to plough under the White man in South Africa is being sought behind the Colour bar. Then one finds, for example, a newspaper such as the Sunday Times publishing an article in 1973 in which was said—“Men work for nothing.” They went to take photographs, and from these certain statements were made. Now I hope that the honourable correspondent who asked me whether I would elaborate on this matter, will listen now. I have it here with me. I do not want to spend too much time on it. But from this it is quite clear to me ...

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to refer to persons in the Press Gallery or in any Gallery.

Mr. Chairman, I regret having done so and I withdraw the reference. [Interjections.]

The point I want to make is that an article under the heading “Men who work for nothing” was then published. This article was published as the result of a report that had been drawn up—as we ascertained later, by a student. This student could not even speak Zulu and he had a Bantu interpreter. He went out into the rural areas and they stopped whenever they saw a Bantu sitting at the side of the road—I usually have a nickname for them. Such Bantu were not necessarily workers; they were merely people walking at the side of the road. Those Bantu were questioned. In the report that appeared later, names were mentioned. We then traced those Bantu whose names were mentioned and took them to a completely separate body which negotiated with them. The same questions were put to them and they were shown the Press report. It then became evident that the article “Men who work for nothing” was the work of the interpreter of the person sent out by the Press. The Press was, however, clever enough not to send out a reporter, because after we had made further investigations, we found that it had been one of those long-haired students, one of those fellows who were later typified as the spearhead of the men who come from the homes I have referred to. That is why I say that the ideology the young man develops and disseminates among others in the outside world today, has had its origin in the parental home where hatred is spoken and sown against the Afrikaner in general and the farmer in the rural areas in particular.

The article dealt with wages and alleged that numerous people in the rural areas were working for nothing. In that article nothing was said about the fact that those very farmers on whose farms the Bantu said they were living—the farmers denied those allegations—were accommodating their Bantu on a family basis on their farms at the expense of the farmer. I say this for the information of the mother of six on the opposite side. Those Bantu are so satisfied that they do not want to be removed from the farms. Not even the Police are able to remove them from the farms and those Bantu prefer to have a prison sentence imposed on them rather than be removed from that “maltreatment” they are exposed to on the farms. We also ascertained that these same people never said what they were supposed to have said according to the newspaper report.

It is important for the hon. member for Mooi River to have asked that question. That is what he said (Hansard, 1974, col. 877)—

I want to give a pertinent answer to that. His ideology is to disseminate among others that what he had been taught in his parental home. When I consider the tendency to become Progressive, those people who do not have much time for our country folk and, especially not for the National Party with its ideology of patriotism and love of the fatherland and “our country first”, then I must say that they have been poisoned there to the sorrow, sometimes, of many of the parents and perhaps also to the disillusionment of the hon. members such as those who served on the Schlebusch Commission. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have not been able to make out the object of the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down.

Nobody else has either.

He has reverted—I do not know with what object—to Boerehaat again. Whenever the other side is in trouble, they revert to Boerehaat. He has reverted to Boerehaat and what did he say?

*I must say that P. W. Botha does it far better than he can. The member for Turffontein told us that the English-language newspapers and the English-speaking people are so bad that we “withheld’ ’news from the hon. member for Turffontein. These were the words he used. Because the hon. member for Turffontein heard for the first time that the Nationalists were building houses for Bantu, we the English-speaking, are to blame. This is the first time that I hear of a Nationalist, and a member of Parliament at that, who does not read the Afrikaans-language newspapers. Why does the hon. member not read the Afrikaans-language newspapers? Why do they not give him those newspapers to read?

†The hon. member for Vryheid also said that Afrikaans-speaking people who join the opposition parties will soon find that they have been mistaken. The hon. member then referred to two hon. members who joined the Progressive Party and said that soon they would find that they were mistaken and would then leave that party. I want to ask him what happened to the English-speaking people who have tried to join the Nationalist Party. I am not referring to those English-speaking persons who were appointed to certain posts, but what happened to Blyth Thompson, Ivor Benson and a whole host of them? There was no home for them; they could not stick it out and then they got out. When the Nationalists make them Senators, of course, it is a different position.

Where is Etienne Malan?

We are discussing the Vote of the Prime Minister in this regard we must remember that the Prime Minister, when he called an early election, said in a speech during the last session of the last Parliament that he was convinced that the next three to five years, if not the next two to five years, would be of decisive importance to the continued existence of South Africa and its people. He said that because he wanted to be free to handle any eventuality, he was calling a general election to ensure that he would have the confidence of the people. Well, he called the election ...

And got the confidence.

Yes, the people, very unwisely, put him back into power believing that he was going to solve the problems. What I cannot understand is how the electorate could have been so foolish. After all, this Government has been in power for 26 years. They brag about the fact that in no other democratic country has a Government been in power for so long. If that is so they must take the responsibility for what is happening in the country today. What is the position we find ourselves in?

There is hardly a country in the world today which is not being threatened by terrorism and we are being conditioned to face up to that threat. In the past we have been extremely lucky that we had friendly neighbours who could act as a buffer against this threat to South Africa. Conditions have changed in South Africa. Gone are the days of 1939 and 1940 and onwards when the then Government was compelled, because of a hostile opposition, to call for special volunteers to send beyond the Limpopo. We had no trouble in getting them, and not only Whites but from all races. They went forth to fight for South Africa, their fatherland. The Limpopo is no longer the boundary. It is now admitted that our boundaries extend beyond that. But today the threats are much nearer than they were in 1939. Unfortunately we fear that the resistance in this country to those threats is not as united as it was in 1939. It is true that there was a Fifth Column in 1939, supported by only a minority of a group, but the Government of the day was so confident of the loyalty of the mass of the people that it was able to send its Police Force to go and fight beyond the borders of our country. It relied on the loyalty of the Whites, the Black and the Coloured people. Now we are told by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, who is responsible for race relations in this country, that it is almost too late in this country to look for a solution to our problems and to have peaceful coexistence. He says it is almost 12 o’clock. That warning was given to us before the election and what has this Government done since then to restore the confidence of the public? What feeling of security is there among the people? It would be interesting to see what the emigration figures in regard to young people are for the past four months, because people are losing their confidence in the future of this country.

Who told you that?

You only have to hear them talking. Does the hon. the Prime Minister pretend that he does not know of young people who are leaving this country? He just does not know of anybody. I am sorry, but the hon. the Prime Minister is living in a fool’s paradise. I do not think the hon. the Prime Minister is complacent. In his last speech before the election he indicated that he was a worried man.

Where do you get your information?

I do not sit in my room all the time listening to the radio and reading Afrikaans newspapers. We go around and talk to and meet people so that we know what is happening in the country. The Prime Minister’s biggest problem at the moment is, of course, his policy in regard to the Coloureds. This is the problem he is facing at the moment without having a solution. His problem is that he is the man responsible for the position which we find ourselves in today, because he is the Nationalist leader who altered the Nationalist Party policy with regard to the representation of Coloureds in this Assembly.

I take the full responsibility.

He admits it. He has the cheek to accuse us of changing our policy, but he has changed the Nationalist Party policy.

He cannot pretend that there is no division in the Nationalist Party ranks on this issue. He can smile as much as he likes, but what does Rapport say? We talk to Nationalists. This Nationalist Party is lucky that there is only one outspoken Afrikaans newspaper and that the other newspapers are all servile. They do not publish the fact that there is confrontration within the Nationalist Party. The hon. the Prime Minister and hon. members of the Nationalist Party need not think that we do not know what is going on on that side of the House in that party’s ranks. [Interjections.]

Order!

I was a member of a commission which was appointed to inquire into the improper political interference in and the political representation of the various population groups. We, the United Party members, and the independent members of that commission put in a special minority report. If the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government had paid attention to the minority report, the Prime Minister would not have found himself in the mess in which he finds himself today. Had he listened to Mr. Jack Connan, the then member for Gardens, Mr. Marais Steyn, now the member for Turffontein, Mr. Abe Bloomberg and myself, he would have been on the right course. What do we find there? We find this statement, which was signed by all the members of the minority group:

They made it quite clear, all of them.

Do you still say that?

We still say that and I am certain the hon. member for Turffontein, the then hon. member for Yeoville, still believes that because he heard the evidence of Mr. Swartz, the leader of the Federal Party, whom the Government appointed chairman of the Executive of the Coloured Representative Council. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we have just listened to the tirade of the hon. member for Griqualand East. I am surprised that such a senior parliamentarian should have committed one of the most elementary errors that can be committed, and that is to talk about something he knows nothing about, and to make an allegation in the House which he cannot substantiate. Moreover, the allegation is detrimental to South Africa and to people’s confidence in South Africa, not only here, but also in the outside world.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.