Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Bill read a First Time.

Second Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 49—

I should like to thank the hon. members of the Opposition for their co-operation in having this Bill disposed of.

This Bill replaces the existing Membership of the Parliamentary Medical Scheme Act that was passed earlier this year. It has become necessary to amend this Act, and it has been decided that it would be preferable to repeal the existing Act and replace it by a new Act.

The changes being effected are the following:

In the first place, it is being provided that the Administrators of the four Provinces and South-West Africa will be admitted as members of the Parliamentary Medical Aid Scheme. They are already members of the Parliamentary Pension Scheme, and on behalf of the committee of management of the Medical Aid Scheme the executive committee has now approved of their becoming members of this Scheme as well. In terms of the provisions of the Bill membership will be compulsory.

In the second place, the existing Act is being changed in that provision is being made for the deduction of contributions from the salaries of certain members in respect of whom no such provision was made originally.

These are the only new provisions in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we have just heard the hon. the Minister outlining the improvements and extensions to be effected to the Parliamentary Medical Aid Scheme. We on this side of the House support this Bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, here at the end of this Parliamentary session we have an important new phase in the United Party. We are faced today with the fact that there is a division running from top to bottom of the United Party’s caucus. [Interjections.] As The Sunday Tribune wrote yesterday—

There are many points of conflict that come to the fore in a divided party in the course of time. Before a party that is divided in itself actually splits, there is usually one point of conflict that is singled out as the point at issue and the point that will cause that split. The standpoint and the attitude towards the English-language press to be found in the United Party is the embodiment of the dividedness that prevails in the United Party. It is the Press affair that will lead to a split in the United Party. The standpoint stated in the speech the hon. member for Simonstown made here on Saturday can be divided in two parts. One part of his speech deals with the shareholdings of English-language newspapers and those who exercise control over the English-language newspapers. I want to tell you immediately that I do not know whether his facts are right or wrong. I do not want to pass an opinion on that. However, the second part of his speech is something about which we can in fact adopt a standpoint. It was a standpoint adopted against the English-language Press as a whole and against the Sunday Times in particular. It is very important to know the standpoint of the other members of the United Party on this matter. We must know this in order to understand exactly how the lines of division run in the United Party. It was the Sunday Times that was largely responsible for the United Party’s problems. It gave expression to those problems. It fanned them and fomented them. It is to this that a leading figure in the United Party, the hon. member for Simonstown, is now objecting.

We read yesterday in Rapport that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout immediately took up a standpoint against the hon. member for Simonstown. I quote what he said (translation)—

Order; Hon. members must kindly refrain from conversing so loudly.

Is there unity in that party if a member of their caucus sharply attacks another member of the caucus in public? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is silent. I take it that what this newspaper wrote here, is entirely true. In addition, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is quoted verbatim as having said the following translation)—

What are the matters which the hon. member is now rejecting? The hon. member is rejecting Mr. Wiley’s statement that there was a conspiracy against the United Party and that the Sunday Times took action against leaders of the United Party. I quote in this connection (translation)—

Mr. Wiley went on to say—

Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout: Is that the truth; does he reject the allegation that the Sunday Times tried to pick off certain leaders around the figure of Sir De Villiers Graaff the Leader of the Opposition?

Why are you so worried?

I am worried about the hon. member’s future. I do not know which way he is going to jump. Sir, we also wonder how other hon. members on that side of the House are going to behave. Here we have the hon. member for Rand-burg; does he agree with the standpoint of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout? The hon. member for Sandton, one of the Young Turks, is not in the House; do they agree with the standpoint of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout? Sir, the standpoint of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has an obverse side, a mirror-image side, and this is represented by the standpoint of the hon. member for Newton Park. They are two front-bencher benchmates. We see in this morning’s Burger that the hon. member for Newton Park said the following (translation)—

Do you believe everything that you read in the newspapers?

The hon. member for Newton Park is welcome to deny it; he can tell us whether or not he told this to Die Burger. I quote further from Die Burger (translation)—

Sir, there the two benchmates sit; the one rejects the standpoint of the hon. member for Simonstown and the other accepts it. Sir, is that the unity there is in that party? The hon. member for Simonstown has wide support within his party. He has the support, inter alia, of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, who has on occasion said in this House—

On another occasion the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said—

And then he states that he rejects Mr. Joel Mervis’s standpoint in its entirety. Mr. Speaker, on a day like this, when one must know where one stands, one must also know where hon. members on that side of the House stand. Does the hon. member for King William’s Town agree with the standpoint of the hon. member for Simonstown? I ask the hon. member again: Does he agree with the standpoint of the hon. member for Simonstown? We are not talking about the question of shareholding now? Sir, the hon. member smiles with such pleasure. After all, he is not a man who is ashamed of his standpoint. Does he agree with the attitude displayed by the hon. member for Simonstown towards the English-language Press? I shall tell him that he agrees with it and I challenge him to deny it. I challenge him to deny that he agrees in full with the standpoint of the hon. member for Simonstown. Sir, the hon. member for Wynberg agrees with the standpoint of the hon. member for Simonstown; he rejects the standpoint of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. After all, they do not see eye to eye. Surely the hon. member for Hillbrow does not see eye to eye with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout; he does not hit it off with the hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Yeoville and others. Sir, the hon. member for Maitland is not present, but we know which side he is on. This standpoint held in the ranks of the United Party has developed as a result of the efforts made on that side of the House to develop a new leadership in the United Party.

Nonsense!

Sir, the hon. member says “Nonsense”, but we have very clear evidence of this. The best evidence for this is the public tender document published on 26 May 1974. On that day, a public tender was published, and in that tender document we read: “Japie ready to lead.” Sir, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was the tenderer. What did he tender for? He tendered for the leadership of the United Party; and what was the promotional body that was to promote his leadership ideals? The Sunday Times was the promotional body. But the Sunday Times appointed certain of its agents who were to give specific attention to this matter of promoting his leadership ideals, of promoting his tender, and these agents are Messrs. Serfontein, Strydom, Uys and Joel Mervis. These are the specific agents who wanted to promote this man’s tender. Sir, what was the tender board which had to decide on this? The tender board was the national congress of the United Party, but the hon. member had a special problem in this regard, and the problem he had was that the public tenders would only close in 1975, because the tender board, the national congress of the United Party, would only be sitting in 1975. The hon. member then decided that 1975 was too far away, and subsequently made efforts to convene the tender board at an earlier date; to have the tender board, the national congress, convene earlier in 1974. Why did he try to have the tender board, the national congress convene earlier? So that his public tender could go before the national congress. But unfortunately the attempts made by the hon. member to bring forward the closing date of the public tenders failed, because the congress did not convene. Sir, what the whole country wants to know is whether the hon. member’s tender still stands. I ask him: Does his tender still stand? Sir, I know the hon. member; he is not a man without a certain amount of ambition. We take it, therefore, that his tender still stands. This tender has not yet been withdrawn.

He does not deny it, either.

The hon. member still wants that tender to go before the tender board, viz. the national congress.

That is rubbish.

I agree that it is rubbish that the hon. member has any chance of having his tender accepted, but it is not rubbish that his tender still stands.

Mr. Speaker, we in South Africa are going through a difficult period at the moment. We are going through a period in which there has been leadership and guidance from this side of the House to improve South Africa’s position in the rest of the world; to improve our relations with other countries. We are going through a period in which the Prime Minister of South Africa has displayed strong leadership and provided strong guidance, and in these times it is essential for us to look around us to see who South Africa’s friends are and who her enemies are in this struggle. The Prime Minister spelt out South Africa’s goodwill. South Africa’s ambassador to the United Nations has done the same, and we are grateful for the positive reaction to this from across the borders of South Africa, and we look forward to further developments in this regard. The guidance given by the hon. the Prime Minister in this respect is a manifestation of the attitude that is in the heart of the people, namely that there should be good and improved relations between ourselves and other countries but, Mr. Speaker, while these important events have been taking place in South African politics, a situation has developed where South Africa does not have friends where it ought to have friends and that is in the ranks of the United Party and in the ranks of the Press. Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to two specific matters in this connection and maintain that what is being done in this connection is harming South Africa’s good efforts. The hon. member for Bryanston made a speech here on Saturday in which he spelt it out that South Africa was a country of discrimination, in which he stated that every non-White is a second-class citizen in South Africa, in which, indeed, he hung the label of racism around South Africa’s neck. Sir, what is the swearword of international politics today, what is the political swearword against which the whole world is united today The whole world is united against racism, from Peking to Washington and from Moscow to Paris and London. In every country of the world there is a united front against racism. But what do we have in South Africa? In South Africa we have a government and a people that is moving away from racism, that is moving away from discrimination, that wants to rectify it and get it out of its system. We have a party, the National Party, that does not write discrimination into the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, whereas we have a Progressive Party and a United Party that are unable to deny that they do in fact want to write discrimination into the constitution of the Republic of South Africa. They want to write discrimination into the constitution of the Republic of South Africa and I challenge you to deny it. [Interjections.] But while this great struggle is in progress, while South Africa is trying to get away from discrimination, we have behaviour like that of the hon. member for Bryanston. I want to tell him that his conduct in this House is in conflict with the spirit displayed by his own leader. His conduct does him discredit, his conduct in this House can definitely not be condemned strongly enough. But not only do we have this. Yesterday the Sunday Times stated the following in an article in this regard, and I want to reject this article in its entirety. It states—

The author says that he accepts and welcome the statement, but he does not believe it. He goes on to say—

But this statement—

and its tone is aimed at weakening the position of the ambassador there. The aim is to injure the credibility of the Government’s representative at UNO, to hang the label of discrimination around South Africa’s neck once again and, last but not least, to stab South Africa in the back. To say that this standpoint is now being adopted for the first time by a Government representative, is, of course, a lie. We know that as far back as 1961 Dr. Verwoerd unambiguously took up standpoint against discrimination. We know that the other day, on 9 August, the hon. the Prime Minister said the following in this House—(Hansard, 1974, column 421)—

In these times I want to make an earnest appeal to the hon. members of the Opposition and to the Press, too, and that is that we should stop continually attempting to label South Africa as a racist state with a racist government. Undoubtedly there are many things in South Africa that could be singled out, things that reveal an attitude that is acceptable to the world, too. There are undoubtedly many ways in which the hon. member for Houghton could display her patriotism and loyalty towards South Africa, too, but which she is unprepared to utilize.

Let’s have a little honesty.

The hon. member says “Let us have a little honesty”. Let that hon. member show her honesty by telling us in this House where she has said that she stands for South Africa and that she strives for the continued existence of people of her colour in South Africa as well. No, Sir, we in South Africa must realize, and our opponents must realize, that it is time for us all to strive to get rid of South Africa’s label, as a racist state for once and for all. The Government is giving vigorous guidance in a specific direction in this regard, but its best efforts are being stymied by members on that side of the House, as the hon. member for Bryanston did on Saturday, and by members of the Press.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member who has just sat down, will forgive me if I do not react immediately to him. [Interjections.] I will, however, be dealing with the specific points he raised during the course of my speech. But I want to say this to him at this stage, that this party on these benches is totally opposed to race discrimination, whether it be of a social, economic or of a political nature. We will give individuals the option to protect themselves as minority groups if they wish to but we will not impose racist philosophies on people in South Africa against their will. That is the essential difference between ourselves and the hon. members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer first of all to the speech made by the hon. member for Simonstown, although perhaps not in the same terms as the speaker who has just sat down. The hon. member for Simonstown, a senior member of the United Party in the Cape, made a sweeping and, I believe, irresponsible attack on the whole English-language Press and in doing what he did he has, I believe, done more to encourage this Government to interfere with the freedom of the Press than all the speeches of Government members on the other side. I believe that in doing so he has done a grave disservice to South Africa. We on these benches reject his comments and his criticisms out of hand. He indulged in personal attacks on individual editors and journalists. He attacked the judgment, the behaviour and the patriotism and the integrity of the opposition Press in general. But he went further and impugned the integrity of the members of the boards of both SAAN and of the Argus group in that he suggested that they were mere puppets dancing to the Oppenheimer political tune.

What do you say?

Order! When the hon. member for Simonstown made his speech there was absolute silence in this House. A defence is now being delivered against that speech, and for that reason I expect to have absolute silence again.

Sir, is he suggesting that Dr. Frans Cronjé, the national treasurer, I believe, of the United Party, is a puppet dancing to the Oppenheimer tune or Mr. Dennis Hennessey or Mr. Ian McPherson? I am surprised that he did not do his homework in regard to the boards controlling the Nationalist Party newspapers, because then he would have found direct political influence, not just by run of the mill politicians but by Cabinet Ministers, who in addition to being full-time servants of the State as Cabinet Ministers also serve on the boards of these newspaper companies. Sir, we have in the case of Vaderlandbeleggings the complete voting control in the hands of the holders 400 B-shares, and these holders are the Dagbreek Trust Limited. I think it is interesting to read out the names of the people who have control over the boards of these companies. The majority of them are politicians, Cabinet Ministers or ex-Cabinet Ministers. On the Dagbreek Trust there are the hon. B. J. Schoeman, the hon. N. Diederichs, the hon. H. Muller, the hon. Senator J. de Klerk, the hon. C. Mulder, the hon. Marais Viljoen.

Sir, I the hon. member hinged the cornerstone of his case on his allegation that Anglo-American controls the Argus and SAAN groups and therefore that Mr. Harry Oppenheimer is manipulating the English-language Press. His arguments have been knocked away by statements from senior members of the SAAN and Argus groups, like Mr. Corder, who said that he was talking “absolute nonsense” and Mr. Slater, who said he was talking “through the back of his neck” and Mr. Leycester Walton, who described his allegations as “absolute nonsense”. Sir, even if the hon. member for Simonstown’s share analysis was correct, he displayed an abysmal ignorance of the manner in which English-language newspaper companies operate. He ignores the very clear separation of functions between the management on the one hand and the editorial staff on the other. And in respect of Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, he clearly has no appreciation of that man’s philosophy, of his integrity or of his tremendous personal respect for a free Press as the cornerstone of a parliamentary system and Government.

Sir, no newspaperman is beyond criticism, but I believe that the South African opposition Press has made a constructive contribution to our national life over the years. The hon. member said “they stir up racial hatred among non-Whites”. I believe that in a country which is so regrettably divided into groups, the English Press has become a medium through which White and Black people can come together and through which they can express their frustrations, their hopes their fears and even their bitterness. This creates understanding. He says “they will destroy South Africa’s image abroad”. I would say that the existence of a critical and free Opposition Press is a major plus factor in South Africa’s image abroad. It is perhaps the one factor that enables us to claim some identity with the free nations of the Western world. The English-language Press with all its defects has been the conveyer of new ideas, of reforms which have been ahead of public opinion and perhaps this is what offends the hon. member for Simonstown. I want to say with all the emphasis at my command that we, the Progressive Party, say to this Government and to the hon. member for Simonstown: Hands off the Press. [Interjections.] We believe the Press must be allowed to function in South Africa without further restrictions—there are already sufficient restrictions—without any threats and without any coercion from he Government.

When one really looks at the speech of the hon. member, apart from his attempt to settle some personal scores with individual journalists, it is merely part of the infighting which has been taking place in the United Party over the past 2½ years. I want to say to the hon. member, who regrettably is not here today, that if certain sections of the Press were pressing for reform, they were merely reflecting a body of opinion which he knows exists within his own party. If certain sections of the Press were urging that Graaff should go, then the hon. member for Simonstown knows that they were merely expressing the opinion of members of his own party who are working for this objective. The sustained campaign, which he says was launched by the Press, could never have been sustained unless it had had support from within the United Party. I believe that campaign could have been stopped if the hon. member who had been identified in the public’s mind with this campaign had openly and publicly repudiated this campaign instead of remaining silent. So my advice to the hon. member for Simonstown and his colleagues is: You must put your own house in order; do not blame the Press for a situation which has arisen within the United Party; stop papering over the cracks; realize that in your party there are people who are incompatible in terms of political philosophy and in their attitudes one towards the other. I believe the time has long passed for the parting of the ways to come within the party on my right. The situation which exists in the United Party and which is highlighted by the speech of the hon. member is having a debilitating effect on the total Opposition in South Africa. That party owes it not only to the Opposition but to the whole of South Africa to get rid of these incompatible elements.

You ought to know, ought you not, Colin?

At least when we found that we were incompatible, we got out. What we did not do was to sit inside the party and sabotage it from within. [Interjections.]

Not much!

I want to leave that subject and refer to the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister in the Senate last week and to the speech by our ambassador, Mr. Pik Botha, to the Security Council of the United Nations. The hon. the Prime Minister said that Southern Africa was at the cross-roads. We have heard this kind of expression very often in South Africa over the past 20 years. If the hon. the Prime Minister is indicating that he believes that we in South and Southern Africa are at the threshold of a new era that will bring changes of a fundamental nature, then I find myself in full agreement with him. I believe that we are entering an era of fundamental change. The early-warning vibrations of this change are already making their impact on this House: The election of seven members of my party to this House in April and June, certain welcome changes in policy on the part of the United Party, the reaction of Government members. I have watched Government members carefully over this last session and they have reacted in the strange way, people do who have a premonition that fundamental changes are about to take place but do not know quite how to deal with them. There has been an edginess amongst members when they have been criticized. There has been bluster to try to disguise concern. There have been unfulfilled last-ditch stands on verkrampte issues. There has been a surprisingly verligte ring to a number of speeches which came from the Government benches. We even had the Minister of the Interior saying that he was opposed to race discrimination. The interesting thing is that this was highlighted in his department’s Comment and Opinion two weeks later. This area of fundamental change has been touched upon by the hon. the Prime Minister and it was dealt with again by Mr. Pik Botha, speaking in the Security Council only last week. I believe that Mr. Pik Botha deserves the congratulations of members of all sides of this House for the determined and I believe courageous way in which he put his case. Without arguing on the details, I think his manner and his style showed a tremendous amount of courage and determination in a very, very difficult international situation.

Because these speeches, and Mr. Botha’s speech in particular, are so important, I should like to deal with them. In regard to the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech in the Senate, I want to refer back to the speech which I made in this House on 22 August on my return from a visit to Zambia where I had discussions with Pres. Kaunda, my visit to Kenya and my visit to Nigeria where I had discussions with Gen. Gowan. During the course of my comments I made certain assessments of the attitudes of these people towards South Africa and I suggested certain initiatives which South Africa should take. I am sorry that on those occasions I met with the abuse and criticism of the hon. member for Waterkloof, the hon. the Minister of Defence and certain sections of the Press. I said that my assessment of these people was that they were more pragmatic than we were led to believe and that they had an appreciation of the realities and the strength of South Africa, and I even suggested that they had a sneaking regard for the pragmatism of the Prime Minister. In spite of the criticisms of the hon. the Minister of Defence, I believe that the events of the last few days and in particular the speech made in Lusaka on Saturday morning confirms my point of view. What is sad for South Africa is that the hon. the Minister, who holds the vitally important portfolio of Defence, should have completely misread the situation and that he should have abused these people in the most extravagant terms at the very time when a rethinking was taking place. This hon. Minister must realize that he is not only talking for the National Party; he should be talking for South Africa in this very difficult and delicate area of international affairs.

I suggested that we should shape a positive strategy towards Africa. I said three things, namely that we should identify with Africa, that we must turn our back on colonialism and colonial thinking—I am pleased that the hon. the Prime Minister expressed himself in similar terms in Senate only last week—and that there was a very distinct difference between the unresolved colonial areas of the Portuguese territories, South-West Africa and Rhodesia and South Africa itself. I called upon the hon. the Prime Minister to make quite clear our attitude towards Rhodesia and our attitude towards the self-determination of South-West Africa. He has gone a long way in saying that we have no political commitment in Rhodesia and that this has helped to clear the air. I believe that his statement that it is not going to be the South African Government, but that it is going to be the peoples of South-West Africa, collectively, who are going to decide on their future, is an important step towards improving relationships in Southern Africa.

He made it before.

All I want to say to the hon. member who said that he has made it before, is that people north of South Africa did not understand the situation and that that statement of the Government’s attitude had not before been made in the unambiguous terms in which the hon. the Prime Minister has now made it. I am not criticizing him for it but I do think it is a pity that we first had to have the bluster of the hon. the Minister of Defence before we had a bit of statesmanship from the hon. the Prime Minister.

I believe that a change is taking place in attitudes of certain states to the North of us. I had a letter from Lusaka a week before the hon. the Prime Minister made his speech. I wish to read an extract from that letter, because it was a value judgment made before the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech. I quote—

But that what touches the fundamental issue, when we have done everything else as far as South Africa is concerned, is the question of race discrimination. This has been the burden of the Prime Minister’s statements in this House. It was the main thrust of Mr. Pik Botha’s statement to the United Nations. This is the area of change. Whatever we have done in the past we know that race discrimination is no longer defensible. This has been spelt out in blunt dramatic terms by Mr. Pik Botha speaking on behalf of the Government. Because this is a so important and because it was a pledge made on behalf of the Government to the people of the world, I believe there should be no uncertainty in the minds of this House, and I include hon. members opposite, as to what that means and implies. Let me read what Mr. Pik Botha said. The hon. member for Sunnyside is here, but the hon. member for Rissik is not. The hon. member for Waterberg is also not here and this is a great pity, because I think there should be absolute clarity about what is meant. First of all he said—

He therefore admitted that there was discrimination; that is the first point. Secondly, he said—

Thirdly he said—

Note that he said that there were schools of thought, traditions and practices which could not be changed overnight, but that we were moving in the direction of non-discrimination and that we would continue to do so. Let us not talk any more of the National Party defending the traditional way or an established order. Here it has been said that we are going to get away from the traditional way and this is how his speech will be interpreted overseas. The SABC interprets this as being in direct conformity with the Lusaka Manifesto, a manifesto which was rejected out of hand by the Government when it was issued in July 1969. The SABC, in analysing Mr. Botha’s speech, says—

In other words, here is a clear commitment for South Africa to move away from group inequality to individual equality not based on race or colour or racial criteria. It is tremendously important that we should know what we are talking about, that we should not make false promises, that we should not be ambiguous and that we should know exactly what Mr. Pik Botha was pledging this House and White South Africa to in the years to come.

Let us look at what the response could be. We almost had it from the hon. member over there. The first response from Government members is that we have been misunderstood, that we have not really discriminated and that we are not really racists. Let us admit that we have not been misunderstood. Let us admit that under the laws of this Government we have discriminated and that we have discriminated cruelly against people of colour in South Africa. It is no use trotting out the statistics as the hon. member for Turffontein did earlier in this debate. Of course we have built houses, schools and hospitals. Let me recount an incident of some 14 years ago. I met Mr. Arap Moi, who is now the vice-president of Kenya, and who was then in the Opposition Kadu party when I was up in Kenya in 1960. He said to me—

Can he swim in Sea Point?

Under the National Party laws he may not do so, but I look forward to the day when those barriers will disappear and all South Africans will be free to use all the amenities and facilities.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member? Is the hon. member able to tell us whether it is not so that there is discrimination against the poor man as well as the illiterate in his party.

I dealt with that in reply to the hon. member for Rissik the other day. I am afraid I just do not have time to deal with it at this stage.

The next argument which will be advanced by Government members is that we do not discriminate on the basis of race, but on nationality. What we are going to do is that they are going to say that we do not have races in South Africa, but nations, and that justifies the discrimination that is taking place. This just will not wash. Ever since the late Prime Minister made his “new vision” speech in this House, the Nationalist Party has been using the concept of nations in the future to justify the reality of discrimination and “baasskap” as it exists in South Africa today. It is nonsense to speak of nations and not races today. It is nonsense to say that one should compare South Africa with Europe. If we make this comparison, why do we allow White Citizens of European nations to come and share with Whites in South Africa while we deny to Black South Africans the same opportunities of sharing?

The third view that will be advanced is that we must still continue to have compulsory apartheid but that we will try to eliminate inequalities. This just will not work. There is already too much of a dent in the whole fabric of apartheid and the hon. the Ministers know it. The walls of apartheid are starting to crumble. It cannot be rationalized; the walls cannot be propped up again. This is happening in commerce, industry, travel and sport. Is the hon. the Minister suggesting that we should have one set of apartheid laws for Black South Africans and that we should have a different set of laws for Black visitors from abroad? It is quite impossible to have two sets of standards, one internal and one external. What is important though, is that in an era when we are saying we want to get rid of colonialism, a forced segregation or enforced apartheid, whether you like it or not, carries with it the stigma of rejection and the overtones of an old colonial era.

I believe that the only valid judgment and interpretation of Mr. Pik Botha’s speech is that he was saying—

We believe that South Africa must face up to that with all the consequences in the social, economic and political fields that it entails. If hon. members do not face up to that and if their interpretation of Mr. Pik Botha’s speech is something less than that, what he has declared will be seen to be a bluff, a hoax and a fraud by people throughout the world. If we are not going to take down the barriers of enforced segregation in South Africa, it would have been better if that speech were not made. I believe that there could be a breakthrough for South Africa. I believe we are entering a period of fundamental change and I think this Government must do something about it. This change cannot be brought about overnight but a start must be made with it.

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

I am afraid I do not have time. I would suggest that we work more vigorously than we have done to close the gaps in education, housing and employment. I know the Government has stated its intention to do something in this regard but it must get on with the job. I think it must start dismantling the system of enforced apartheid which operates in South Africa. If they cannot start on a national basis, let them start with the Coloureds. Next month Adam Small’s play is going to be produced in the Nico Malan theatre, a theatre in which Coloureds other than the sweepers are not permitted. Let the Government say: “This is the occasion on which we are going to announce that henceforth the Nico Malan theatre is open to anybody of any race who would like to go there.” Let this Government say that the development of District Six has been reconsidered, and that instead of becoming a snob suburb for wealthy Whites it is going to become a community base for working class Coloureds in Cape Town. Let the hon. the Minister of Defence tell the Coloured people in advance that when the Coloured cadets who are being trained at the moment become commissioned officers they will be saluted and addressed by White other ranks in exactly the same way as Coloured other ranks greet them.

That is an instruction already.

The Coloured people are not aware of this and I think he should make it clear. Let the Prime Minister when he opens the Council on the 7th of next month tell the Coloured people that he made a mistake in getting rid of Coloured representation in this House. Let him admit that it was a ghastly mistake and that henceforth there is going to be representation in Parliament [Interjections.]

We are not only entering a period of change in relation to race relationships, but we are entering a period of change in the sense that the days of exclusive White politics is over. We Whites, whether we sit here or not, are not going to be the only people to determine the pattern of change in South Africa. Despite our formal sovereignty in this House, the initiative for change does not just lie with us. We are responding to the pressures, the forces and to the situation which is evolving outside of this House. We are involved in this changing situation. We have got to learn to share power with other people. Let us realize that Black and Brown South Africans are moving ahead. As I said the other day, they are gaining in political power. The question is not whether they are going to get political power, but how are they going to express it. Are they going to express that political power through democratic institutions or outside of them? Are they going to express that power with White South Africans or against them? The Prime Minister said that South and Southern Africa was at the cross-roads. We believe that we are, and that during the life of this Parliament, we are going to have to see fundamental changes in the social, economic and political structure of our country. It is inevitable and I think we should face up to it instead of trying to do a semantic contortion, as hon. members on the opposite side are doing.

I see an analogy between the situation which is developing in South Africa and the years immediately preceding Union in 1910. At that time we had the situation of the supreme British authority, the British Parliament, having to give way to a new authority which was created out of the two defeated Boer Republics and the colonies of the Cape and Natal. In the same way the supreme authority of this White Parliament is going to have to give way to a new shared authority, one shared by Black, White and Brown South Africans. Because of this situation and the commitment to get rid of race discrimination. I want to suggest in all earnestness to this Government and to members on both sides of the House that just as the leaders of the people got together in 1909, so the time has come for the leaders of the South African people, the Indians, the Coloureds, the Africans and the Whites to get together in a new national convention. At this convention I believe they can work out or try to work out the guide-lines for South Africa’s future constitutional development. It cannot be worked out by the Government on its own. It cannot be worked out by this White Parliament on its own. This matter has to be discussed and thrashed out by Black, Brown and White people sitting together. In order to avoid any confusion and any recriminations, let us at such a national convention agree on a joint commitment of what we mean by getting rid of race discrimination and, having got that agreement, let Black, Brown and White—I believe this is possible in the new climate which is developing in Southern Africa—get together and create a society in which each individual South African will have the same dignity, the same opportunity and share in the same pride of calling themselves South Africans.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sea Point made one of the most arrogant speeches I have ever heard in this House. The hon. member for Sea Point gives out that he can prescribe to the hon. the Prime Minister. He wants to read into the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister in the Other Place, and also the speech by Advocate Botha, things which they definitely did not say, and which in no way link up with the policies of that hon. member’s party. I want to state very clearly that integration, national integration, will lead to the most extreme discrimination this country has ever seen. The greatest exploiters are members belonging to that party. Look at them sitting there. Which people in South Africa are represented by the hon. members of the Progressive Party? A violent attack on the hon. member for Simonstown was launched by the hon. member for Sea Point today. However, there is a logical reason for his having done so. He did so because he realized that it is thanks to the English-language Press that they are sitting here today. The seven of them are sitting in this House today as a result of the fighting going on within the United Party. That is the reason for their enjoying representation here today. They would not have enjoyed that representation if there had not been a smouldering party in opposition. They would not have been here.

There has been discussion about the boards of directors of the Afrikaans-language newspapers. I am proud that the Ministers on this side of the House serve on the boards of directors of our Afrikaans-language Press companies, and I shall tell you why. I challenge the hon. member for Simonstown to show me any article published by an Afrikaans-language newspaper which was damaging to the future of White South Africa or South Africa as a whole? I challenge him to show me a Stanley Uys in the Afrikaans-language Press. What reports have not been published! Take the speech by that political libertine, the hon. member for Bryanston. If I was unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. The hon. member for Bryanston made the most venomous speech here I have ever heard. It is clutched at by the Sunday Times. Let me say clearly and frankly that as far as the Afrikaans-language Press is concerned, the shareholders in the Afrikaans-language Press companies, they are the ordinary man in the street who for generations has had shares in the Afrikaans-language Press. They became shareholders out of sentiment, out of a need to put that which was theirs, first. I am a shareholder in Voortrekker Pers, a proud shareholder. I inherited my share from my father. He was a man who became a shareholder when the Voortrekker Pers was established, for the sake of the battle we had to wage against people sitting on that side of the House. In order to wage this battle, it was necessary to have a strong Press in South Africa. As far as I am concerned, I trust that the Afrikaans-language Press will become progressively stronger and that the Progressive Press and the Sunday Times will become progressively weaker in the interests of South Africa.

We have now come to the debate on the Third Reading of this Appropriation Bill. The Third Reading of this Bill comes at the end of a session. What is the true position as we find it in this Third Reading debate? Members on this side of the House can return to their various constituencies with a message, a message of calm, a message of great pride in our Government, a message of purposefulness, a message of sincerity, a message that the mandate of our people who sent us to this House is being carried out. The sooner hon. members of the Opposition and the Progressive Party realize that the mandate we have been given, was given to us by the people of South Africa; that those Opposition members represent a small minority of people in the Republic of South Africa, and that many of their speeches are presumptuous and entirely out of step with what the people of South Africa want, the better.

Before dealing with the message of the National Party, the message we shall pass on to our voters by way of report, I want to ask the hon. Opposition what message they have to pass on. I want to ask the hon. member for Durban Point: Can he honestly and sincerely go to his voters with a purposeful, honest message concerning the actions of his party?

Yes.

Never.

Sir, I like the hon. member for Point; I like one of the hon. member’s characteristics and that is his absolute loyalty towards his party, but I want to give him this warning: loyalty is one of the characteristics I have put first throughout my life; loyalty is something to be fostered, but be careful not to place loyalty first and violate principles, because then one is making of loyalty something it ought not to be. The hon. member for Point cannot honestly and sincerely say that he is satisfied with what is going on in his party. His party is smouldering. What happens when the hon. member for Yeoville stands up to speak? Sir, we sit and watch these antics and you watch them: When the hon. member for Yeoville rises to speak, one can see the absolute disgruntlement on the faces of members on that side; the hon. Chief Whip on that side frowns so clearly anyone can see it. Sir, when the Young Turks rise to speak, you must look at the disgruntlement on the faces of other members on that side. It is a mutual feeling.

Are you a verkrampte or a verligte?

I am a Nationalist, Sir.

Are you a home-lander?

When the hon. member for Point or the hon. member for Simons town rises to speak, then he should look at the reaction of the Young Turks in this House. It is a reaction of absolute contempt. Sir, I am sorry the hon. member for Yeoville is not here today. I am convinced that the Young Turks with their leader, the hon. member for Yeoville, could already have become reconciled with the Progressive Party—that is the direction they are moving in—if it were not for the personal dispute between the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Houghton; that is all that is preventing reconciliation between them. Sir, the hon. member for Sandton would be welcomed into the Progressive Party. Am I right?

And I into the Nationalist Party.

It is only a personal dispute that is keeping them apart. Sir, I am not a psychologist, but what I find ironic is that the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Houghton have identical personalities; they are political twins. When a debate is being conducted in this House, it happens repeatedly that there is an atmosphere of calm elsewhere in the House, but there is always a continuous noise coming from two hon. members in this House, and they are the hon. members for Yeoville and Houghton. This is a characteristic of those two hon. members. Let us take a further look.

They are like cicadas.

Order! The hon. member for Gezina must not be a cicada himself.

Sir, if there are two members who seek publicity, who seek the limelight, then it is the hon. members for Yeoville and Houghton; that is what they feed on, and I am telling you, Sir, that as soon as those two hon. members make peace, the Young Turks and the Progressive Party will become reconciled. It is merely as a result of the dispute between the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Houghton that this has not already occurred.

Sir, is it not an achievement that this party, this Government, notwithstanding a venomous English-language Press, notwithstanding the actions of hon. members on the other side of the House, have made an enormous breakthrough among the English-speaking people in South Africa? There are thousands of English-speaking people who support the National Party today. This just shows that the English-speaking people in South Africa are not prepared to be bluffed by the English-language Press.

They see in the National Party a party that puts the future of South Africa first. They see in the National Party a party to which they would like to belong. But I want to tell the hon. Opposition this, that notwithstanding the violent attacks of the English Press, more and more English-speaking people in South Africa are becoming members of the National Party. In contrast, the United Party is a dwindling party with an inept policy to pass on to their voters.

And the National Party?

The National Party’s message—this I say to the hon. member for Green Point—is a message of exceptional pride. Our hon. Prime Minister is a celebrated leader who has very calmly and clearly spelt out the political future, and not on the basis of the interpretation of the hon. member for Sea Point. We have said repeatedly that we believe, and this is the mandate of our people, that our own identity must be protected at all times. But in the process of the protection of our own identity, we do not begrudge the same to other peoples in Southern Africa and politically we are doing everything that can possibly be done to afford other peoples the same opportunity. It is therefore unfair, and politically dishonest, when allegations are made by the Progressive Party that we are discriminating.

Order! Is the hon. member insinuating that members of this House are politically dishonest?

I withdraw it, Sir.

Just keep calm.

I am calm. It is not necessary to warn me. I am very calm. But that hon. member for Mooi River cannot feel calm or happy in the party in which he is sitting at the moment in view of the things that are going on. [Interjections.] I am sure he is not happy with the associations he has. [Interjections.]

*When a party tells the world that it is engaged in political development that, in the nature of the development, must lead to the removal of discrimination … and it is logical that it should lead to that, because if one allows political development to take place among other peoples, the Bantu homelands—those same homelands for whom the Opposition does not want to purchase more land—if we are affording these peoples political development, too, and if we would like to have economic links and trade with African States, is that discrimination? Is it discrimination when we make efforts to carry on trade and establish trade links?

Sir, I say the National Party has a message of calm, a message of purposefulness, an honest message for the future. What have the hon. members of the Progressive Party done during this session? The hon. member for Houghton came along with reports that were outdated, but it was nevertheless interesting to note that the following Sunday they were limelighted by the Sunday Times. The hon. member for Pine-lands came here with a quotation from a certain professor, a quotation that could harm South Africa. He knows that the information contained in that statement is incorrect; he could have found that out from the department concerned, but no, it is dished up here to be sent out into the outside world. Sir, it is the sense of responsibility prevailing on this side of the House that is important. South Africa has a special role to play here in Africa, to co-operate in all honesty and with integrity, with African states. That is what the hon. the Prime Minister said in the Other Place and that is our honest intention. We do not begrudge the African States that which is their right. The hon. member for Houghton must realize that we, here in the Republic of South Africa, form part of Africa and we shall continue to form part of Africa.

A great deal has been said in the field of economics. I say that we have a message as far as the economy of South Africa is concerned, a message to pass on to our people, a message of great confidence in the future. Let us take a look at The Argus of 26 October—

What are you reading from?

I am reading from The Argus and the newspaper is quoting Prof. Sadie who has made a statement. Prof. Sadie is quite right in his statement.

But does The Argus say that it supports Prof. Sadie’s statement?

That is not the point at issue; the point is that Prof. Sadie made such a statement—

Does the hon. member agree with him?

Yes.

South Africa has a wonderful future, a wonderful economic future under this Government. A certain hon. member objected the other day to capital expenditure by this side, but I should like to ask the Progressive Party why they complain that the State is spending too much on capital programmes.

On providing an infrastructure.

Yes, on providing an infrastructure. How would this have been possible were there not an absolute confidence by this Government in the future of South Africa?

*I put it hypothetically: What would happen if this Government were not to meet South Africa’s capital requirements? What would happen if services were not provided in respect of the mines? Who would be the first to come and complain in this House? This Government makes provision for major capital expenditure and it is right that this should be so. However, we do so in a far-sighted manner. We do this because we realize that we in South Africa are in the wonderful position of having mineral wealth and that mineral enrichment can mean a tremendous future for South Africa. This is one of the methods with which we shall combat inflation. There is a pressing need for minerals in the world and the world is prepared to pay very high prices for our minerals. One of the primary reasons for there being interest in this country is the very fact that we can exploit, enrich and export minerals. That too, then, is something we are engaged in. Economically, South Africa has a fine future. Take note of this title of an article in The Cape Times written by its financial editor: “Uncertain West sees gold as a safeguard.” The hon. the Minister has stated the the case of gold with great confidence abroad.

I am convinced that the oil-producing countries will have to find an outlet for the capital accumulation that is taking place there at the moment. That capital will have to be invested somewhere and it would not surprise me if the oil-producing countries started to take an interest in gold. If that were to happen, we should see a degree of growth in South Africa not to be compared with anything in the past. The oil-producing countries will have to invest their money and this will have an effect on international interest rates. It will cause interest rates to drop.

South Africa’s future is entrenched in the policy of the National Party. It is a politically honest policy, a policy of purposefulness for the future of our Republic in co-operation with African states. I want to content myself by stating clearly to the official Opposition that the responsibility resting on the shoulders of this Government is far greater than it ought to be. This is so for the simple reason that the Opposition does not act as a worthy opposition should. A worthy opposition ought at least to strive for ideals. Even though the views of an opposition may be disputed, an opposition ought to carry its share of the responsibility. To do nothing but complain endlessly about Government expenditure, about petty matters, to attack State corporations and to pry and to scavange, does not promote South Africa’s interests. It does not promote South Africa’s interests if the Opposition does not consistently state a policy. That is where the United Party fails. The United Party must realize that the Government has been given a massive mandate by the people of South Africa, a commission to consider our own identity and at the same time, not to begrudge the other peoples in South Africa receiving what is rightfully theirs.

Mr. Speaker, it is always pleasant to listen to the hon. member for Rustenburg, although he is usually very naïve as far as the arguments he advances are concerned. However, the hon. members naïvete is not of a kind to arouse aversion. It amazes me, however, that the hon. member should raise the argument that the party on that side of the House is in favour of the removal of all forms of discrimination. It has repeatedly been pointed out in the course of this session to hon. members opposite that if it is in fact their policy to do away with discrimination, and if one accepts that hon. members opposite want to develop a form of governmental structure for the Black people in South Africa equal to that of the Whites, then we are entitled to ask the hon. members whether they are, in time, going to do away with the examples of petty apartheid that exist in White South Africa. Time and again during this session, hon. members on this side of the House have put this question to hon. members on the other side of the House, but up to now we have not had an answer. If it is their intention to do away with discrimination, are our own Black people, our Coloureds and our Indians, going to receive precisely the same treatment as the hon. members are prepared to afford foreign non-White visitors to South Africa? The hon. gentlemen must reply to questions such as these. It gets us nowhere to say that it is their policy to do away with discrimination, because that in itself gives rise to a number of questions. Unless the hon. members furnish the replies to those questions too, their so-called willingness to do away with discrimination sounds absolutely hollow and has no substance.

The hon. member for Rustenburg said that the Government has an economic message for South Africa too. He said that we on this side of the House have no message in any sphere while they did have a message for South Africa in the economic sphere. The economic message which I know hon. members have given us, is the economic message which the present hon. Minister of Transport gave last year at the Nationalist Party’s congress. He addressed the congress of the Nationalist Party at Oudtshoorn and stated that the rate of inflation was going to drop. That is what he said according to Die Burger of 5 September 1973. The heading of the article was “The Rate of Inflation to Drop”. I quote (translation)—

But little more than a year ago, the hon. Minister of Transport, then the Minister of Economic Affairs, held out as a prospect that inflation would drop this year. What are the facts of the matter? The fact is that this very year we have had the highest rate of inflation we have ever had in our history. And then the hon. member for Rustenburg still states that the Government has an economic message for South Africa. I have before me an edition of Tegniek, Dr. Anton Rupert’s journal, for September, the month after the hon. the Minister of Finance introduced his Budget. In it, the following statement, inter alia, is made: “Inflation has not been contained by this Budget.” The hon. member quoted Prof. Sadie and others concerning the future and particularly concerning what was to happen in regard to the price of gold and confidence in gold. But what does Dr. Wassenaar, until recently the head of Sanlam, say? He said the following in Tegniek (translation)—

This is not a United Party supporter saying this, or anyone who is unpatriotic towards South Africa. This is Dr. A. D. Wassenaar, a top-level Afrikaner, who is saying this. He then goes on to say what the West and South Africa must do under the circumstances. The reporter’s comment on this is the following (translation)—

The following is also stated (translation)—

That is the question the hon. Minister of Finance and hon. gentlemen on that side of the House must ask themselves when they come and tell us that they have an economic message for us. What are South Africa’s economic prospects? For example, we read: “No nation can really progress if it does not save,” Mr. Chris Bisschoff, president of the S.A. Handelsinstituut said here yesterday when he opened the regional conference of the AHI in the Northern Free State. That was a month ago. The report is entitled: “Inflation heading for a crisis.” If that is the approach, coming, too, from people who are well-disposed to hon. members on that side of the House, then surely they cannot go back, after this Parliamentary session, and say that they have an economic message for South Africa, that as far as South Africa’s economy is concerned, they have ensured that price increases have been arrested, that the value of our money has improved and that they are ensuring that the rate of inflation will rise at a slower rate than interest rates, for example, are rising. As long as we have the situation that the rate of inflation is rising faster, we cannot expect the ordinary man in the street in South Africa to be prepared to save. If he is not prepared to save, South Africa will not have the necessary working capital and consequently its growth will necessarily have to be curtiled. In this way I could give you one example after the other of how the Government is today being warned about this tremendous problem of inflation, a problem for which they have up to now failed to offer South Africa any solution. In the September edition of Volkshandel, a month ago, therefore, Mr. D. J. Greyling wrote the following (translation)—

What is the attitude of hon. members opposite when these statements are made about inflation. They quote statements by people who say they have confidence in the future. Of course we all have confidence in the future, but the hon. gentlemen could create far greater confidence in the future of this country if they were prepared really to deal with these problems. This hon. members are not doing. The hon. member for Pretoria Central and other hon. members have now had an interesting diversion in the speech of the hon. member for Simonstown. I do not blame the hon. member for Pretoria Central for wanting to talk about the speech by the hon. member for Simonstown, because hon. members opposite are always looking for lightning conductors. I have already pointed out to them that they are not prepared to give attention to the question of inflation. That is why it does not amaze me that the hon. member is so eager to discuss the speech by the hon. member for Simonstown.

Do you think then, that it was an unimportant speech?

After all, the hon. members opposite were placed in an extremely embarrassing position by the interview which Mr. Jannie de Wet gave the Sunday Times a week or ten days ago. The hon. members on that side of the House are worried about the verkramptes who established a movement a short time ago in Pretoria, at a meeting at which hundreds of people were present. That is why hon. members opposite are eager to discuss the speech by the hon. member for Simonstown.

Is that the HNP you are talking about?

In other words, the hon. gentlemen are faced with important questions. They themselves are aware of the tension that exists in South Africa as a result of the change that has taken place and is yet to take place in regard to the sports policy. Surely the hon. members on that side know that although all of us in the House are in agreement with the purport and the spirit of Mr. Pik Botha’s words, the HNP and the people who would like to get hold of the support the National Party has enjoyed through the years will not simply allow a speech of this kind to go unchallenged. That is why the hon. members are so serious and so eager to discuss the speech by the hon. member for Simonstown.

What did the hon. member for Simonstown really say and what attitude did people like myself adopt in that regard? The hon. member for Pretoria Central had this morning’s Burger before him, but he did not quote what I said. He only quoted the piece where I said that I agreed with the basic approach of the hon. member for Simonstown. For the sake of that hon. member, and all other hon. members, I want to indicate exactly what I said. I quote (translation)—

That I also did. We are not exempt from criticism and who are they that they should not also be subject to criticism? When I or the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, or whoever, differs from an editor or a reporter, it is our right to say where he or she is wrong.

Tell that to Japie.

However, this has nothing to do with the freedom of the Press. (translation)—

100%.

I quote further (translation)—

Surely that is true.

I have said on a previous occasion, and I do so again, that there are some of them who give out that the United Party and the Progressive Party should have concluded a kind of election pact during the last election.

Japie does not say so.

There is Stanley Uys who said the same to the United Party, viz. that we should not …

Do you agree with him?

… fight with the Progressive Party.

I do not believe you agree with him.

You reject his standpoint.

Then there is Mr. Victor Norton, who wrote that the United Party should really conclude an agreement and give up a certain number of seats to the Progressive Party. I have stated these things precisely as Mr. Wiley has done in the past.

But what does Japie say?

The United Party is a party of moderates. I quote further (translation)—

Artificially?

That is in fact the case, since you are already divided.

So far as I know there is not a single verkrampte sitting on this side of the House in the United Party.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No. I believe that, as the Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly said, when it comes to verligtheid, the United Party has always been in the forefront of verligte thought in South Africa. Why, then, should it be necessary for us suddenly to publicise our sentiments in regard to verligte thought whereas anyone who has studied the politics of South Africa over the past 25 years or longer, ought to realize that the United Party has never had reason to be ashamed of the role it has played in regard to the retention of the Bantu’s representation in this House, or about the role it has played in regard to the retention of the meagre rights the Coloureds had in South Africa …

You threw that overboard, too!

All this proves that when it comes to the race problem, the United Party has been characterized by one thing only, namely action in the best interests of sound race relations and in the best interests of the country as a whole.

[Inaudible.]

Nor have we ever made a secret of the fact that we are champions of true unity between Afrikaans and English-speaking South Africa, because we draw no distinction between the Afrikaans and the English-speaking persons. In my opinion this is the highest plain of thinking for a White person, at least when it comes to verligte thinking in South Africa. I added to that, and I quote further (translation)—

However, I also quote the following (translation)—

I believe that that standpoint is in line with the standpoint adopted by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in the House when he stated frankly that one need not necessarily agree with everything the hon. member for Simonstown had to say in this House.

I should now like to come back to a matter that was also raised by the hon. member for Rustenburg, viz. the matter of inflation. In this regard I want to say that this Government will not be able to solve inflation unless it also has the greatest degree of co-operation from the people of South Africa in solving this problem. In order to play our role on the Continent of Africa, and if we want the people of Zambia, of Mozambique, of Lesotho and elsewhere to take an interest in South Africa, we must definitely continue to be prosperous so that we may afford those people the opportunity of having a rich trading partner in this country of ours. This can only be so if we retain our leadership in as many spheres as possible in Southern Africa. We shall also have to ensure that we make the necessary adjustments on the labour market. We shall have to create more employment opportunities for our people. Has the hon. the Prime Minister not already told us on occasion that if there is one thing that gives him sleepless nights, it is the question of unemployment in South Africa? If we do not want unemployment in this country, we shall have to make the necessary adjustments in the field of labour in order to have the highest possible rate of growth in South Africa. If we want to give other countries the impression that in South Africa they have a potential prosperous trading partner, we shall have to restrict the increases in our cost of living to the minimum; we shall have to keep the cost of living in South Africa stable. If we want to create the impression of a progressive society, if we are to create the impression of a developing society, then we shall have to have the necessary capital, not only for what must take place in our White areas, but pre-eminently in regard to the development necessary in our non-White areas. We shall need this development in order to maintain our food production in South Africa and in order to encourage our exports. We shall also need it in order to maintain maximum economic production in South Africa. On the home-front the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Prime Minister will have a sore need of all South Africans, irrespective of race or colour, to contend with this problem of inflation. It is not only on that front that we shall need national unity; we shall need national unity in South Africa on the broadest front. I refer here to the maintenance of the security of our country and of our state. Sir, I believe that never before in the history of this country has there been a leader of the Opposition who has played a greater role in effecting national unity on the broadest front than the present Leader of the Opposition. His approach, as is apparent from speeches he has made recently, on South-West Africa, on non-White observers at U.N. and also on our relations with the Coloureds and the offer he made the Government in this regard, prove incontrovertibly that we have never before had a Leader of the Opposition in South Africa who has played a greater role in the interests of South Africa than the present Leader of the Opposition. Sir, if there has ever been a time in the history of South Africa when we have had need of national unity, not only for the sake of our economic development, but for the sake of our continued existence and to enable us to play our rightful role in South Africa, then that time is now, and I believe that the Government will have to have due regard to the offer of co-operation made by the Leader of the Opposition during this session. If the Government does not give attention to what the Leader of the Opposition said to them in this regard, and if matters do not go well with South Africa in the future, then they will not be able to lay the blame at the door of the Leader of the Opposition. It will be laid at the door of hon. members on that side of the House. Sir, when dangers threaten us from outside South Africa, the Government has a bounden duty to bring moderate South Africans closer together and to take the initiative to achieve the greatest degree of unity in South Africa. In order to achieve this, it is the task of the Government to ensure that poverty among the non-Whites and among the less-privileged people be eliminated as soon as possible. There are people today who say that we in South Africa ought to have a distribution of wealth. Sir, I do not believe that it is necessary to have a distribution of wealth, I do not believe that it is necessary to have a form of socialism or a form of communism. What we in South Africa need to do is not to take away from the haves but to give more to the have-nots. If we do this and if we realize that we must establish a responsible, sound middle-class Black community in our urban areas that will have a feeling of permanence there, who will be able to own their own houses there, then, I believe, we should be able to have the greatest degree of unity and co-operation in South Africa. Sir, if the Government and we on this side can co-operate in doing away with discrimination, then I do not believe that this would be an insurmountable problem; the policy of discrimination could then be replaced by a policy of differentiation. There is no reason why both major political parties and even the Progressive Party should not be able to co-operate in doing away entirely with discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition told the Government that they should establish a Council of State, in Afrikaans, “ ’n Landsraad”, if I may call it that. I believe that matters of this kind could fruitfully be discussed in such a Council of State. If such a Council of State could be established, then I believe that it would lead to the Black man realizing that the White man has a reasonable case, and to the White man also realizing that the Black man has just as reasonable a case. But unless we make a start with this and all races are able to sit and plan together, then I do not believe that we shall ever be able to solve the problems of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Sir, we had a reasonably interesting speech from the hon. member for Newton Park. I intend spending a little time discussing it, and afterwards I should also like to say a few words about the accusations he levelled at this side of the House in regard to inflation. But I think it is imperative that, when we bid one another farewell at the end of this Session, we should also say to the United Party that is is imperative for the good order in South Africa and for the proper functioning of a Parliament such as this, that we should know where the Opposition stands in regard to various matters. The first matter—this is how I feel at this stage after the events of the weekend—is that we should know whether the United Party is prepared to follow the example of the National Party when there is tension and turbulence in its midst, viz. to set its own house in order. It is no use referring now, as the hon. member for Sea Point did, to the hon. member for Sunny-side, the hon. member for Waterberg and the hon. member for Rissik here on our side. There are no misgivings about the positions of these hon. members within the National Party; none whatsoever. Time and again it has become apparent that there are no problems with any members on the National Party side. But what is absolutely important is this. The hon. member for Newton Park is the Leader of the United Party in the Cape. His former Deputy Leader in the Cape made a speech here. The hon. member for Simonstown not only referred to the controlling of the shares with regard to the English Press. Not only did he refer to the role which certain journalists were playing with regard to the presentation or non-presentation of South Africa. The hon. member for Simonstown also referred to the role which these people played in regard to the conflicts within the United Party. The hon. member for Simonstown used such expressions as “certain liberalists”, and “certain liberal elements”, with regard to the United Party. Now we have here the wonderful combination: The hon. member for Newton Park stated over the weekend that fundamentally he agreed with what the hon. member for Simonstown had said. Here and there he had misgivings about a few matters, but in any event he agreed fundamentally with his leader. That I will to believe, for after all, he cannot differ from his leader. But the hon. member for Bezuidenhout also had something to say this weekend about what the hon. member for Simonstown had said. I do not want to affront the hon. member but my information is that the hon. member said that he rejected the speech made by the hon. member for Simonstown in this House. Now it may be that the hon. member had not seen the speech before commenting on it, for I did not notice the hon. member here in the House last week, when the hon. member for Simonstown was making his speech. It may just be that the hon. member did not read that speech, and that he acted a little over-hastily. But then he could inform this House whether that was the case. The fact of the matter is simply that we must have clarity now in regard to where we stand in relation to certain elements within the United Party, not only on this question to which the hon. member for Simonstown referred, for it is not only the irritation of the hon. member for Simonstown with the English Press which drove him to make that speech; it is also his irritation with regard to the situation within the United Party which drove him to it. That party, or a large group of that party, has now experienced what it is to fight an election without a mouthpiece. The hon. member for Mooi River will agree with me that it was not pleasant fighting an election in Natal this year, without the support of the English-language Press. The Sunday Express at least still has a little time for that side of the House, but this can be said of few of the other English language newspapers. The fact that the English-language Press has adopted a certain course, indicates that the English-language Press is not satisfied with the United Party as a whole. The English-language Press is not dissatisfied with the United Party because the United Party is too verlig, but in fact because the United Party is verkramp.

Rapport is not very satisfied with you.

Pot-chefstroom is very satisfied with the National Party; there is no problem.

No,Rapport.

Oh, the hon. member was referring to Rapport. What Rapport says and what the National Party says, have absolutely nothing to do with each other; I can assure the hon. member of that. The National Party has a policy, but the problem which the English-language Press has with the United Party is that the United Party is not succeeding in selling its policy to the voters. The mere fact that the United Party is not succeeding in selling its policy to the voters, has resulted in seven members of the Progressive Party sitting on that side. Those hon. members remind me of a lot of children who badly wanted to go to an orphanage picnic, but in order to get to that orphanage picnic, they had to murder their parents. However, those hon. members will still discover that this House is not an orphanage picnic. Those hon. members will also have to state precisely what their policy entails, and the hon. member for Rondebosch will have to tell the country whether or not the qualifications of the Progressive Party in regard to franchise are discriminating. How far are those qualifications going to be extended? The hon. member for Newton Park referred to discrimination, and the thon. member for Sea Point also used that word. The word “discrimination” is freely used, but I want to warn both those parties that when hon. members on this side speak of the elimination of discrimination, one thing must be borne in mind, for we on this side do not think of discrimination in the terms in which those on the opposite side do. We must read carefully what our ambassador to the U.N. said. The hon. the Minister of Sport also made a statement in this House in which he referred to the removal of discrimination. When we refer to discrimination, this side is referring to it from an existing policy viewpoint which has been in existence for years. Our policy viewpoint is not merely based on the horizontal, but on the vertical as well. The hon._ member for Pinelands, “dominee” Borraine, will be able to understand this. The hon. Chief Whip told me not to preach today, but I am nevertheless going to preach a little to “dominee” Borraine; it is time a good word was spoken over him again. [Interjections.) If we consider the policy of the National Party, we see that the policy of the National Party is in the first place based on the primary issue that we believe we have a calling in South Africa, that we as Whites have a calling.

Is it only the National Party that has a calling?

No, we believe that the Whites have a calling in South Africa, and also in Africa. We are trying to win round to our standpoint the people who do not believe in the calling which we envisage for ourselves. In our consciousness of having a calling the policy of the National Party has a vertical factor, the vertical factor of separation between peoples. As the result of our vertical factor of separation the HNP was removed from our midst. Since 1948 it has been our premise that what had become intertwined should be unravelled, and that the various people should be set vertically against one another. The HNP people were left by the wayside because they were not prepared to accept the implications which will arise when peoples are set vertically against one another.

Tell that to the UN.

That standpoint is in fact the standpoint which our ambassador stated at the U.N. The root of the policy of the National Party is vertical separation between peoples in South Africa, and in that we believe. We also believe in the vertical separation between peoples in Africa, and not only in South Africa. We also believe in vertical separation between peoples even though those peoples are all Black, for each nation must have its own identity. In this process we then have the horizontal lines as well, and this is where we come to the everyday aspect. If I may again use theological terms now, I want to say that in theology there has to be a correlation between the vertical and horizontal planes of religion. The vertical is the relationship between God and man, and the horizontal is the relationship between man and his fellow-man. If we could apply this to our policy, it means that we have a vertical diversity of peoples, but that we also have horizontal contacts.

You have delved a little too deeply into Calvin.

No, I am not going into this too deeply. The hon. member for Mooi River did not do his work, otherwise he would have known what I am talking about. The horizontal line is the line which does not only relate absolutely to the point where it intersects the vertical line. We must also look at the horizontal line against the background of the vertical line. Then we are replying at the same time to the question which the hon. member for Newton Park put. He asked us whether our policy in respect of the non-Whites in this country is going to be precisely the same as our policy in respect of non-White visitors from abroad. After all, we have stated in very clear terms that the contact point of the policy of the National Party and its standpoint in respect of the horizontal line is precisely where the horizontal line intersects the vertical line; in other words, where it is necessary to make contact. [Interjections.] The hon. members must not become excited now. If they listen, they will understand what it means when we speak of discrimination. When we speak of discrimination we are not simply speaking from a purely philanthropic, humanistic background. Our policy is well-founded, and it is purposeful. We still say that when non-Whites or Bantu are in White South Africa, they are here with a purpose. In exactly the same way other people who come from Malawi, Zambia and any other place in the world, will come here with a purpose. The purpose for which the people come here, is the point where the horizontal line and the vertical line intercept. In terms of that we have to decide what is discrimination and what is not discrimination. In the first place, we have no discrimination in our policy with regard to the vertical diversity of peoples in South Africa. That is the cornerstone of our policy. We have no discrimination, for we are going to give these people their own country, their own Governments, their own civil rights and their own franchise. We are not going to give them a qualified franchise in a conglomeration which is interspersed with little humanistic and liberalistic circles. We are going to recognize the sovereignty of each nation and maintain the sovereignty of each identity group in the country. In that way we shall eliminate discrimination, and we shall also overthrow the discriminating aspects which are contained in the policy of the federal system. Let me make this very clear. When we speak of discrimination, what is involved is not only the horizontal level which could eventually, to use a theological term, degenerate into the “social gospel”, which is merely talk, and lip service paid to the horizontal level. When one considers this matter deeply and fundamentally, one comes to the qualified franchise advocated by the hon. member for Sea Point. It is the policy of the National Party and when we speak of the elimination of discrimination, we must consider it against that policy and against that background.

The hon. member for Newton Park expressed another fine sentiment today, to which one could give a little attention. I agree with the hon. member that it is essential for the different White-language groups in South Africa to move towards the unity which we need very badly in South Africa. When we say that we want to move towards that unity in South Africa, I want to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Mooi River when we were discussing the findings of the Commission on Nusas. The hon. member made an appeal to the Afrikaner students …

Are you talking to me?

Yes, but the hon. member may continue his conversation, for I shall not hinder him.

I am listening, for I am very interested in this.

The hon. member for Mooi River made an appeal to the Afrikaner students to stretch out their hands to our English-language students in South Africa. I want to tell the hon. member that I agree with that. This was accompanied by an appeal to the English-language students in our country. Since we had that speech from the hon. member our English-language student friends have had various opportunities of demonstrating whether they wanted to do this. We have seen what the effect and what the reaction on some of our university campuses were with regard to Nusas after this organization was declared to be an affected organization. I, who still associate myself with the Afrikaner youth, to whom the hon. member referred, am grateful that we are today finding indications at certain of these campuses that, as an affected organization. English-language students are no longer prepared to support Nusas. I want to state in public today that we on this side of the House appreciate those indications. I want to appeal again to our students and say that we should really act upon those indications which are becoming discernible at the moment. To this extent I can go along with the United Party with regard to this aspect. But what did we have from that party when Nusas was declared an affected organization? In the report of the Schlebusch Commission on Nusas we saw in a positive way what was happening. But there are, after all, people sitting on that side of the House who are not Schlebusch supporters. Now, I find it paradoxical that the hon. member for Mooi River can make that appeal on our people, and that we should then, against the background of the conflicts within that party, nevertheless see that our people are really listening to them. Can we say to the people that there are no conflicts within the United Party in respect of that matter? I am asking this because we will probably come up against the situation again next year and we shall then have to know.

The offer of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, to which reference was made here, was interesting. Briefly I just want to say in regard to it that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition played a role and probably still has a role to play, but it would be far better for him not to play the role of lightning conductor in his party but rather to extend the hand of co-operation to the hon. the Prime Minister in order to cooperate in this context. Will it, however, be possible for this side of the House, when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition extends that hand for co-operation, to be able to grasp it in the conviction and the knowledge that it is being extended from that side of the House without there being two schools of thought on specific matters on that side? This makes things a little difficult for us. We are not doubting the integrity or the true patriotic feeling with which this offer is being made; by no means. However, would those hon. members have been prepared to accept it if we on this side had been as divided as they were, and they offered us the hand of friendship and co-operation? After all, it is no use telling us that we should co-operate with a party which is divided in itself. Surely one only co-operates with a person who can co-operate with you vigorously. After all, one cannot walk along with a cripple and say that you are co-operating with him. Surely that is out of the question; surely we cannot do that. Seen against the background of the things which I have mentioned, it is important that we should obtain clarity in regard to these offers. We should obtain clarity in this regard before we meet again next year.

The hon. member for Newton Park referred to inflation. I have never participated in financial debates in this House, nor do I want to allege that I am the right man to reply on inflation. But in my simplicity I say there is one thing which can counteract inflation, namely the increasing of productivity. Merely to talk of an enlarged labour market and then to associate it at the same time with the spectre of unemployment, offers no solution. If we want to combat inflation in this country, the very first requirement is to increase the productivity of every man, woman and child in this country; whether White or Coloured, it makes no difference. We in South Africa have in the past, when we referred to inflation—I think this is the slight annoyance which arises amongst some of our major businessmen—always placed emphasis solely on an increase in productivity in the private sector. We have always allowed the emphasis to fall very heavily on increasing productivity in the private sector, but together with increasing the productivity in the private sector, we shall also have to move towards increasing the productivity in the public sector. I shall tell you why I say this. As a result of the complexity of our ethnic relations in South Africa it is probably necessary for us to allow our public machine to slow down to a greater extent than one would really have liked it to do. Because the public machine has to slow down as a result of the complexity of our ethnic relations, it could also be a retarding factor in the combating of inflation. If we wish to increase productivity in the private sector, it will therefore be necessary for us to ensure that there is a corresponding increase in the productivity of the public sector as well. However, I reject the standpoint of the hon. member that we can restrict inflation simply be effecting certain changes to the labour market, changes such as have been proposed by those hon. members. If we should consider inflation once again, as the hon. member proposed, and the standard of work which is being produced, it is essential that we should in this process take cognizance of the fact that we cannot simply push people on to the labour market and then say because they are on the labour market, that there is major unemployment. This is not the case in South Africa. We are dealing with a certain attitude to work, and that attitude to work will also have to receive fundamental attention. We cannot simply turn people into machines, and thrust those people on to the labour market and say, because they are there, that they are now unemployed. We simply cannot, as a small group of Whites in this country maintain the structure if, on the other hand, we bring in more people as so called work-seekers. We must see what we have at the top, if I may put it that way, which can ensure that this other structure is correct, and that these people can gain access in such a way.

I want to conclude by saying that I think that, after this session, and particularly after the reaction which we had to the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister, the National Party may be assured of one thing, namely that if there are people who made any progress between the beginning of this session and the end, not only as far as their thinking is concerned, but also as far as their deeds are concerned, then it is the National Party; and if there are people who did not make any progress in this process, it is definitely the United Party, for during this entire session they could not succeed in producing anything which can be sold to the voter. If there are other people who will have to reflect deeply, it is the orphanage children who want to go and see what the picnic which they attended looks like. Then they must decide whether they still see their way clear to continuing further along that course, without really informing the people of what their qualifications are for their qualified policy.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke came forward with a new kind of mathematics today. We have the hon. the Minister of the Interior’s parallel lines that will never meet and the hon. member for Waterberg’s concentric circles which get smaller and smaller until, like in the case of that famous bird, they disappear. Today we had the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke with vertical and horizontal lines which intersect. He built a new political structure. The Government attempts to explain its lack of cohesive direction, by using symbols like circles, parallel lines and intersecting lines. Either you have intersecting lines such as that described by the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke …

A plus sign.

… or you have parallel lines which never meet, such as those described by the hon. the Minister of the Interior. You cannot have both of them. Either you have lines which never meet, or you have a horizontal and a vertical line which cross, and at the point of crossing you have contact. You then need plans and policies for the point where those lines intersect. The hon. the Minister says they never intersect, and the hon. member for Waterberg goes round and round in circles …

Backwards!

That is their problem. They do not have a policy for the point at which the lines intersect between the different racial groups. [Interjections.] I want to come back to that at some length.

*The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke had a great deal to say about the United Party and the so-called problems in the party. Why did he not tell us about those within his party who are advocating homelands and the tension which is prevailing there? Why did he not tell us about the arguments, the disputation and dispute which are in the process of erupting within his own party?

What terrible dispute is that?

The dispute about discrimination which, he says, will disappear and which the hon. member for Waterberg says does exist and which he has called discrimination.

You do not understand a thing about that.

While the hon. member referred to differentiation here, the hon. member for Waterberg said it was not differentiation, but discrimination. He called it by that name.

Again, you were not listening.

It is the party speaking to us. I want to state unequivocally that I am proud that I was able to play a part in formulating our federation policy, and that I am equally proud to realize in practice, together with my colleagues, this policy in future.

†What the Government members can never understand is that when the United Party moves, it moves not to the left nor to the right, but it moves forward. [Interjections.] It moves forward in the direction we have set ourselves. [Interjections.]

Order!

We have set ourselves a course which many of those members in their hearts know they will have to follow. We are able to move as they cannot move, because the direction which we have chosen eliminates domination of one group by another within our federal system. That is why we can move forward without fear of domination or “oorheersing”. When we disagree on detail it does not divide the party on fundamentals, because the direction we are following is the line established by my leader, by our party, and by its congresses. That is the direction we follow. Those who do not go along with us, those who want to move to the left or to the right, will have no place in the broad movement forward of the United Party. [Interjections.] Time will tell that you will find many of the members on that side of the House wishing very much that they could be sharing with us the freedom to face the problems of South Africa without fear—in the same way that I believe the Progressive Party would like to be able to take over parts of our policy. We had their leader speak today and he did not give us one item of positive Progressive Party policy. We did not hear one single word from him about this. This is the party that was going to give a lead to South African politics, the party that was going to inspire a new opposition, the party that was going to give dynamic direction. The hon. member spoke for half an hour and he did not say a single word about the policy of the Progressive Party. He mouthed the old platitudes on merit, the slogans, the generalizations. He did not once mention the words “qualified franchise on a common voters’ roll”. That is a dirty expression in the Progressive Party. Surely, if that is the most fundamental aspect of your policy, if it is a cornerstone on which your policy rests, then when you make your last major speech of a session, you should at least mention the name of your policy and say: We stand for a qualified franchise. Yet he did not even mention it. We are proud of our federal policy. We also did not hear a word from them in regard to their attitude towards group identity, the recognition of the existence of group identity. That comes too near to reality in politics! Then you have to start dealing with things as they exist instead of pie-in-the-sky and pretty phrases. There was not a word about the domination of minorities under their policy in terms of which a minority group which falls within an area in which there is a majority of another group will be dominated by the majority because of their common roll qualified franchise. It is a party of domination—domination by one race group over another on the basis of majority rule. We did not hear a word about these things. There was not a single reference to Progressive Party policy.

It has remained for this side of the House to give the lead in regard to the direction in which South Africa will have to move in the future. My hon. Leader has set out in the clearest possible terms the reality of the situation in South Africa today. On Saturday he set out in particular the security situation and explained how it affected South Africa. He dealt with the real task which we face as a country and as a nation, the reality of the battle for the hearts and minds of people. He has spoken about this before; he has said that the most dangerous enemy we face, is the guerrilla fighter to whom we must give the greatest attention—the guerrilla of poverty and unemployment. This is not a new concept. We see these guerrilla fighters in the townships of South Africa as unemployment, poverty and hardhsip. My colleague, the hon. member for Yeoville, reiterated what we have said previously. He dealt with the economic aspects of the battle for the hearts and minds of people. This is the reality which faces South Africa today.

In this debate my hon. Leader and the hon. member for Yeoville have covered two of the three legs on which our security stands. We have the physical danger with conventional defence to deal with it. That is the one leg. We have the battle for the hearts and minds of people—with the granting of a stake in South Africa as the weapon with which to fight that battle. The third leg is that of the civil power, the policy of the Government in its running of the affairs of the country.

Let me say immediately so that there can be no mistake about where we stand. In regard to the first leg, we believe that the stability, the security and integrity of the State must be secured by conventional arms. This, Sir, wins battles: every authority on insurrection and guerrilla warfare accepts that your conventional forces, your security forces, win the battles, but that the war has to be won by civil government. Sir, faced as we are with new borders, borders which are coming closer to us, with new tasks for our Defence Force, with new demands on our manpower, with the problem of distances and difficult terrain. This is multiplied by communication and logistic problems over vast areas and distances, with a border stretching from the Indian Ocean to the Atlantic. It stretches from Zululand along the Limpopo up to the Caprivi. Tremendous demands are made on the resources and manpower of South Africa, and if we are to have an effective deterrent, an effective safeguard, then there has got to be detailed planning and there has got to be sacrifice by the people of South Africa. This planning is being done. I accept that in the military field these problems are understood and are being dealt with. That planning, however, has to take place within the inescapable dilemma of a country ostensibly at peace, holding the delicate balance between the demands of our economy and our manpower, the delicate balance between the needs of our economy and the needs of our security. Sir, we demand a high morale of our troops but I believe that there is the one field in which the Government is dragging its heels. Security demands dedication and loyalty from our people. One can stockpile strategic resources, but one cannot stockpile loyalty; you must win it, and then you have to hold it. You cannot import it and you cannot manufacture it. Our task and the task of the Government, is to turn 20 million citizens into a security screen which no hostile force can penetrate.

In this psychological war, there is one aspect where I believe that the Government has dragged its heels, and that is in this most vital field. They have accepted the principle that all race groups in South Africa should participate in our defence, but I do not believe that the Government is moving fast enough in implementing this, in carrying it out and translating it into reality. It is no use accepting principles if you implement them so slowly that you negate their effect. Sir, the other commodity which we cannot stockpile or manufacture is “time”. The late Eric Louw used to say, “Give us 20 years and we will solve our problems”. He tried to buy time in his foreign policy approach. At that time, time was on our side, but those 20 years and more have gone, and we no longer have any reserves of this one commodity which we cannot control, the commodity of time—the hours that become days that become months.

Sir, I believe that this Government knows what has to be done in South Africa; and these things have to be done not because we are threatened, not because we are blackmailed, not because anybody holds a pistol to our heads, but because they are the right things to do; because it is in the interests of South Africa, White and non-White, that these things should be done. I believe that the Government knows many of the things which it must do, but it cannot act because it is looking over its shoulder the whole time. It has hovering over it the spirit of the same Albert Hertzog to whom the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke referred. That shadow is hanging over the Government as they keep looking over their shoulders. Their plans need time, generations of time, and this is the only commodity they have not got to play with.

There are three basic weaknesses in the Government’s approach. The first is that whenever they have a problem they think they can just pass a law and solve it. The second is that they think that it is weakness to change policy, whereas in fact it is a sign of strength to be able to adjust to changing circumstances. Thirdly, they want a final blue-print for everything they do. They must see the final picture, the last detail complete, like a bridegroom who plans the dream house for his bride. The plans lie on a shelf gathering dust, and by the time he can afford to build the house it is too late, because those plans are out of date. He wants a TV aerial instead of an aerial for a crystal set, which was the highlight when he planned it. That is the trouble with the Government. It draws up a plan for the long-term future, but by the time if can do something about it, the needs for that plan have changed and the plan is out of date.

Good advice. Apply it yourself.

That is the difference, Mr. Speaker. The hon. the Deputy Minister says it is good advice and we must apply it to ourselves. But we have done just that in the United Party. We have seen the changing face of Africa. We have seen the changing face of the world, and we have been able to adjust and to meet that change. Many of the things which the Government knows should be done and does not do are things which do not need laws. They do not need the passing of laws; they can be done administratively. They need the repeal of laws, if anything, not the making of new laws.

Sir, my leader has made an offer to the Government, an offer which does not sacrifice any of the principles or the policy of this party. I believe this is as courageous and as statesmanlike a move as has ever been made since Field-Marshal Smuts made his offer to South Africa in 1933. When South Africa needed greatness in those days of depression, General Smuts produced that greatness, and where we now face danger and troubles and problems which threaten South Africa’s future, another great man has been capable of an act of greatness. It is an offer in a different form. We do not offer the identity of our party. That we will retain and stand by. We do not offer to sacrifice our principles or our policy. What we offer is ou willingness and our co-operation in accepting action by the Government which need not necessarily be according to our policy or even our concept of the right solution, provided these will lessen the tensions in South Africa, lessen interracial tensions, foster interracial harmony and help to break the logjam of politics. This act of statesmanship which we witnessed again on Saturday was the ability to put South Africa before political parties yet to retain our identity, to retain our principles and our ideals. We offer and sacrifice none of those, but we offer our co-operation and help in achieving and doing what we believe must be done in South Africa, and done much faster than it is being done now.

And sacrifice your party.

My hon. friend from Waterberg need not talk about sacrificing our party. [Interjections.] That shows the shallowness, the superficiality with which the Government deals with politics, their inability to get down to fundamentals, their perpetual attempts to play games with superficialities, with an odd issue in isolation, with an odd point, with an odd speech. We are dealing with the realities on which those hon. members’ future depends just as much as ours.

I say that my hon. leader has invited the Government to keep up with history, to stop using the standards of Africa of the 1950s and 1960s as the yardstick by which they measure things, to move into the 1970s, to move towards the 21st century. The message which the United Party has given responsible leadership in the Government is to stop being scared of the electorate. We live in a new age; let us realize the electorate are not a lot of verkrampte, verstokte herstigtes. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Waterberg can try to frighten his own party but our invitation to the Government is to stop looking over their shoulder at those members within their own ranks and to stop being scared of the electorate. The electorate will keep pace with responsible change; it will not keep pace with irresponsible change. It will not keep pace with what is being suggested by this casual accident to politics, the Progressive Party, but the electorate will keep pace with responsible change, change which is possible in South Africa, because we differ in so many ways from other African States. Our economic development and strength, our population ratio, the interdependence of race on race, the interracial contact which we have known for hundreds of years and the higher standards of living in South Africa make it possible to do things in South Africa which one could do in no other African State. This is another little bogey the Government has: Because the Whites were outnumbered a hundred or five hundred to one, the consequence of a step was detrimental to the Whites. However, does that mean that you cannot take that step here? Because our whole picture is different, we can do things in South Africa that the Whites in no other Black State in Africa could risk or attempt. We have weapons that no other State in Africa had to retain and to secure stability in South Africa. Where a step taken in a country like the Congo meant complete chaos to start with and complete instability, we can do things here because the factors which I have listed make it possible to do them in safety, in safety and with security since the goodwill is there.

Of course there is a communist danger, of course there are agitators and of course there is undermining. I may say that “by their fruit shall ye know them” and what we have to do is to identify the fruit of people before we cut down the tree. I believe that we tend to see, to visualize, to imagine the thorns where in fact there is fruit and to cut down trees which can be of value to South Africa. That is why we must not go overboard and see communists behind every bush even though we must recognize the reality of the danger. I do not believe that an agitator can destroy South Africa, but I believe that we South Africans, we White South Africans, can do it. I disagree that we have lost control of our destiny. I believe that the destiny of South Africa, for Black and White, rests in the responsibility which we, the White people can exercise within the next five years or less. It is in our hands. Destiny can still be guided provided we do the right things at this time.

Just leave it to the National Party.

Just leave it to what?

Just leave it to the National Party. [Interjections.]

It makes one want to cry—this total obsession with their own grandeur, with their own omnipotence, with their own political power. I admit they can win elections, but they have delusions of grandeur. They have hallucinations as reflected by the remark of the hon. member for Fauresmith. They think they have an answer for every problem. Let me warn that hon. Whip that there are people within his own party who realize that they do not have an answer for every question and that they cannot just “leave it to pappa” and hope for the best. What is going to happen? That party has to realize that there are tasks which it cannot tackle alone. That is why my leader has made his offer which means that we shall not stand in the way of advances or of moves forward which are in the interests of South Africa.

If we do not do this we as the governing body, as a Parliament shall be failing the young men who are protecting our borders today. Whilst they are prepared to make physical sacrifices and whilst many of our youth have given their lives, we shall be letting them down if we fail them in the Government of South Africa here, where it is within our power to strengthen their hand, to build a network of security linked to our Defence Force which has 20 million people manning it. That is the choice which we have to make very soon. I believe that our federal policy which has been outlined over and over during this session is the direction in which we must move. In terms of this policy each group will run its own affairs through its own Legislative Assembly but at the centre there will be co-ordination in a Federal Assembly. This Parliament will give the direction, will guide, will assist, encourage and steady where necessary the progress towards a form of co-operation which starts with consultation. The starting point is consultation and that is why my hon. leader talked of a Council of State, a place where you talk to people.

Does not this Government consult?

No, the Government consults in isolation, Government to subject. We want to bring together all our people.

You mean you also want to talk.

We want to bring together all our people so that there is not a behind-the-scene, hidden consultation but a consultation where people talk together about a common destiny which is as important to the Black man, the urban Black man, the Coloured and the Indian as it is to the White. It is in a body such as that, which my hon. leader envisages, that not only our security but our economic strength and our growth can be ensured. I hope that this Government will be big enough to react to the statemanship and to the greatness with which my hon. leader made this offer is this debate.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, is known to hon. members of this House as a person who can make a fighting speech and as a person who can take advantage of the gaps his opponents leave. However, the way in which he participated today is a clear indication to me that an unnatural situation is prevailing on the Opposition’s side in this House. An hon. member said to me recently in the Lobby that we are having an unnatural session, and it is clear to me that we are also dealing with an unnatural set-up in the ranks of the United Party.

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

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point, who spoke before me, said, inter alia, that he felt quite proud of having been co-author of the federal plan of the United Party. It amazes me that the hon. member can still say in this House that he is proud of having been able to have worked on the federal plan. I was under the impression that they had thrown this federal plan overboard a long time ago. In any case, I should like to know from the hon. member for Durban Point whether they will still adhere to all the aspects of that federal plan.

Yes.

I find it interesting that the hon. member is now saying “yes”, although it did not sound very convincing. The very least which he could at least have conceded, was that in respect of the Coloureds they have abandoned the federal plan completely.

Not at all.

Of course they have, in this respect, abandoned the federal plan, for they said during this same session that they are in favour of direct representation by the Coloureds in this Parliament.

That is untrue.

That is not untrue; it is what they said. If they are then adopting such a standpoint in respect of the Coloureds, I should like to know from them what their standpoint in respect of the Indians is. They say that the Coloureds are in many respects very dose to the Whites, and that they are becoming frustrated because they do not have direct representation here. What is their standpoint then in respect of the Indians in Natal? When the United Party accepted the federal plan as their policy, it was simply a pretence for the sake of the election. Through it they tried to imply to certain elements that they were there to ensure the political preservation of the Whites. At the same time, they tried to create the impression in another group that they were in fact there to give political representation to all groups within one political context. It is very clear that they had not really made a study of the implications of that policy. At the beginning of this session, during the motion of censure, the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs drove them very clearly into a corner on the elucidation and formulation of that policy and its implications.

You are basing your entire case on a distortion.

The United Party in fact finds itself in a fundamental dilemma.

In the first place it is probably a historical dilemma, for the United Party was born out of a compromise with principles. The entire origin of the United Party was a compromise with principles. Since then they have always continued along this course. Of all the parties I know of in South Africa they have the greatest capacity for compromise, for becoming reconciled to a diversity under one blanket. Someone once told me that it is not surprising that it is so difficult for the United Party to split. If one were to have different standpoints in a party which bases its policy on granite principles, it is easy for a rift to develop because of those tensions. But a party, on the other hand, which is comprised of putty, which is pliable and which easily assumes any shape, finds it difficult to split. Clay is perhaps the right word. The United Party, which embraces these various policies, is experiencing problems in surviving as a unit, in spite of its jelly-like qualities.

One of the fundamental problems of the United Party is what I shall simply call the two faces which the United Party shows to the world. The one face is the face of the representation in this House which is virtually confined to the representation of seats and constituencies in the larger metropolitan areas of South Africa, those on the Witwatersrand and in the Cape Peninsula. Except for South Natal and certain parts of the Eastern Cape, the United Party today is confined almost exclusively to the metropolitan areas of South Africa. The other image or face which the United Party shows to the world, is the face of the resolutions which it adopts at its congresses. At these congresses the United Party is represented by the branch representatives which are distributed from Namaqualand to Zeerust, Waterberg, Vryheid and in the cities, i.e. throughout the entire country. The problem of the United Party is that while it projects a certain image here in this Parliament and through its public representatives in the city councils and provincial councils which are representative of the people in those metropolitan areas, this image does not agree with the view of the United Party as it is represented in the more conservative rural areas of South Africa. In this way there is a division, a schizophrenia, in the ranks of the United Party which has now become irreconcilable with itself. That is the dilemma of the United Party.

What do we find on the congresses of the United Party? Let me use the situation in Natal by way of illustration. For a constituency such as Musgrave, where they probably have barely 500 enrolled members, they are represented by one single branch. On the other hand the United Party organization for the Vryheid or Klip River constituencies, or any other National Party constituency, is represented at the same congress by about 12 branches per constituency. In other words, the constituency which they have no hope whatsoever of representing in this House, is represented at their congress by 12 branch representatives, as against one branch representative from the strong United Party constituency of Musgrave.

Don’t you realize you are talking rubbish?

That is their real problem. This problem is also being experienced in the Transvaal. Nor was it simply anyone who was abe to solve the problem there, until, as the hon. member for Newton Park put it, Dave, Dick and Harry formed a clique and found a solution to the problem. Dave, Dick and Harry decided that, to solve the United Party’s problem in the Transvaal, it would be necessary to obtain control over the internal organization of the United Party. They then set to work establishing a number of branches on the Witwatersrand to obtain control over the organization in that way. They appointed from among their own number a director of finance and also a director of organization. So they set to work to bring about division in the United Party to have certain people driven out of the United Party. They succeeded quite simply in remorsely driving out the former Transvaal leader of the United Party. With the aid of their public arm, the publicity media or, as the hon. member for SImonstown said, their Mein Kampf, they succeeded in destroying the existing structure of the United Party.

Shame!

With that nucleus of the United Party they then succeeded in projecting a new image and laying the foundation for a new political amalgamation. That new political amalgamation will not necessarily consist of the party as it is organized at the moment. It will not necessarily be only the Progressives which will amalgamate with the left wing of the United Party, although a new orientation between these two elements, the left wing of the United Party, and the Progressive Party, is most probably taking place. The Progressive Party has already, during this session, proved that they are making preparations to make this possible. They almost never discussed their own policy. They almost never gave an elucidation of their policy.

Just like the United Party.

While I am discussing the policy of the Progressive Party—I think it was the hon. member for Durban Point who said: “It was an accident of political history”—I want to say that according to an informant the hon. member for Houghton was elucidating the policies of the three parties, the National Party, the United Party and the Progressive Party in America one day. According to my information she did so quite fairly, and she was not unfair towards either the National Party or the United Party. While she was explaining—I think it was in New York—the Progressive Party policy of qualified franchise there, someone in the audience, an editor of one of the important newspapers, then asked whether it was true that the Progressive Party was not prepared to grant “universal franchise”. According to my information, she is alleged to have said that this was not possible in South Africa. According to her it would then have been necessary, as a result of circumstances, to grant qualified franchise in South Africa. According to my information the newspaper editor concerned then accused the hon. member for Houghton of being a Fascist. [Laughter.]

That is not true.

Order! The hon. member is probably not saying this himself.

No, I am simply repeating what someone in America told me. During this session, however, the Progressive Party has studiously avoided furnishing a full elucidation of their policy, thereby paving the way for a new liaison, a new orientation, a new political dispensation in the ranks of the Opposition of South Africa. Their aim is probably to find common ground in due course with the left wing of those in the United Party who do not really belong there. In the absence of a name for such a party, I should say a suitable name is perhaps the “Joelites”, for this would in fact be fitting since the propaganda chief of this direction is a certain Joel Mervis. For that reason I think it would be quite fitting to call them the “Joelites”.

That is very feeble. [Interjections.]

Order!

The real dilemma of the Opposition is situated in this new direction of the United Party and the Progressive Party. Unless they can become reconciled to each other and this is followed by a division which will entail the elements which have a sincere vision for the future of South Africa ranging themselves to one side, they will carry on like a wounded tiger. They will not really be able to take part in a fight. They will constantly indulge in bouts of shadow boxing to try to create the impression that they are still an Opposition Party.

Mr. Speaker, I want to come to the aspect of the Press in South Africa. The Press in South Africa has an exceptional responsibility and task, but one of the problems of the Press is not so much the Press itself, it is the view the public has of what the Press ought to be. Much of the criticism which is expressed, is fair and justified criticism, but my own view is that a newspaper should be regarded in the light of what it really is. No newspaper, whether it states the Opposition’s standpoint or the Government’s standpoint, can play a dual role. No newspaper can be a mouthpiece of a party and at the same time truly be a newspaper, for a newspaper has the responsibility of being a business undertaking. Since one of the United Party speakers suggested here today that the Afrikaans newspapers are the mouthpieces of the National Party, this was perhaps the case some time ago …

And it still is.

… but recently the position has changed drastically. While newspapers previously were more inclined to depict the party view slavishly, this is today not necessarily the case anymore. I would go so far as to say that in order to be a mouthpiece of a party in the full sense of the word, such a newspaper ought to insist that each staff member who had anything to do with the editorial side, shall be an enrolled member of the political party concerned. The editorial staff would then at the same time have to be subject to party discipline. If a member of the editorial staff were then to deviate from what the party wants to say or does not want to say, party discipline shall then be exercised. It is obviously illogical and impossible to do anything of this nature, for that would cause the newspaper to collapse completely. The newspaper would never, be able to exist in the strife of modern economy. It is therefore essential that we should realize that a newspaper cannot exist in this way. A newspaper must uphold its own views in the conflict between modern publications media, and I welcome this. I also welcome the fact that it has become essential that the general public should realize that a newspaper cannot be such a mouthpiece of a party. In fact it is desirable for the public to be far better informed on that new view of what a newspaper really should be. Only when they are aware of the fact that a newspaper can under no circumstances be a slavish mouthpiece of a party, will they realize that when criticism is expressed to a greater or lesser degree, it has to be read with discernment. It has to be realized that what is stated in that newspaper is not inevitably gospel. People should know that this is simply the way in which a newspaper presents the news, for the sake of its own survival in the economic structure. What we must realize in this political strife, however, is that there is a fundamental gap between the National Party and the United Party, which has existed for decades. The National Party was born in 1914, although it had begun to sprout roots even before that date. The premise of the National Party is still one of patriotism—South Africa first in every respect. The United Party, on the other hand, arose as a kind of compromise party, or commonwealth party. Because the Commonwealth is no longer a factor today, it has become a supporter of the direction of an international view. It is this international view which is not reconcilable with the internal requirements of a country on which an onslaught is being made by the world. There are strong elements in the United Party who feel as patriotically as we do. We are not asking them to come over to the National Party; we are saying, however, that they can no longer remain in a party which has this international view as its premise. Unless they proceed to break with this premise of the United Party, they will always have to endure the accusation that they are not really patriotic in regard to the fundamental interests of South Africa as a whole, of Afrikaans and English-speaking persons of all inhabitants of Southern Africa, Whites and non-Whites, where all of us have a certain task to perform here, a task of cooperation as citizens of the continent of Africa, where we have to retain our own identity in this new challenge within Africa but where we have to seek co-operation with other countries beyond our borders, in Africa, and where, in this process, we must not sacrifice our identity. There are people sitting in the United Party who simply cannot proceed with this policy of internationalism of the United Party, and it is in my opinion essential that they should decide whether they are really able to feel at home in that direction, or whether the time has not arrived for them to reflect and choose a direction where they are in fact able, with honesty and sincerity and with full enthusiasm to participate in the fulfilment of this task; and unless this natural process presents itself, the United Party will continue to be a crippled party, and it will be its own crippled state which will cause this “accident of political history” the Progressive Party, to survive. It is through the instrumentality of the United Party, through the actions and the indecisiveness of the United Party, that it became possible for this “thalidomide baby” of the Press to develop.

Sir, after the election this year the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Rondebosch went on a short tour of Africa, and in the course of this session we have frequently invited them to take this House and the country into their confidence and to tell us what they did there and especially what they said. Up to now they have been silent. They have not told us what they discussed behind the closed doors in the council-chambers.

We discussed it for an hour and a half in the debate on the Vote of the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

We had to beg you.

Sir, extremely important events for South Africa started to take place abroad last week. At this moment South Africa’s ambassador is fighting fiercely in the Security Council against a proposal made by certain African countries that South Africa be expelled from the U.N. In the course of this fight he made a most important speech on South Africa’s domestic policy and South Africa’s attitude towards other African states. According to reports, this speech was listened to with serious attention and interest; it has enjoyed wide publicity in the Press abroad and it has been closely studied. This speech made by our ambassador at the U.N. was preceded by the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech in the Other Place last week, one of the most important speeches made in South Africa for a very long time in respect of African relations, a great speech. Sir, in reply to this speech a fresh breeze came blowing from beyond the Zambesi during the past weekend. Carel Nӧffke of Perskor’s foreign Press service conducted an interview with President Kaunda of Zambia on Saturday. I do not want to dwell on this at any length. In this interview President Kaunda said the following, inter alia, with reference to the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech in the Other Place (translation)—

In reply to another question he said (translation)—

In reply to another question President Kaunda said (translation)—

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, he is not here at the moment, but the hon. member for Sea Point made a speech in this House this morning, and without elaborating on it, I just want to ask this one question: What was his object in making such a speech after such a weekend and after such a week, seen against the background of the onslaught that is being made on South Africa in the Security Council of the U.N. at this very moment? If I had to answer the question myself, I would say that he made this speech for the purpose of casting suspicion in the Security Council on the whole endeavour of the National Government in South Africa. Then I have to conclude that that party on the other side does not want South Africa and this Government to succeed in their attempts at achieving a détente with Africa and the world. And then I am reminded of the two women who appeared before Solomon, one holding a dead child and one holding a living child, and the one said, “Cut the living child into two as well.” This was what the voice of the hon. member for Sea Point told me this morning: “Cut the living child into two as well.” If I cannot have things my way in Africa, I shall see to it that you do not have them your way either.

What is the secret? We cannot hear.

Order! Hon. members should not interrupt the hon. member unnecessarily.

The hon. member would have heard me quite clearly if he had cleaned his ears properly this morning. Sir, I think we shall remember this debate for the speech made by the hon. member for Simonstown. He raised a most important point in this debate, and that is the connection between the Progressive Party and the English-language Press in South Africa. I think this links up with another question to which we should also give attention in this debate. This is the question of who is financing politics in South Africa, and in particular, who is financing the small new political party in this Parliament? For it is quite true that the official Opposition is rejected by the English Press. But is this quite true? When the hon. member for Simonstown was speaking on Saturday, the hon. member for Orange Grove made a very important interjection. I do not know whether it was reported. When the hon. member for Simonstown said that the English Press rejected the official Opposition, or something to that effect, the hon. member for Orange Grove said, “some of the official Opposition”. That was a very important thing he said.

Do you agree with that?

I shall come to that in a minute. But we have to ask who controls the Progressive Party in South Africa, for he who pays the piper calls the tune. I want to state categorically that the Progressive Party is controlled by the great financial power in South Africa led by the Anglo-American Corporation.

Absolute rubbish.

During the by-election in Pinelands there was a Press report that one mining House had donated an amount of R70 000. [Laughter.] Sir, I quite believe that R100 000 was spent to get the hon. member for Johannesburg North into Parliament. They say too that Anglo-American is prepared to spend another R100 000 to keep him here year in and year out.

I do not think Harry would pay 10c for him now.

The Progressive Party probably spent more on getting seven people into this Parliament than the National Party spent on getting all the members on this side here. I believe that in Waterkloof, Pretoria, they spent more than the total amount spent by the National Party in all constituencies in Pretoria for the purpose of getting the National candidates into the House of Assembly, I am very pleased to see that the hon. member for Johannesburg North is very sensitive about this, for I shall come back to him in a moment. [Interjections.]

Is it only the Progressive Party which is liaising with the English Press, which is controlled by the big money, by Anglo American? Or are there members on the official Opposition side, too, who are liaising with the same parties as the Progressive Party? This is a question which will have to be answered in South Africa before long. For the English-language Press did not support the Progressive Party only in this election. They supported a faction on the official Opposition side too. They supported the Young Turks.

So what?

They supported the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

So what about it?

We are coming to that. Well, the hon. member for Simonstown spoke of the support for the Progs and the “liberals”. What did he mean by the “liberals”? They are not the Progressives; we do not have a Liberal Party in South Africa. The only other people supported by the English Press were certain members on the official Opposition side of the House. I think we should begin to ask ourselves how …

Bryanston and Bezuidenhout.

So what?

Tell us about the Progs in Pretoria.

The Progs in Pretoria are not even worth mentioning. We have to ask ourselves what the alliance is between those in the U.P. whom we know as the Young Turks and the Progressive Party. It is a strange alliance, for the Prog publication Deurbraak published a very interesting illustrated article in the July edition after the elections. The heading was “New Punch in Opposition”. Then there were seven pictures of members of the party who are now sitting on the Progressive benches in this House, as well as six pictures of the hon. members for Bezuidenhout, Edenvale and Yeoville, and Messrs. Enthoven, Dalling and Horace van Rensburg. This appeared on page 17 of Deurbraak.

Order! The hon. member must refer to hon. members’ constituencies.

As you wish, Mr. Speaker. Deurbraak began by singing the praises of the six new Progressive members in Parliament, but then it went on to say (translation)—

Then the Progs are in agreement with you Nationalists!

I should be glad if the hon. member for Green Point would remain seated, for in a little while I want to put a question to him directly, through you, Mr. Speaker. However, I wonder whether the hon. member has noticed, from where he is sitting, the conspicuous and genial communication which is going on between certain members of his party and members of the Progressive Party. I could almost speak of the “brotherliness” of the communication which is taking place between them. It is a great pity that that side of the House is steering clear of the speech made by the hon. member for Simonstown on Saturday. It is a great pity, too, that so few hon. members of the official Opposition and particularly of the Young Turks section are present in the House at the moment. This morning the House was just as empty and there were never more than three of them present at a time. Those who were here were conspicuously present; the hon. member for Bezuidenhout with his watching brief in the front bench, and usually one or two in the back benches. Where the others are, we do not know. Now and then the hon. member for Yeoville comes in to confer with his Chief Whip, but then he leaves again straight away. Unfortunately the hon. member for Yeoville is not here at the moment, for I should like to ask him …

He just went out for a short while.

He has not been in this Chamber for ten minutes since this morning. I want to ask the hon. member, who shares the caucus with the hon. member for Simonstown, whether he agrees with the speech made by the hon. member for Simonstown in this House on Friday and Saturday. I want to ask the hon. member for Randburg the same question. In fact, the hon. member for Randburg has said that he does not agree with that speech. I take it that the hon. member for Sandton does not agree with that speech either. I want to ask the hon. member for Edenvale the same question, but I see that he is engrossed in a conversation with someone else. I suppose he does not agree either with the speech made by the hon. member for Simonstown. Does the hon. member for Von Brandis agree? I do not suppose he does. Unfortunately the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is not here either. Then I want to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout whether he agrees. He has already said that he does not agree. Now I want to tell him that the hon. member who is sitting next to him on his right, the hon. member for Newton Park, has said that he basically agrees with the hon. member for Simonstown. I want to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout whether or not he agrees with his bench-mate. He is silent.

I am going to participate in this debate myself.

We had an illuminating reaction to the speech from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition too when he said that he did not agree with everything and that he did not believe that everything was correct. However, he did not indicate what he did not agree with and which statements he did not believe to be correct. Therefore we ask him to tell us—he can make it known at his party’s congress—what he does not agree with and where the hon. member for Simonstown was wrong.

I think that their party is entitled to receive replies in this regard. I want to leave it at that.

Yes!

The hon. members are obviously pleased. I shall leave it at that with the following remark, and that is that we have had three reactions here to the speech made by the hon. member for Simonstown, and then I do not think we need take any notice of the tirade delivered here on Saturday by the hon. member for Bryanston. In the first place there was the reaction of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He blew hot and cold, but my impression is that he has dropped one of his most loyal supporters in the United Party. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout rejected the speech out of hand. This we accept, for he is the self-appointed leader of the United Party and he is the leader of the Young Turks. Then we had the hon. member for Newton Park, who said that he basically agreed with that speech. I hope we shall get some clarity in these troubled waters in the time that lies ahead, although I believe that they will grow more troubled as time goes by.

There is another hon. member in the House for whom a moment of truth is going to come sooner or later. The hon. member is sitting on the Progressive Opposition side of the House, is a member of the Dutch Reformed Church—according to a women’s magazine—speaks Afrikaans at home and is known to his friends and family as “Van”. This women’s magazine says that he had not yet joined the Progressive Party when he was invited to be the Party’s candidate. They merely cast about and wherever they were able to find people who would swallow the bait they made those people candidates. But no more about that. The second thing which is said about him by the women’s magazine is that he is critical of everything, that he is critical of himself and that he is bringing up his children to adopt the same attitude. He says that he and his wife quite frequently argue all through the night about a political difference of opinion. This hon. member now has three months before returning to this Parliament. He has now had time to see the kind of party in which he finds himself. In terms of the opinions expressed by the hon. member in the past, he cannot feel at home in the party in which he finds himself at the moment, for it is a capitalist party in which he finds himself at the moment. Basically the hon. member’s approach is socialist. He is a socialist, and in Deurbraak of April 1974 he said (translation):

So the hon. member stands for a redistribution of these things. How can he bear sitting next to the hon. member for Johan-burg North if he holds this belief? He cannot, for he is a socialist. Does it suit him and is he going to stay there? Perhaps the hon. member will be able to tell us next year what his standpoint is in respect of the party-political benches on which he finds himself at the moment.

I want to conclude. I believe that 1974 will go down in the history of South Africa as the Year of John Vorster. This whole year has been the year of our hon. Prime Minister, in the political, national and international sphere. First of all there was the general election from which he emerged victorious. This was the election in which he and his followers triumphed. Then came the development and the implementation of the National Party’s policy in respect of the relations between our various peoples at this most critical stage. To this he gave his own dynamic momentum and imprint. Finally, there are South Africa’s relations with Africa and the outside world, to which he gave shape in 1968 and on which he has again left his imprint in this most decisive time for White survival in South Africa, during this year, during the past week, in fact. In all these matters he enjoys the support, love and esteem of my colleagues, of myself and, I believe, of millions of people in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, we live in exciting, urgent and dangerous times. In the last few weeks we have had statements of the utmost significance from such people as the hon. the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, our ambassador at the United Nations, Dr. Kaunda, and others, all saying things of great significance to South Africa. We have listened with close attention to these remarks because they have direct and urgent relevance to the situation in South Africa. On this side of the House we have tried to raise the debate to that level. We have had in the course of this day—and I appeal to the honesty of mind of hon. members opposite to agree with me—an exhibition of petty party political nonsense which is absolutely astonishing. It is unbelievable that at a time like this, a time of urgency when our young people and our children are looking to the future with growing anxiety, that grown men sitting on that side of the House should make the kind of speech we have heard today, and which I think is an utter disgrace. I shall not take the trouble to reply to the speeches made by the two immediately preceding speakers, the hon. members for Klip River and Waterkloof. They took their time, the full half hour, to seek out points of difference, points of dissension, and tried to exploit them to the disadvantage of the United Party. The hon. member for Simonstown made a speech—he said quite clearly that he made it on his own responsibility—and those few hon. members have done everything possible to try to exploit that speech in such a way as to embarrass the United Party where it itself, as everybody in this House has heard, has been trying to make a constructive contribution to finding a solution to some of South Africa’s most urgent problems. I think that it is an astonishing state of affairs.

In the critical years that lie ahead, South Africa’s ultimate defences depend on the goodwill and loyalty of all our peoples. I will not embroider on this theme because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has done it superbly in this House. Effective action is therefore essential not only in the economic and social fields but also inevitably in the political and constitutional fields as well because, whatever progress we make in the economic and social fields, however necessary and urgent, it must be consolidated sooner or later by all the peoples of this country coming together at one level or another and coming to some kind of understanding to work out the problems of their common destiny. We must act with deliberate speed in these matters, but I believe we shall not be able to achieve our full purpose until all these improvements we have in mind are in fact consolidated by real progress in the constitutional and political fields. This is essential. What we must do, is to decide how this can be achieved.

It is my contention—and this will be the subject of my contribution in this debate—that despite the real differences which lie between that side of the House and this side of the House, between the Government and the Opposition, there is enough common ground to allow an immediate start to be made. I emphasize “immediate” because the more time we lose, the more it is going to cost us in the future. Time is of the essence for, if we fail to do today the things that need to be done, we shall unquestionably have to do them later and pay more for them. Let us explore the common ground which there is not only between that side of the House and this side of the House—because there are various interests we do have in common—but also between the White people and the other people who live in this country, because there also there is some common ground.

South Africa is a plural society, which means that it has a diversity of races, languages, classes, customs, and various groups or combinations of them. Up to the present it has, however, governed all these classes and groups within a single political system. It has done so by concentrating all power in the hands of a single cultural class. It might, indeed, be described as an oligarchy; and we are ruled by an oligarchy within that oligarchy. This oligarchic situation is quite dispassionately described by political writers, not necessarily with reference to South Africa, but in general terms, as “a conflict model”. It is a conflict model in political science when you have one single class ruling a lot of other classes without regard to their own wishes or desires. That is a conflict model, but in South Africa we have a simpler word for it; we simply call it “baasskap”. No political party in this House still believes, and I am thinking of enlightened men on all sides of the House, in “baasskap”, or that it can continue indefinitely. There are those who believe that it can to a large extent be dismantled by granting separate independence to the homelands, to separate national units, and there are those others who believe that “baasskap” can be dismantled by creating a federal system. While reserving our positions on these preferred solutions on the one side of the House and on the other, let us at once identify the following important area of agreement. It is our common purpose, I venture to say, in this House, to abolish the White oligarchy, to abolish “baasskap”, and to find practical ways of devolving or transferring power to other people within this country. I believe this is not only common ground between the parties in this House, but is also obviously common ground with all people in South Africa It is an important first principle on which one can construct some kind of constitutional model. Let us see what others we can find.

I believe, Sir, that there is a second very important principle on which there is wide agreement, not only White/White but Black/White, Brown/White and Black/ Brown. It is one which may be seen as complementary to the first, i.e. that no community should by reason of superior numbers dominate any other community. I believe, and it is our belief based on some consultation, that this view is also widely held. No community should dominate any other community by reason of superior numbers or any other reason. Members on that side may question whether minorities can enjoy full protection of their rights within a federal system. It is something to be argued about. We on our side cannot see how the Coloured and Asian minorities can achieve a separate destiny within a system of territorially independent States. These are the things we constantly argue about. Let us temporarily reserve our position on that argument as well, for we can at least agree, now, on the principle of non-domination. I believe this is a principle on which we can get very wide agreement in South Africa. That is the second principle on which we could construct a constitutional model for South Africa.

The third principle to which I think we can all subscribe is the principle of decentralization. Now, Sir, the Government is embarked on a policy in South Africa not only of political decentralization to the homelands but also of economic decentralization, so far as it is possible to stimulate activity, industrialization, etc., in the homelands. The Opposition has its own criteria and has often questioned the merits of particular Government activities in seeking to stimulate the homelands and the merit of doing one thing in one place rather than doing it in another. It has nevertheless consistently supported the general principle of decentralization. Indeed, it has firmly advanced as one of the merits of federalism that federalism takes government back to the communities and takes it back to the localities. It enables people to play a more meaningful part in the running of their own affairs and sets them free of a centrally imposed uniformity. That is one of the great merits of federalism, but let us for the moment, for the purposes of this argument, abandon the dispute between federalism and separate homelands and agree that here again there is an area of agreement. We believe—and I believe that most people in South Africa would agree—that there is merit in decentralization.

I come now to a fourth principle on which, I think, we are all once again agreed. Whatever the differences may be between the various groups, classes and communities in this country, there is more that fundamentally binds the people of Southern Africa together in a common purpose than divides them. I think anyone who takes cold logical stock of our situation, the dangers that threaten us from outside and the future opportunities that beckon us, will agree that whatever our differences may be, there is much more to bind us together. There is a common purpose which should, in fact, find expression in some constitutional form. It is not only logical that this should be so; our hopes for our progress demand that it should be so. These common purposes and interests demand, in turn, that there should be central institutions, “oorkoepelende liggame”, in which progress may be planned and co-ordinated. The present threat of subversive warfare may well compel us to recognize and implement this need long before we had ever thought it possible or likely. I believe that the times we live in will compel us to do this far sooner than we contemplated, and that is why I have raised the matter this afternoon as a matter of urgency for consideration by this House.

The fifth principle on which I think we can also find general and widespread agreement, is that total regionalization, total territorialization, has never been achieved and will never be achieved in south Africa. We may have our various views about this, we may feel that we can base our future constitutional structure on a territorial concept, and to some extent we shall certainly succeed. There are, in fact, homelands, ethnic groups and bodies of people of particular cultures living in certain definable territorial areas. To that extent, either in the Government’s concept of separate homelands or separate independent States, or in our concept of a federation, it is possible to build-in a great many territorial concepts. I think, however, that any realist in South Africa must recognize that total territorialism is not really a practical proposition. Clearly the concept of separate development cannot really make total provision for Coloureds, Asians and those Africans who have become part of Western industrial life. There are large numbers of people now living in metropolitan complexes; and whatever we do, or whatever we dream about or hope, these people have become a permanent part of these growing metropolitan complexes. Sir, we on this side recognize that our federal concept, which is a concept very largely of communities, has got to take notice of this as well; we have got to accommodate it just as the Government has got to accommodate it. This, I believe, is a most fruitful field for further constitutional planning and development, but it is something that must be recognized for what it is. I believe, Sir, that we must think in this respect of certain common institutions. Within these large metropolitan areas, within the large industrial developmental areas, there will be certain things that people will have to do together. There will have to be certain consultative bodies, and the hon. the Prime Minister gave a glimpse of it not very long ago in this House when he was speaking of the Coloured people. There are certain functional boards, certain functional councils, where in fact we will have to learn to work together, and I believe that within these metropolitan complexes all of us, White, Black and Brown—Whites on this side and on that side—are going to have to recognize the need to develop the models for this kind of co-operation and functional working together.

Sir, the sixth principle on which we will all agree and have already agreed is that the time has come for permanent, continuous consultation. We all accept the simple concept that you can no longer talk for people, but that you have to talk with people. Consultation, Sir, must now become a reality in South Africa, not merely on a sporadic or ad hoc basis but as a systematic and fully institutionalized way of political life. We have got to build this into our institutions; it has got to become a permanent feature, and it does not matter where you are going or what your eventual destiny is, this has got to be part of the process, and we cannot escape it.

Sir, there are other points on which we could agree. One could specify other points of common consent but the six I have mentioned are surely fundamentals. They form the basis on which we could now begin to construct a simple but durable constitutional framework for real co-operation between all our communities. It will take time and patience to develop; mistakes will be made and we may have to retrace our steps on occasion, and it will not commit us in advance to any ultimate system. We shall have to learn by experience as we go along, but let us start gaining that experience now. Time is not on our side. Without delay, therefore, let us start to construct the kind of Council of State which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in his inspired speech on Saturday suggested to this Parliament as a means, as a basis, as a point of departure—a formal, consultative and advisory body in which we can make a beginning in the development of a constitutional model. It will serve this country in this combined purpose both for growth and for defence, a council of State operating as a permanent forum for consultation, for advice and for co-operation between the leaders of all the communities in South Africa; without a legislative function, certainly at this stage, without a compulsory function, without an instructional function, but as a means of consultation, as a means of getting together, as a means of gaining experience, as a means of beginning to find out, by talking with each other and not for each other, how we should proceed, whatever our eventual constitutional development may be, into the common future which is the destiny of everybody who lives in this sub-continent of Africa. Sir, operating as such in this initial stage, in this purely preliminary stage—in this experimental stage, if you like—it will at last create a forum in which we can move forward.

Firstly, it will provide clear proof to our own people of the determination of White South Africa to work out a system of real interracial harmony based on a constitutional concept.

Secondly, Sir, it will serve now as a guarantee to the United Nations and to the international community that we shall give meaningful political content to our undertaking, given no later than last week, to create a free and voluntary association of all our people.

You cannot do it in your own party.

Let us give this undertaking to the world and let us prove it by concrete action in our own country.

Lastly, Sir, it will create a bridgehead from which we could build the relationships of trust and confidence that are essential to constructive dialogue with our African neighbours and to the peace of the entire sub-continent. Sir, that hon. member over there has not truly been listening to what I have been saying. He is disturbed that in a debate like this one should raise matters of some significance. He would no doubt prefer to go on with the debate that was taking place before I rose to speak. He would like to repeat the sort of arguments his friends on those benches have raised. We can go on indefinitely talking about the kind of inter-party petty political nonsense which amuses some hon. members on that side. We can go on indefinitely fiddling while Rome burns, while there is a state of enormous urgency in this country, and we are expected to be amused while this is happening. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. member for Brakpan has also been interrupting me. I do not know what he is trying to say. Perhaps he would like to ask me a question.

I want to know whether the hon. member was present when the hon. member for Bryanston made his speech on Saturday morning, and what he has to say about it.

The hon. member for Bryanston made a speech on Saturday which I heard. The hon. member for Bryanston criticized certain aspects of the policy of the Government, and he criticized them in strong terms. It was the kind of speech which obviously gets under the skin of hon. members opposite. We, Sir, have to put up with the Nat kind of speech from that side of the House day in and day out, and even when we get to an important debate like this, we have to listen to such speeches continuously. Any attempt to introduce a note of seriousness into this debate and to elevate the tone of the debate to the level which it deserves when South Africa is in the situation in which it is today, is in vain. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. member for Bryanston makes his speech; but the hon. member for Simonstown makes his own speech, and when people speak for themselves they speak for themselves. As far as this party is concerned, I say that we believe the time has come when we have to speak clearly to hon. members opposite, men of good will, men of earnest intent, men who understand the seriousness of what is happening in and around this country. We have to try to enlist that degree of intelligence, that degree of responsibility, which will strike a flame that will create the kind of changes South Africa needs at a time like this. Sir, we do not despair very easily, but I must say our hearts sink when we have to put up with some of the speeches we have heard in this House.

May I say this? The Ambassador, His Excellency the South African Ambassador to the United Nations, has made a most important speech which I believe has the backing of the Government. He has made a speech which is important and which has made an impact on the world community. He has said certain things about our future intentions in this country, particularly as far as racial discrimination is concerned. I believe that he has been taken seriously. He has been taken as an honest man stating an honest intention for the future. Immediately after that speech, I think it was the hon. member for Sea Point who asked whether as a first sign of good intent it might not be possible, now that Adam Small’s play is coming on at the civic theatre, to allow Coloured people to come to see the play of a Coloured playwright in Cape Town. Sir, there were cries of horror from those benches. The hon. member for Potchefstroom was absolutely appalled. Now, Sir, what are we talking about? If the Ambassador at U.N. can say what he did, and when a member of this House rises and says that as a small gesture, as a token of our sincerity of intent, of our generosity, we should let the Coloured people see this play written by a Coloured playwright, we get this kind of reaction, what sincerity of intent is there? Are we going to build a civic theatre for the Coloured people tomorrow where Adam Small can put on his play? What is going to happen in the intervening years? Sir, we say these grand things, but we nevertheless defend separate post offices with separate signs and separate entrances. Are we serious or are we not? Do we mean these things or do we not?

I conclude. I have put forward a concept which I believe deserves serious attention. It is a new suggestion as to how we might move forward on the constitutional front in a cautious, an experimental and in a noncommittal way and which will leave the options open, but which will build up experience, co-operation and understanding. I think it has got to be done now. I believe it cannot be delayed. As I said at the beginning of my speech, what needs to be done and is not done today will have to be done tomorrow at far greater cost.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a greater deal of interest to the speech by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. The hon. member always impresses me when he makes a speech in this House. The hon. member must not deduce from this that he impresses me much with regard to certain fundamental concepts recognized by my party and myself. I was impressed by the hon. member’s realistic approach and his real desire to escape from the dilemma in which he and his party—and, let me admit it frankly—we, too, as the governing party, find ourselves. I appreciate this honest effort of his, as I understand it and am justified in deducing it from his speech. The hon. member mentioned various fundamental aspects which we may supposedly discuss with each other. I do not want to cover that ground again. But he did touch one significant point. He said that we could achieve harmony “on certain constitutional concepts”. To me this lies at the root of the whole difference between this side of the House and that side. The question is: What is the fundamental political concept on which our whole policy is based? Now I want to state forthrightly that our political philosophy is not based on colour. That is as plain as a pikestaff. Implicit in our policy of multi-national development, of political territorial separation, of the drawing of a geo-political line between ourselves and the Black man, is the negation, the elimination, of colour. Behind that geo-political line the Black man, as a neighbour, will enjoy citizenship equal to mine as a White man. This is implicit in our policy of multi-national development.

Where does he enjoy it?

There is no colour bar in this sphere.

In the second place, a negation of human dignity is not implicit in the acceptance of and the endeavour to draw geo-political lines either. What right have I to tell an Italian or an Englishman that his human dignity is inferior to mine? What right have I to say that the human dignity of a Xhosa who enjoys full political rights behind a geo-political line in the Transkei, is inferior to mine? Hon. members opposite do not want to understand this. In their endeavour, in the process of political theft that they have so clearly displayed this session, to steal a little bit here and a little bit there of our politics, hon. members have become a little confused. They want to chase us; they want to drive us. Through the years, one characteristic of the National Party’s policy has been that it has continued, in the face of criticism and prophecies of doom, to carry out its policy consistently in accordance with certain unchanging principles, in a cool and reasoned way. However slow it may have seemed to others, however impatient one may have become, the National Party has deliberately, slowly and purposefully performed the task of development. Sir, evolution does not follow the same course as revolution. The way of evolution is slow; evolution taunts the patience of the uninformed; evolution taunts the patience of the agitator; evolution builds constructively. It sets an objective for itself and is not bound to a time-table. Revolution, on the other hand, is hasty, destructive and disruptive. The National Party’s policy is one of multi-national development, i.e. the creation of levels of political authority at which no political sharing of power need take place, because basic to our policy is the escape from a common level of political authority behind a distinctly drawn geo-political line. That, basically, is the National Party’s policy of separate development. When that separation exists, when the concept of no sharing at the level of political authority has one day been executed and realized—this is no unattainable ideal but a feasible and viable ideal capable of realization in practice—we shall not be able to talk about the presence of_ a Bantu in the urban complexes as an integrated economic factor. The day that authority at the political level is separated, the Bantu in the urban areas is no longer a political factor, but an economically active being who comes to offer his labour in the urban areas from behind another geopolitical line. Then we can negotiate as equals; then the cry of anyone who maintains that the urban Bantu is a danger to us because his presence is supposedly a factor of integration, is no longer valid, because then that is no longer the case. He is an export commodity in the form of a physical personality who comes to offer his labour from across his borders. I am quite prepared to start conversing with the hon. member, but so long as we still differ in regard to the basic concept, all discussion will be useless. We all realize that there is a need for socio-economic upliftment. I think we are all under the impression that there is a long road before us as far as training, technical schooling and enhancement of technical skills are concerned in order to support the economy in as many ways as possible with knowledge and technical skills. We all realize this; in fact, they are commonplaces. This is not decisive, but it is inescapably everyone’s task. However, when that hon. member, as honest as he is and as I see him to be, wants to come and talk with me, that must be the basis on which we talk. You will have to have thought out and worked out a constitutional pattern that does not provide for sharing of political power, because throughout history the mishandling of this concept has been the cause of grief, bloodshed and misery. What, basically, was at the root of the events in Southern Africa in recent months? In their politics the Portuguese, in all honesty, followed the formula desired by the Progressive Party, namely total political and economic assimilation. This is what the Progressive Party wants, or have I been misunderstanding the hon. members all these years? They do want full political and economic integration, do they not?

Did the right to vote exist in Mozambique?

I shall come to that. They followed a policy of full assimilation in Portugal, in Angola and in Mozambique. Am I correct? That is the Progressive Party’s formula with a minor difference here and there. Basically, however, that is their concept.

But there was no right to vote; there was a dictatorship.

The point I want to make, is that it is on a political platform, whether in the form of a dictatorship that dominates everyone and limits and restricts the vote, or whether through another system, in which there is sharing of political power and in which a level of political authority is created at which various ethnic groups, various people and nations operate together, that one is looking for trouble. Here in South Africa we have the God-given opportunity—the space, the geography, the resources and everything the Creator could give us—to be able to draw clear geo-political lines behind which, without discrimination or considerations of colour, development can take place.

For the Coloureds too?

I shall come to that. I am not talking about the Coloureds now, but about the sharing of political authority. Here we have the God-given opportunity to work out a political system for ourselves. We can work out a wonderful formula here and put it into action. We can cause peace to prevail, but when we want to do this, as we are in fact doing now, that Opposition rummages around helplessly. Unceasingly—actually one gets tired of it—this side is accused of basing its policy on colour and discrimination. How many times has it not been said here that this policy of multi-national development steers away from discrimination? This discrimination is not discrimination. It was the effort of the White man—it is the effort of any numerical minority—to escape domination, because at the basis of this thing that hon. members opposite call discrimination lies the White man’s desire to maintain his own position. It is in fact the shadow of numbers that has always fallen on White politics that has rendered White politics sensitive. Because numerical domination, in its eventual culmination, makes its appearance within a parliament to which one has given the power to govern. The White man, particularly in South Africa, did not embark upon the path of discrimination when he sought political separation. Rather, it was an endeavour on the part of the White man to escape political domination. It was not so much to escape economic domination. We work with our Black people on the farms. They drive our tractors and they are woven into every sector of our agriculture and our economy as a labour factor. We are not complaining about that. The people will not revolt against that. But bring the Black man into this Parliament and we shall see the people in an uproar. No government would dare allow it. We shall not do it. Why not? It is not because we do not want the Black man here. The Black man cleans my house, drives my truck and helps me to produce my maize. Therefore it is not a matter of colour. However, the heart of the matter lies in the fear of numerical domination at the political ballot box. Over the past 25 years that has been the basis of our politics. I want to ask the hon. Opposition to oblige by opening a new front of attack against us because I want to repeat that it is not colour that serves as the basis for political separation. There is no such thing as discrimination; there is only the fear of political domination. That is what plays a dominating role in our politics. Surely I am right. When the hon. member states that we should discuss basic problems, I want to tell him that he must first just accept that he and I are White, and that he must get his priorities right because if he makes a mistake in that regard, we as Whites will have lost our political authority. That he does not want to lose. He wants to maintain his political authority by a system of federalism. He, too, is afraid of losing his authority. He is manoeuvring with a federal concept. Even the Progressive Party is afraid of it. They come and they manoeuvre with educational and income qualifications.

Yes, but it has …

But that is what you are manoeuvring with. The Progressive Party, too, wants to escape the possibility of being dominated numerically at the ballot box and on the political platform. This is basic to our politics.

It is this consideration that makes the events in Africa over the past few months so extremely important to us. What has happened? We had the Lusaka Agreement in which Frelimo played an important role. Frelimo comprises 20% of the population of Mozambique, and it is not I who say so. I have before me a book, The Portuguese Answer, written by D’Arriaga, the former supreme commander of the defence force in Mozambique. In this book he states that Frelimo comprises 20% of the population. The agreement in Lusaka, at the stroke of a pen did away with all the principles on which the U.N. manifesto on human rights are based. The Lusaka Manifesto, compiled a few years ago by the representatives of Black Africa, was done away with. That which neither the hon. members opposite nor we want, was conceded to. I cannot put it more clearly than Dean Rusk put in 1965 when he was the American Minister of Foreign Affairs. He said at that time—and this is significant—

Then he went on—

When Frelimo took over without taking “one man, one vote” into account, without taking into account what was basic to the human rights manifesto of U.N. and without what was basic to the Lusaka Manifesto, the Western world was silent. Then power politics appeared at our gates. I cannot emphasize strongly enough that for the duration of this session we have been faced with the appearance of the opposite of what we all want here; power politics supported by militant military power has made its appearance. The cry of Uhuru did not bring what the Communists thought it would bring. Hunger, poverty, pestilence and ignorance still continue to flourish in Africa in spite of Uhuru and it must have had an enormous impact on the Communist forces when they saw that their first onslaught, their first attempt at penetration into Africa had not borne fruit. After all, we know that Communism did not achieve the ability to penetrate which they had had in mind for Africa. On the contrary, a trace of resistance to Communism is discernible and the Communism operating here in Africa had to seek an alternative to Uhuru. They discovered that alternative, with brilliant success, in power politics. A Communist-inspired structure stands in Mozambique today which was not arrived at through “one man one vote”, which was not arrived at through “the consent of those who are governed”. No, Sir, it was arrived at here by means of total power-political action. This is important to us and in my opinion it should have an impact on African leaders, because now they stand defenceless. The West is silent; the West that fought in Korea and Vietnam and sacrificed tens of thousands of lives, thousands of miles away. The West was silent when Communism achieved a victory in Africa, here in the heart of Southern Africa, at the gates of our fatherland. I think that the people of Zambia and also various Black leaders in Africa feel oppressed and afraid, because their economies are brittle and sensitive and could easily fall prey to communism, because the weaker the economy of a country, the easier it is to fall prey to disrupting forces. Whom do they look to? They cannot look to Europe because there are unstable economies and they cannot look to Britain because there labour and the will of the people are involved in a violent confrontation and conflict with the result that the Wilson Government, after two elections, is barely able to govern. They cannot look to America, because America has been lacerated internally by the Watergate episode, which history is going to be mulling over for a long time. Whom are they to look to? They must look to the stable structure in Southern Africa that is to be found here in South Africa with all the resources, knowledge, capital and food, the substitutes for ignorance, poverty and hunger. Here we stand and we say that we should hold on tightly to this structure we have because it is the proven, stable structure. The structure the Progressive Party wants to build, would crumble. It would play into the hands of Communism with its power politics. The structure which the United Party is engaged in amending from time to time in their endeavour and their anxious attempts to escape their own dilemma, will not succeed either, because this party is inherently weak and contains all the possibilities of collapse. The structure the National Party presents to the world, is a structure without discrimination. Its policy is a recognition of full human dignity. Our structure comprehends all the humane considerations—all of these, over the wide field we have covered over the past few years, are built into the structure of the National Party. Everything that is humane, is to be found within the structure of our party. Everything that is politically realistic, is inherent in our party’s structure. This, in fact, elevates it to the status of a dominant political structure in the face of a confused Africa. It is a structure that recognizes geo-political lines. Behind those lines, political reality is acted out and on both sides of those lines, economic reality is acted out. For that reason I can say with the greatest confidence that the National Party is open to consultation. I am open to consultation with that member. I wrote out a speech and did not use a word of it because that hon. member forced me to make a speech and tell him that I am open to consultation. I do not reject the hon. member’s intentions. I do not distrust the hon. member’s intentions. All I demand of the hon. member, if he wants to come to this party, is to come with political realities. Then we could together develop a structure which, for the 26 years since this party took over …

May I put a question?

Just a moment. This is a structure that has been acceptable to our own people for the past 26 years. One cannot do all kinds of things if one does not take one’s own people with one, and the people of South Africa prefer this structure of the National Party, just as we prefer it. We cannot hold discussions if the hon. member first wants me to renounce the basic constitutional political concept of the National Party. Now the hon. member may put his question.

The hon. member states that he and his party are open to consultation, but at the same time he states that he will not concede a single point. He will stand by his policy, and his party, which represents two million people out of a total of 25 million people will …

All right, I have already heard the question. I understand everything. Apparently the hon. member did not listen to a thing I said. We cannot reason about basic things. I tried to indicate that our basic structure is correct.

I now want to conclude by saying that in South Africa we still have a long way to go and we are still going to make many mistakes. In addition we are going to display much clumsiness. We are still going to be attacked a great deal because we are sometimes clumsy but there is one thing we should not forget. Here in the Republic of South Africa we are engaged in one of the greatest political experiments of all time. I know a little about history. Nowhere does history give me an example of a people that, with such blatant honesty, and in the face of such fierce opposition, foul propaganda and onslaughts on various fronts, has come so far that one of the hon. members opposite could stand up and be so impressed by the strength of our leadership in South Africa, in consequence of a message given recently by the hon. the Prime Minister. That hon. member is so impressed that he stood up today and said: Let us talk. Well and good, we can talk, but then we shall talk about political realities. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the few speakers who have just finished their speeches have very widely differing styles, to say the least of it, but they have one thing in common, and that is that they have tried to bring the debate back to a much higher level than we have known throughout this day and for that I personally am very grateful. That is the first observation that I would like to make before I try to return to the recent speech made by the South African ambassador at the United Nations. The second observation is this: As a newcomer in this House, one thing is very clear to me, and that is that even though people speak with the very best intentions, it is very rare and seldom that that fact is recognized; there is distrust and cynicism in this House such as I have seldom seen anywhere else in this country, and that is saying something, Sir.

Who is the cause of it?

There you are, Sir; that is a typical remark from that side: “Who is the cause of it?” Sir, let us try to look at ourselves. [Interjection.] I will try to look at myself if that hon. member will have the courage to look at himself. It must be a very uncomfortable thought both for the hon. member and for myself. Sir, it is very easy to become cynical in this House. I think, for example, of the last election and the by-election, when almost the whole of the Nationalist Party forces, when it came to a critical point in the election, and certainly a vast area of the United Party, in their relationship and in their opposition to the Progressive Party, resorted to what I can only describe as “Swart gevaar tactics”. The Progressive Party was attacked again and again from the right. No one can deny this. This happened again and again, and if that is the standpoint that people want to take, that is all right; but now we see a quite remarkable and radical change in the attack, and this is why I say that it is easy for me and perhaps for other members to become cynical in this House, because we now have the quite remarkable spectacle of the attack being made on the Progressive Party not from the right any longer but from the left. We are now branded not as the party that is going to bring about “Swart gevaar”; oh no, now we are the party that is going to care only about the rich and the well educated. In making this attack upon us, hon. members forget, of course, that here we have a party whose policy is one of sharing for all the people of this country, and that we seek to recognize two things which are part of the reality of South Africa. The first of these, which we have heard echoed in this House again and again, is the very real fear which is in the heart of the White man. This is a fear which is very understandable in a minority group which seeks to protect its identity, as the hon. member for Rustenburg constantly reminds us. Sir, any man who does not take that into account is not being realistic and is not being a practical politician. So I say that while on the one hand, you have to hold in tension this White fear and anxiety and desire to maintain an identity, which is quite understandable, on the other hand you have to hold in tension mounting Black rage and anger. So, Sir, it is very understandable that, in reaction to the speech that was made at the United Nations, on the one hand you have those people who say there is no discrimination in South Africa, despite the fact that it is very clearly alluded to in that speech. There is no discrimination. That is the one aspect.

Who said that?

Several members today. They said there was no discrimination. Now, if one looks at it merely through the eyes of the White man—and I am speaking about all of us now, and not one side or the other—it is very understandable that we should perhaps imagine that there is no discrimination. Earlier this session the hon. the Minister of Defence remarked that I had made a statement at a public meeting to the effect that “to be born Black in South Africa is to have the kiss of death”. There were cries of “Skan-de!” and of “Shame!” and I made no reply at that time, because one gets very little opportunity to speak in this House. But I want to reply to that now. You see, those words were not mine. They are not original to me. These were words spoken to me by a group of young Black South Africans. Now, whether they are right or wrong for the moment is immaterial. What I am concerned about and what I am concerned that we in this House should understand is their perception of what is happening in this country. And, Sir, their perception is different from ours. They believe that every day and every hour they are subject to discrimination.

Only a minority.

Whether you accept that or not, nevertheless we have to come to terms with this. Now I want to paraphrase a quotation which was once used by a man who responded to what he believed was unfair persecution or discrimination when he, writing as a Jew, addressed the Christian people of his time. I want to use the words Black and White instead, and I want to use this quotation not for the benefit of hon. members on the other side of the House, but for all of us, for every one of us, including myself. He said—

Sir, I believe that the last two speakers in this debate have tried, perhaps in vain, but nevertheless have tried to bring this debate back to where the central issues should be and are in this country. We have had a remarkable speech from His Excellency the Ambassador to the United Nations, and I want to underline what the leader in these benches said earlier, and that is that we warmly welcome that speech. We commend that speech and we accept that speech. All we want now is to try to assist in the fleshing out, if you like, of the bones of that speech. And that is a very reasonable thing. You will remember Eliza Doolittle, terrified as she was in the company she kept, finally in despair saying: “Words, words, words! I am sick of words. Show me.” All we are saying is, now that we have made this kind of declaration and this kind of stand, supported by a very fine and forward-looking speech by the hon. the Prime Minister just recently in the Other Place, let us ask in very specific and concrete terms what we are trying to do to implement that kind of spirit and attitude.

The hon. member for Rustenburg said that members on that side of the House “het ’n boodskap vir die volk”, and by implication suggested that those of us on this side have no message for the people when we return to our constituencies. Sir, with respect, I want to differ from him. I want to suggest the kind of message which I hope that he and I will take back to the constituencies from which we have come. I want to mention a number of concrete, very specific, nothing-general-about-it points which could give the kind of hope which I believe we are all looking for in this country. Let us go to our people and say that as a direct result of the words of our Prime Minister and our Ambassador to the United Nations, one of the first things we pledge ourselves to do is to do away with all legislation which takes away a man’s basic humanity and that we will attempt to see this not merely through our own eyes but through the eyes of our fellow-men. Secondly, when we look at the Black man living in our cities, we will agree that he is a man and that he has the same hopes, aspirations and fears as we have, and that at least we will give him freehold tenure in the city, in the place where he will work and live and die. Thirdly, we will tackle with consistency and with purpose the whole question of migrant labour, acknowledging that it is a worldwide problem which cannot be solved overnight, a problem that is very, very difficult to solve because it is so complex. Let us do this, accepting again the words of the hon. the Prime Minister who once said “you must not take a man’s home away from him”. Let us accept that migrant labour is economically wasteful, that it is morally reprehensible and cannot be defended, and that it is indeed, at this time, as a direct result of what is taking place in Mozambique and Angola, politically dangerous. Therefore, we will not only make speeches and not only appeal to employers to assist their people when bus fares are raised or when rents are put up, but we will begin to work out a system whereby we can repeal section 10 of the influx control law. That is the kind of message which I believe this country needs to hear and to hear now. We will accept, too, that the Black man who represents almost 80% of the industrial manpower of South Africa, is also an employee—otherwise he is nothing at all—and that we will therefore amend the Industrial Conciliation Act accordingly so that he too can be recognized among everyone else as a worker. We will say about the Coloured people once and for all that socially, economically and politically their destiny hangs together with that of the White people of this country. So one could go on, listing the kind of concrete point that one could make in relation to the things that could be done within our present framework. That Government has the power, the opportunity and the responsibility to do these things, assisted, hopefully, by an Opposition. Of course it is the Government which has the responsibility to put into effect the declaration, if you like, which has been made at the United Nations. Sir, if we could do something like that, I believe that the words of the hon. the Prime Minister who said that he did not believe it to be five minutes before 12 but rather an hour before daybreak, will come true, because we will actually be making a beginning. We will break out of the fix which we seem to be in as of now. The agony of trying to find a way forward is shared by the people who sit in these benches no matter how much abuse and scorn is passed upon us and we shall try and do anything and everything with our limited numbers and with our limited power to try and help to bring this about, that is the message which I believe the ambassador has been trying to give to people a long way from us. That is the kind of message we have to give to the people of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinelands is a person who says things with which we do not agree. However, he has such a courteous and well-bred way of saying them and he conducts his debate on such a high level that we continue to respect him, in spite of the fact that we differ from him.

As a newcomer to this House I have listened with very great interest to the debates conducted over the past three months up to now, where we have come to the last lap of the parliamentary session. I have listened with great interest to the standpoints of the two Opposition parties. I have tried to listen objectively and with an open mind as far as is humanly possible. I have made my own evaluation of what I have heard, and I should like to take this occasion to give my impressions of the session of the past three months. I have listened in particular to the opinions expressed by hon. members of the two parties in respect of our relations problem and specifically to the philosophy which underlies the view of those people. I am not saying this for the purpose of making political capital, but I have noticed great confusion in those parties and divergent and conflicting opinions have been expressed. No clear philosophy has emerged and on no occasion have I heard an exposition by one of the speakers of the two parties of the basic philosophy which underlies their policy, as was provided in respect of the philosophical substructure of our policy by the hon. member for Carletonville this afternoon and by the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke this morning. There have been an element of instability and a considerable lack of direction on the part of these people, and for the most part there has been an ad hoc approach to racial matters, which often gave one the impression of being motivated by political expedience.

When the hon. member for Yeoville became leader of the United Party in the Transvaal, he promised us that there would be an end to double talk, that they would propagate the same policy everywhere and that what they said in the cities would be said in the rural areas as well. Little has come of these pious resolutions. The United Party still wants to be all things to all men and it still wants to cast its net wide enough to draw in people of all political shades. My overriding impression of the United Party has been that it tries to find favour in all eyes. History teaches us that history teaches us nothing, and I think this applies to the United Party. It has often had to pay a high price for its instability, its fickleness and its many changes of policy in the past, but like the Bourbons, this is a party which remembers nothing and learns nothing.

I do not want to discuss the United Party’s new policy in respect of the Coloured people at any length, for it has already been the subject of exhaustive discussion in this House. I just want to say what the reaction of Coloured leaders has been to the fickleness, the instability and the inconstancy of the United Party. I want to quote from The Daily News of Monday, 21 October, to show what was said in this respect by Mr. Middleton and Mr. Rooks, the members representing Natal on the Coloured Representative Council. I quote—

This is the reaction of Coloured leaders to the fickleness of the United Party. This is the image which the Coloured leaders have of the United Party, namely “inconsistency” and “insincerity”. This is the image which the voters have formed of the United Party over the years. In spite of this they are as inconsistent as ever.

The greatest exponent of this approach of being all things to all men is the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. Here is a person who wants to open the doors of the United Party so wide that people of all political shades will enter. This generosity of the past is the underlying reason for the problems the United Party is faced with today. However, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana persists in his generosity. This member believes that he has a bait which will draw the rightists and the leftists to the U.P. at the same time. He addresses both groups in the same speech. In one breath this hon. member pleads for Bantu ownership in the White areas, and when this is frowned upon by certain hon. members on his side, he has a reassuring answer for them in the next breath, and he says that it would make little difference in practice anyway, for the Bantu are not economically strong enough to acquire much property in the White area. He then quotes the example of what is happening in Scotland and in Portugal, where 10% of the population own 80% of the land. He says it would be the same in our country.

However, the thing must look right on paper. This underlies the United Party’s whole approach: On paper this thing must look right, but in theory they are able to satisfy the leftists as well. Their practice, however, will suit the rightists. This philosophy also underlies the federal policy of the United Party, in terms of which there are equal opportunities for all, in theory. It is a policy with which they want to silence the outside world and with which they would bluff the non-Whites.

In practice it would mean a voice for a privileged minority. It is an archaic policy which is not honest. It is our conviction that only one policy would succeed in South Africa, and that is a just policy. It is a policy which complies with the highest requirements of morality, a policy of which we are prepared to accept the full consequences and a policy which does not contain a dualism between theory and practice.

Tested against these norms, the policy of the United Party is a dismal failure. Their policy is designed to be all things to all men, but in the end it satisfies no one. That is why one day the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is able to make a touching plea for a small number of Bantu who are being moved from one place to another and to emphasize the inhumanity of uprooting them in this way, thereby gladdening the heart of the hon. member for Houghton and causing her to write him a note to thank him and to say that she could not agree with him more. The very next day, however, he is able to refuse flatly to give a major economic asset such as Zebediela to the non-Whites. This attitude adopted by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and by the hon. member who supported him, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, comes as no surprise to me. There are sections of the United Party, specifically in Natal, who have shown over the years that they do not have the interests of the non-Whites at heart.

Oh, that is nonsense!

Now the hon. member says it is nonsense, but he opposed a proposal that the Zebediela Estate be given to the Bantu. There the Progressive Party is sitting as a living proof of the fact that the United Party was not prepared to keep the word of the White man.

Where is the justice for the Coloured and the Indian?

The hon. member asks what about the Coloured and the Indian. For many years the United Party’s provincial administration in Natal was in charge of Indian and Coloured education. Can he show me a single person who would want those days back? I can mention other examples. For seven years the United Party’s provincial administration in Natal worked on beach delimitation, and last week their plans were announced. I want to predict that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South will have to return to his province to rebuke his own people who were not willing to let the non-Whites have a part of Natal’s golden beaches. This is the party which is always telling us about the compassionate society. When they get the chance to practise what they preach, they make a very meagre contribution and what they produce is very little indeed.

Tell us about the Coloured people.

Tell us about the Sea Point swimming pool.

Order! I do not care for this dialogue between hon. members across the floor of this House. Hon. members must give the hon. member a chance to make his speech.

There is only one member of the Progressive Party present. However, their Whip has just entered. In the few minutes I have left I should like to address these hon. gentlemen. The Progressive Party came back to the House in greater numbers because they made an impression of stability on the voters, as against the fighting and wrangling in the United Party ranks.

†Because of the squabbles in the ranks of the United Party and thanks to the vast financial resources at the disposal of the Progressive Party, the Press support they had and their very efficient public relations work, the Progressive Party was able to draw support from the United Party. Their performance in the election campaign— and I may say that in this respect I am judging purely by Press reports—was much more impressive than their performance in Parliament is. Frankly, I thought that these people were supermen and, when I judged only by the Press reports, I feared them. Their performance in Parliament has since allayed my fears. Distance has lent enchantment to the view but I have since discovered their limitations and Parliament has cut them down to size. The Progressive Party was elected because it presented an image to the electorate, not a policy. On the platform and in Parliament they studiously avoided mention of their policy. I do not recall one instance during the past three months when the term “qualified franchise” was used by the hon. members on the opposite side. What is more, behind the scenes there was a debate going on whether the qualified franchise was in fact the cornerstone of Progressive Party policy. There are members of the Progressive Party who are beginning to have their doubts and there are those who believe that only unversal franchise will be acceptable. But there is also a third school of thought in the ranks of the Progressive Party. It sounds absolutely unbelievable but there is an influential group in the Progressive Party who are now advocating separate rolls for the various racial groups in our country.

Where does that come from?

The hon. member for Parktown finds this most amusing. I have here a quotation which reads: “A separate roll for the Indians, a separate roll for the Coloureds and a separate roll for the urban Bantu.” The heading of this report is “Prog call for an all race council”. This is a report appearing in The Natal Mercury of Monday, 21 October. Over the weekend there was a Progressive Party congress in Pietermaritzburg, Natal. The resolution accepted unanimously there read—

The resolution further said—

Not to be outdone by the United Party changing its policy at random, the Progressive Party also changed its policy. In fact it unanimously accepted and advocated this new policy a day after the United Party announced its new policy as regards the Coloureds—three million non-Whites in Natal are to have seven representatives in the Provincial Council and half a million Whites are to have 20 representatives.

That is discrimination.

The hon. member for Sea Point had the audacity this morning to accuse us on this side of discrimination. Now the Progressive Party is exposed as one which has in the past discriminated not only against the poor and the uneducated, but is today discriminating on the grounds of the pigmentation of a person’s skin.

How many seats are you giving them in the Provincial Council? Five, isn’t it? [Interjections.]

It is a party which resorts to political baasskap, a limited representation, a minority representation for a majority group and a majority representation for a minority group, a token representation which is a mere sop to Cerberus. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout would call this policy the “crumbs that fall from the White man’s table for the non-Whites”. There are numerous questions we can ask. For example, does the Progressive Party now accept the population register? How else will it implement these separate rolls? Why exclude the homeland Bantu? Why include only the urban Bantu? That is a most intriguing question. Must we take it—this will surely make the mind of the hon. member for Organge Grove boggle—that the Progressive Party accepts self-determination for the homeland Bantu.

What about the Bantu on the farms?

What can we say of this policy? The granite is cracking; the rigid constitution of which the Progressive Party speaks is so much eyewash. They have not even implemented their constitution and they are already changing it. It is a rigid constitution in a state of flux or in the famous words of the hon. member for Rondebosch, a centipede out of step with itself.

Mr. Speaker, I shall also try to make a contribution. It seems to me, since we have almost come to the end of the debate, and of this session, that we as the delegates of the people should ask ourselves certain questions. If we were to ask ourselves whether we had made progress during this session and had moved forward, or had in fact lost ground, whether we knew where we stand, and, even more important, whether we knew where we are going, whether we were aware of the dynamic and dramatic changes which are at present taking place in South Africa, and whether we had a realization of the dangerous situation which is flaring up in South Africa and whether we were capable of handling it, it would be possible to furnish various replies. The hon. member will have an opportunity to furnish his reply, I am certain of that. I should also like to furnish a reply. It seems to me that we would perhaps be able to place the case in better perspective if we are able to furnish a brief historic survey of the matter. There is not the least doubt in my mind that history is repeating itself in South Africa. If we learn the lessons in time, we will be able to avoid many pitfalls, and we will probably not need to suffer so many setbacks. Time and again in the history of the world there have been movements of an epic magnitude. We find that such a movement is again taking place in the world today. In South Africa, our own country, we are not mere spectators. We are caught up in this movement, for in a certain sense of the word we are really in the centre of the world scene. I do not want to approach this matter in any presumptious manner, nor am I trying to moralize.

However, I just want to state my view of what is happening at present and of what might still happen. If all hon. members would also make the same experiment, we could perhaps build up a picture of what is awaiting us in South Africa.

History tells us that the oldest civilization began in the Middle East and the East. Many centuries ago China had a technology of an exceptionally advanced level. The Egyptians were able to build pyramids 5 000 years ago which all of us still marvel at today. Every nation, like the individual, has a course of development and a development process. It grows up, it matures, it ages, and in some cases there is a resurgence, as is at present the case in China. After these developments in the East, it was, however, the European countries which, one after the other, began their own process of development. There were the Portuguese, the Dutch and the British, and today in another form, there are the Americans and the Russians. Centuries ago these European nations, owing to the means of transportation which had improved considerably, extended their spheres of influence to Asia and Africa. The motivation was in many cases widely divergent. In some cases they wanted to acquire raw materials. In other cases they wanted to find markets for their manufactured commodities. In some cases they sought lebensraum, and in other cases they sought spheres of influence for strategic reasons. Sometimes they did so merely for the sake of prestige. In this manner the European nations established themselves in Asia in Africa and in this way our own settlement, South Africa came into being, and we also began our own growth to nationhood. Now, there is a strange phenomenon. In the nation as in the individual, there is an urge to self-assertion. Some writers refer to it as the territorial imperative. When the nation or group cannot be absorbed into a larger group. When it cannot be absorbed into a larger gestalt, there is a reaction and it says then that it will deal with its own matters in its own way. After the war, and largely as a result of the philosophy which accompanied it, we have had a movement throughout the world—particularly in Africa and Asia—towards the elimination of Western influence. We find that it began in the equatorial areas, and that it moved North and from thence, South. In Asia, as we all know, it has already made considerable progress; the Western influence has almost been eliminated except for Russia in the North and Australasia in the South. In Africa precisely the same movement has begun, and from the equatorial areas it has moved northwards; For a long time it led to conflict in Algeria, but there, too it followed the normal course, and from thence it movded southwards. We have all seen what happened recently in the Portuguese territories. Indeed, all that remains is that little portion of Africa which we call ours. This was really what Macmillan was referring to when he spoke of “the winds of change”, but although he predicted what was going to happen, Macmillan probably did not have a full insight into the underlying causes and he did not appreciate the impetus which is an integral part of this movement.

Sir, it seems to me as though there are certain fundamental lessons which we could learn from this entire epic movement of tremendous magnitude, for we must bear in mind that within in a space of 30 years more than 200 million people in Africa have found themselves in such a new balance of power position. As I have said, it seems to me that there are important lessons which we may learn from this. This process of emancipation, this form of political osmosis, can either be accompanied by violence or it can be peaceful, and where there is violence, it seems to me as if it is a question of the numerical ratio. Where the influence of the West was relatively slight, as was the case in Tanzania and the other places, the transition was reasonably peaceful. Where the numerical ratio was more equal, as was the case in Algeria, the conflict was one which continued for a long time. We have already seen what happened in the neighbouring Portuguese territories, and I do not at this stage wish to speculate on what could happen in South Africa itself. I think the second lesson which we must learn is that initially the urge is not a political one. It is of a socio-economic nature. It is social in nature because there is rejection by the elite, and it is economic in nature because there is no equal distribution of economic means. Sir, what is important to me is that precisely the same thing was happening in South Africa. All the opinion polls which we made among our Black people, in which the question was put to them what their priorities were and what they wanted, indicated that they were not asking for the franchise, but for proper work opportunities for themselves and proper schooling for their children. This is an important lesson which we must also learn, for while they were asking for these things, we gave them the franchise instead. In the third place, when such a confrontation comes, concessions will have to be made, and in this regard, Sir, we have frequently heard the standpoint here that if one gives them the little finger, they are going to take the whole hand. This kind of standpoint is not valid at all. We should state it differently: When one is strong and makes concessions, then it is not in any way a sign of weakness. Sir, let me put it in this way: If one is going to make concessions and has to make concessions—and we are making them at present—then one has to make them in time, and then one has to make substantial concessions, otherwise one is merely fanning the flames of dissatisfaction, and then you will be told that you gave too little and that you gave it too late. The fourth lesson which we must learn from this kind of confrontation is that there will be outside interference, particularly in our case, because we have to a certain extent become a kind of conscientious issue to the outside world. In our case there will, therefore, be outside intervention, and it will be fiercer and sharper than it was in any other situation.

Should we simply keep on making concessions?

No, wait a minute. Once battle is joined, when the pressure begins, as is now happening to us, then there are going to be various action fronts, and the first is the political action front, and here of course the objective is very clear, and that is to isolate and ostracize the country concerned—in this case ourselves. What is at present happening at the United Nations is merely a precursor of what is still to come, and we are still going to feel the whiplash of world opinion. The second front is the economic front, and here once again the objective is that of pressure and a form of economic substitution; boycotts will be applied and sanctions imposed, and of this we have also had experience already. But these two action fronts, the political and economic are simply aimed at putting us through a softening up process. Sir, one cannot achieve success in this kind of struggle, unless the struggle is carried through to its full consequences, which are that there should eventually be military action. This is the phase we have now reached in South Africa; there is military action, and I think that we should try to place this in its correct perspective. As far as we are concerned, the danger will come from the East. The Indian Ocean has in any case become the strategic ocean of the world. It is no longer the Atlantic Ocean. But in any event it will come from the East, from whence it will be so much easier to promote and control infiltration techniques. We shall not have a stereotyped invasion in South Africa. We all know that, because for any foreign power to try to suppress us militarily, it will have to land and maintain a military force of almost a half million men here, and we all know that there is not one country in the world today which has the logistical ability to launch that kind of attack, except the Americans, and after their adventure in the Far East, in Vietnam, they will not allow themselves to be drawn into such a matter again. But we know what we are going to have in South Africa is a permanent campaign of terrorism. Here, again, the objectives are very clear. The objectives of the entire terrorist campaign are in the first place to block our diplomatic initiatives towards the north. It is for this reason that the programme of the hon. the Prime Minister, his outward movement—a very excellent idea—met with such meagre success. But in the second place the objective is to cause us to involve an ever-increasing portion of our economic means in our military effort. We know how much we are already spending at present on defence. I need not say it again. We all know that the Government intends increasing this amount considerably next year. That is precisely what our enemies abroad want, for the more we spend on defence, the less money there is going to be for carrying out some of the other tasks which are so essential. In the third place the terroristic movement will concentrate on dramatizing the confrontation with White Southern Africa, which is so absolutely essential for propaganda purposes. But the biggest mistake which we could make is to regard this war, this confrontation purely as a form of military action, for if we do that, we have already lost. For how many months did we not read how well things were going in Mozambique, how many hundreds of Frelimo had been shot, how many thousands had been imprisoned. For months we read how good and successful the military effort was, but what has happened since then? Frelimo is occupying the Government benches in Mozambique, and this is simply owing to the fact that although the Portuguese won the military conflict they lost the psychological and the economic conflict. What we are going to contend with here is not primarily military action, but a psychological and economic conflict, Here, once again, there are quite a number of lessons we shall have to learn. Military action is the easiest of all. That is the easiest conflict for us to win. We have the economic means to do so. There will be no problems on that score. But our entire approach to even the military effort must change. For years we held to the tenets of Clausewitz, who said that when you want to defend, you must go far beyond your borders, you must fight the enemy far outside your own country. This is of course true when you are involved in a conventional war, but it is by no means the case when you are dealing with terrorists, for then you must in fact draw closer to the centre, otherwise your lines of communication are too vulnerable and they become over-extended. In this particular respect our front-line pickets, our border, is the Limpopo and not the Zambesi.

But in the third place we must bear in mind that when we are dealing with terrorism, we must guard against an “overkill”. We must not over-react, but apply the minimum effort necessary to achieve the maximum result. For no one is going to win a terrorist war, and we shall not do so either. All that we shall be able to do is to stabilize the situation. To be able to do this, we must invest as little as possible of our human and our economic means in it. Otherwise, if we over-react, it is precisely what they want us to do, for then we are placing so much of our means at risk that we shall lose it in the end.

In the last place we must bear in mind that we will not be successful in this kind of situation, unless we are able to find overseas support. For years we said here that South Africa was in such a strong strategic position that if we found ourselves in difficulties, America and the outside world would rush to our aid and help to defend us. I hope that this form of wishful thinking—for that is what it is—has been quashed for good by the Kissinger studies which were recently released in America. It is because we appreciate the seriousness of the moment, it is because we see how important this entire situation is, it is because we see that it is so necessary for the future security of South Africa that dramatic adjustments must be made, for that reason my hon. leader came forward last Saturday with a great attempt at statesmanship and made an offer to the Government. What he said in effect was this: “Look, we can differ on the details, but there are certain things which have to be done now. Do them; move forward. We shall not stab you in the back; we shall not attack you from the rear. We shall not try to exploit you. You can move forward; we shall support these attempts.” It was a form of exceptional, unique statesmanship which we have seldom before witnessed in this country. I can only hope that this Government will avail itself of the offer.

†There are a number of things that we must do immediately. As I have tried to indicate, this is not a military war that is important—that is one that we will win easily—but it is the psychological and economic battle that we must wage and win. We do not want to make politics out of this because we talk politics every day in this House. We can tell hon. members that we were right in the past and they were wrong. We can say that Smuts indicated years ago that foreign support is necessary in South Africa. He was called a “Hans-kakie”, yet today he has been proved right. We can say that Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr was hounded from platform to platform because he took a somewhat liberal view on the race issue. Today our ambassador in America said exactly what Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr said here in South Africa years ago. They have been completely vindicated. But what would it help us; what purpose would it serve to gloat on this? Let us rather from now on look ahead and determine some of the things that must be done. I want to say that in the social field immediate reforms are necessary. All forms of social and economic discrimination imposed by the State will have to disappear. Let us forget about the word “discrimination”, if hon. members on that side are sensitive about it. Let us call it “differentiation”. I want to say that voluntary differentiation by individuals is perfectly permissible; but any form of deliberate differentiation as an instrument of State policy can no longer be condoned. When hon. members say there is no differentiation, let me just make this point: It is known that there are some 80 major laws in South Africa and dozens of regulations which apply to Black people only, and which apply to them only because they happen to be Black. For that kind of differentiation there can be no future. We can make these adjustments. Just think of the immense progress we have made since the Loskop Dam era. In a period of eight years we have made a remarkable recovery. We have become enlightened to an extent that is unrecognizable. So, we can move quickly but in future we will have to move even more quickly still. Remember, the dinosaur became extinct because it could not adapt itself to the changing situation. Evolution in the world in which we live is no longer biological only; it is also socio-psychological and it is one in which colour will not feature. If we do not understand that, we will become extinct, both as individuals and as a nation. The compelling social doctrine of our time is one of choice; that you and I and every man should have the right to choose with whom he wishes to mix and with whom he does not want to mix. All elements and traces of compulsion will have to be eliminated because compulsory integration is as bad as compulsory separation. In the economic field every month that passes emphasizes more and more our interdependence in this country. It is in our own interest to do away with job reservation, with the wage gap, with labour ratios and all these provisions which exist at the present time. I am greatly influenced by the fact that recently a public opinion survey was done of the attitudes amongst Afrikaans-speaking workers in South Africa. The conclusions that these experts came to were that they were prepared to make massive and major concessions, admittedly in a form of self-interest. Here we find that our Afrikaans-speaking workers are prepared to make major adaptations. Let us accept this, let us build on this and let us not stifle what is so necessary a development. In the economic field we shall have to dispose of all forms of discrimination. There must be equal economic opportunity for all, equal forms of industrial representation and equal compensation for equal work. As far as the homelands are concerned, we have said for 20 years that they must be developed and that the industrial carrying capacity must be increased. For years we heard all sorts of economic absurdities such as agency schemes and a host of other strategems until the hon. the Prime Minister said a week ago that he would permit private White capital to be used in the development of the homelands. It is regarded as a wonderful new initiative, but it should have been done 20 years ago. Think of the immense amount of ground we have lost in the meantime.

Then we come to the political field. Here it is suggested to us that we have a choice between separation and integration. I do not believe that we have ever had that choice and we certainly do not have it now. If we do have it, it is only in a peripheral sense, because nearly all the factors that are of influence in our society work towards a greater cohesiveness and not towards political fragmentation. All the factors such as the universality of modern culture, the basic essentiality of human need and our economic interdependence work towards greater cohesion rather than fragmentation. The Government can follow its separate freedoms policy, it can get elements to hive off and it can follow this policy of fragmentation, but it will not be the end of the conflict but only the beginning because it does not solve anything. When you talk to the Black leaders they say to you: “All right, the Government can give me independence, but this was not the solution we sought and called for, this is a solution which has been imposed upon us by the White man.” Then they say: “Do not for one moment think that this is the end of the problem because once we are independent it is only the beginning of the conflict.” They say: “Do not think that we are going to sacrifice our rightful share of the South African economic cake and the South African wealth.” Let us not bluff ourselves by thinking that this will be a solution. It will not be; it will be the beginning of our problems. Let us not seek to have blueprints for the future and work out what South Africa is going to look like in 20 years’ time, because only a fool tries to look more than five years ahead nowadays. Let us not indulge in these puerile little bits of arithmetic that we so often get when they try to work out how many members we shall have in our federal assembly and where they will come from. All this shows no real understanding of what is at stake in our society. We believe that what our problem is and what we shall have to do is to share power within a decentralized political structure. We believe that in a plural society, the one that we find in South Africa, the only constitutional system that begins to permit this kind of arrangement is a federal one. Hon. members on the other side are sensitive on this score. If they do not want to use the term “federation”. I do not mind, because I do not feel it is of any consequence. If we do not want to call it a “federation” let us find some neutral concept which will be acceptable to all of us. What we are trying to create is a corporate society in South Africa in which there will be decentralization of political decision-making towards the sub-unit and in which there will be cohesion at the top. If you do not want to call it “federalism” then call it a form of “corporatism.” Do not say that I am advancing a new policy, because we are wedded to a federal system. But if it would help us to get on to a common wave-length to deal with the issues that must be dealt with in our country, call it then a system of corporatism, which should not offend anybody on that side. Think of the tremendous advantages that will follow from this, because then immediately another useful piece of advice from my hon. leader can be followed, viz. to get the heads of the various communities, the various geographical areas and of the homeland areas together into a cohesive body so that we can begin to talk about some of the things that we ought to talk about at the present time. But if we follow this idea of a corporate society we can hive off elements when the situation arises where some of them wish to hive off without in any way disturbing the essential integrity of the total structure.

If I understood the hon. member correctly, will the Bantu leaders, if they are not satisfied with conditions under a United Party policy, be satisfied, in his view, with such a “corporative society” in which they will have the majority of the votes, but the least say?

I spoke to them, as we all speak to them from time to time. What they insist on is “one man, one vote”, and if I were in their position I would have done precisely the same thing. When they are being realistic they say, however, that all of us may possibly be able to achieve an accommodation within a federal context.

†I am not suggesting that our plan is necessarily the last word on this. I am not suggesting that this will necessarily be the blue-print for South Africa. However, I am prepared to say that if a solution is to be found I think it will be found within a federal structure and in the sense in which I have defined it, viz. where there will be a decentralization of political decision-making to the constituent elements and yet cohesion at the top in regard to matters which concern all of us. I do not think it serves much purpose for the moment to get ourselves involved in that kind of detail. Let us accept the fundamental principle, because if you have this idea, elements could, as I have said, hive off without disturbing the essential integrity of the total structure. If circumstances were to develop in the direction of a greater degree of integration, then we will also be able to do this, because I believe we might not have that extent of choice in this matter which we think we have at the moment. But this, to my mind, is the basic advantage of the system we are putting forward, viz. that it can according to circumstances move in the direction of greater integration if circumstances force you in that direction. It could also permit a hiving off of units where this becomes essential. But the basic advantage is that from the amalgam of diversity, which is South Africa at the present time, we will be able to create a totality which is bigger and stronger than the sum of its parts. This is the fundamental philosophy that that hon. member said he was looking for. He stands for separate development which most of us want but which cannot be achieved. Other people stand for integrated development, which you can achieve. But not enough of us want it. But we stand for balanced development, for “ewewigtige ont-wikkeling” … [Interjections.] It is fundamental and we have said it many times before. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, we have virtually come to the end of this debate, in which we discussed many topics. Before the conclusion of this debate I should just like to subject the financial aspects of this Budget to a close scrutiny again. I have tried to make an analysis of those speeches, especially on the Opposition side, which dealt with the financial aspects of this Budget, but having reached the 38th facet as regards financial matters, I stopped counting. A veritable host of different topics were discussed. From the nature of the case the matters subjected to the closest scrutiny were the question of inflation and the question of growth. As usual, everybody knows where inflation comes from and everybody knows what causes it, but apart from bringing in the old classic recipes, nobody really knew how to solve it. We have had a Budget which is an honest attempt on the part of the hon. the Minister to keep inflation in check on the one hand and, on the other hand, to stimulate growth and, in addition, to make certain social concessions so as to accommodate our underprivileged. I have discovered a number of very interesting and sometimes inconsistent aspects of the standpoints taken up by the Opposition with regard to this Budget. Before talking about them, I should just like to remind this House of some of the remarks we came up against in this debate when the Opposition commented on the Budget.

The hon. member for Yeoville saw fit to say that this Government had “a lack of courage to take the necessary steps”. He formulated a new concept in our economy when he referred to “gross ideological product”, at which I should like to pause for just a moment. He also insinuated that in preparing this Budget the hon. the Minister evinced no philosophy. The hon. member for Constantia referred to a Government which harmed its own economy deliberately. Incidentally, as far as that is concerned, I wonder whether one can ever rightfully accuse a Government such as this one, which is implementing a policy which will in fact never succeed without a sound economy, of deliberately harming its own economy. I say this in passing.

It wants to bend the economy.

I am very glad the hon. member has just referred to “bend”, because I am going to come back to that. I shall show the hon. member how his own people are bending the theoretic economy. The hon. member for Constantia spoke about a Government that was avoiding public discussions of its economic policy. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens spoke about a Government that was a prisoner in its own house and was bending the economy to fit it in with its nationalistic ideologies. Then the hon. member for Johannesburg North came along and made a fuss about State interference, unproductive spending of money by the State, etc. With due respect to the hon. member—I hold the hon. member in very high esteem as a businessman—I want to say that to try to draw a parallel between the spending of the State and the spending of the type of money with which he is dealing was to my mind extremely naïve. Without spending, without the so-called unproductive spending, i.e., in terms of his definition, by this Government, they would not be able to invest productively in the industry in which he finds himself.

The last person to whom I want to refer is the hon. member for Hillbrow. He made the statement that the State was responsible for inflation since only the State could create money. The hon. the Minister replied thoroughly to the hon. member on this point. However, to me personally it was very interesting to see the hon. member being given a thorough lesson in arithmetic. I just want to remind this House that when the hon. member made a calculation to show how this Government was neglecting the pensioners in the light of growth in national income, etc., the hon. the Minister gave him a very good lesson in arithmetic. And then, with the correct arithmetic, it appeared that this Government was increasing the aid to pensioners at a rate faster than that of the national income.

Against this background of what hon. members of the Opposition had to say about the Budget, I should like to refer in more detail to some of its aspects. I want to ask this House and the public outside to judge against this background the substance of the attack made by the Opposition. Let us consider, in the first place, the hon. member for Yeoville’s statement that the Government lacked the courage to take the right steps. When a Government is accused of lacking the courage to introduce certain economic measures, he is referring to measures, fiscal and monetary, affecting the taxpayer’s pocket, not so? After all, this is something that requires courage. Let us now consider, with reference to this, the points put forward by the Opposition speakers. If these were classic fiscal and monetary measures, we could have expected the Opposition to plead for the amount of money in circulation to be reduced, for taxes to be increased, etc. Surely they could not have had something different in mind when they referred to the classic measures? However, let us consider what the hon. member for Constantia pleaded for. He actually pleaded for a reduction in the excise duty on petrol, the reduction or even abolition—I could not find out precisely what he wanted—of sales duty, and he complained about over-taxation on income tax. One asks oneself whether it requires “courage” to do this sort of thing. Does it require special courage on the part of the Government to say that excise duty should be reduced, that sales duty should be abolished, that less income tax should be levied, etc? No, just the opposite. I should like to make the point that this Opposition blew hot and cold in making these demands.

We are still going to hear a great deal more about that …

The hon. Opposition have also been pleading for tremendous expenditure. For no rhyme or reason the hon. member for Von Brandis simply wants to share out the R130 million in capital intended for Iscor. The hon. member for Yeoville described these concessions as being not significant at all. Additional pensions and social services are being asked for, and as recently as last Friday the hon. member for Yeoville asked for an unemployment allowance for the non-Whites in the homelands which could be proof that they were looking for work but were unable to find any. I think it is unfair of the Opposition to present the image to the outside world that they are pleading the case of the man in the street. They only emphasize that the State should make concessions, should give subsidies, should pay higher pensions, etc., whereas they do not say one single word about the other side of the matter in order to balance the scales. Not once did we hear them referring to increased public revenue to finance the expenditure. Perhaps I am very young in this House and also in economics, but to my mind it really is a very simple matter that one cannot only give on the one hand without taking on the other, unless, of course, one talks like the hon. member for Hillbrow, who says the State should create money. To my mind we have here another piece of irony. The same people who are in fact accusing the Government of socialist tendencies when we talk about public corporations, are the very people who are pleading for increased pensions, etc., public expenditure which is typical of a socialist system. To me personally it was incomprehensible criticism when they accused the hon. the Minister of socialist interference in the case of public corporations, especially if one has regard to the hon. the Minister’s defence. He said that we were basically a capitalist state and could not simply proceed to increasing subsidies and pensions disproportionately. Philosophically that would be wrong since it would rouse expectations in respect of many other things on the part of the general public. From this debate, and from every other debate conducted on inflation, it is clear that the solution of the problem of inflation is to be found with the individual and not with the State. If the individual is not prepared to contribute his share, the State cannot simply go on giving. One should therefore get away from the idea that people are becoming more and more dependent on the State to meet their needs.

What about the aged?

And the sick people?

What does one do with them?

We as the Government have done enough to accommodate these people and solve the problem, I should like to say a few more words about the philosophy of the hon. the Minister. We had some mathematical images from the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke this morning. I want to use a circus image to describe the philosophy of the hon. the Minister. A circus lion is a very dangerous animal. However, he can earn a great deal of money for his trainer. If the trainer metes out the necessary cuts to keep the lion in his place, yet vicious and lively at the same time, that lion is going to earn a great deal of money for his trainer. However, if he gives him too many cuts that lion will lie down and be worthless, but if he does not give him any cuts at all, that lion will devour his master. I think the hon. the Minister has succeeded over the years in not giving the economy so many cuts that it has lain down. Nor has he allowed the inflationary tendencies of the economy to devour us. He has kept a calming hand on inflation while stimulating growth with the other hand. The Budget he presented to us is being accepted in all quarters as a Budget which makes provision for growth and curbs inflation, a Budget which is flexible in order that it may adapt and stand certain shocks.

The hon. the Minister has even allowed this lion many liberties. Last year he allowed 30% more money to be created here whereas only 5,2% more money was created in America. I should like to mention a few more figures to show the extent to which it was possible to strike a balance in the economy and, when the economy had flattened off, to find the necessary stimulus to get the economy going. As regards domestic trade in the period January to June of this year, there was an increase of 22,7% above the figure for the same period in 1973. I know that high prices were partly responsible for that, but there was also substantial growth in volume. In the fixed capital formation by the private manufacturing industry, there was a decline of 13% during the 12 months ended in June last year. This year there was an increase of 20%. Just one last figure, because I do not want to bore this House with figures: in the 12 months which ended on 30 June 1974 there was an increase of 9,4% in the volume of factory production as against only 4.8% in the previous 12 months. What is particularly interesting is that this increase in the volume of factory production involved mainly durable and semi-durable goods. To my mind our public deserves a pat on the back for the fact that there is an upswing in the demand for these things which are durable, although some luxury articles have also been included.

I want to refer, in conclusion, to the so-called “gross ideological product”, the creation of the hon. member for Yeoville. He said that South Africa would have been much wealthier if we did not have all these boards and measures of control for regulating the movement of labourers, etc. However, I want to submit that if there had not been an ordering of labour in South Africa, the very topic he touched upon, this country would not have been as stable as it is. In that case we would not have received these investments from abroad and we would definitely not have had the wealth we do have today. What about their federal policy? Will there be no measures of control? Every type of policy requires a certain cost to put it into operation and to keep it in operation. Therefore, if the hon. member speaks of a “gross ideological product” which he wants to lay at the door of this Government, the boomerang will come back and hit him between the eyes, for things will be precisely the same as far as their policy is concerned. Actually, the hon. member for Von Brandis paid us a very fine compliment. He said that the inflation in South Africa did not have an economic origin but purely a political origin. Then he said that the classic economic measures would not solve the inflation in South Africa. However, when we consider our relatively low inflation rate in South Africa, we would do well to export our political inflation to those countries which have a substantially higher inflation rate. I think they would like the type of inflation we have here. I think his idea of a purely political inflation is a silly one.

Finally, I want to put forward a few ideas on decentralization. In this very session the hon. member for Gardens saw fit to describe decentralization as follows: “Illogical, indefensible for ideological purposes.” Then the hon. member for Von Brandis came along today and said: “we firmly support decentralization.” I want to make a point in regard to the whole question of decentralization, with reference to the statement by the hon. member for Gardens that we shall have to build five, ten, 15 cities the size of Cape Town. He said it during this session. If it is necessary for us to build so many cities, if it is necessary for us, as the hon. member for Yeoville said on Friday, to have development of the agricultural industry in the homelands, to involve in the capitalist system Black people “that we cannot continue to dominate economically”, to have factories where we can provide the Black people with employment, to create posts, etc.—these are things for which the National Party Government has been pleading for a long time—why cannot this just as well be done in or near the homelands? I want to say why I believe we have had such slow decentralization up to now. I believe this is because of the political connotation which that side of the House has given to this question of decentralization. The majority of the undertakings in the outside world are controlled by people who, to my mind, do not share our political views. I doubt whether they would stand on our side of the political wall. If that side of the House would take it upon itself to encourage people to decentralize at an earlier stage, for the sake of the matters the hon. member for Yeoville pleaded for on Friday, we would have been much further today than we are at present.

Mr. Speaker, then there is just one last matter: The Opposition have accused us of not having one specific philosophy, whilst they themselves have been coming forward with contradictory socialist and capitalist policies. Some of them take up the attitude that it is illogical to decentralize; others take up the attitude that it is logical to decentralize, as did the hon. member for Von Brandis in this session, but here I want to add that the hon. member hastened to qualify this by saying that he did not advocate this for the sake of ideological factors. Sir, if it is true, therefore, that there is so much double-talking and so much confusion in the ranks of the Opposition. I want to lay one major reason for this at their door. Sir, there are hon. members on that side of the House who have the know-how, the experience and the insight to make very good contributions in the economic debates. The hon. member for Yeoville is a respected person in financial circles. I want to tell them that if they could only get themselves so far as to put all their economic theories into one single casting-mould, they would perhaps achieve something through their attacks on the Government, for then they would be able to launch proper, economically substantiated attacks on the Government, but their problem is in fact that they do not have a specific philosophy; they have ten different philosophies; they do not have the casting-mould which can give dynamic force and impetus to their economic standpoint. Since the hon. member for Yeoville was responsible for a fresh breeze manifesting itself on the Opposition side when he pleaded for the creation of posts in the homelands and for decentralization, I want to express the hope that hon. members of the Opposition will not only plead for these things in this House, but also convey that message to their business friends outside this House, not only for the sake of its economic aspects, but specifically for the sake of its ideological aspects, and that they will make an attempt outside this House to cause decentralization to take place at a faster rate. Mr. Speaker, if the Opposition are prepared to plead for an infrastructure in the homelands, if they are prepared to support a colossal Defence Budget, which is really contrary to economic principles, then they should not accuse this side of the House of unnecessarily adapting this Budget to ideological considerations, for then they would be doing exactly the same thing, but it seems to me as though they are beginning to understand the situation in which we find ourselves. Sometimes it is necessary to bend an economic law for the sake of political convictions, and that is the very thing which they are also advocating now. May I therefore express the hope that they will not present ten different fronts next year, but that they will make a positive effort to establish, with the support of their business friends, in conjunction with the Government, the necessary infrastructure for the development of the homelands, and to create the necessary posts for non-Whites there.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to speak on this occasion about the question of the Press, which accounted for such a major part of the discussion here this morning, simply because it was raised by another hon. member. There are other matters which I should like to deal with; but certain questions were put to me here, and I do not wish to create the impression that I am evading them. Consequently I just want to express here, in brief, two thoughts on the question of the Press. The first is this: Those who sat here with me in the days when Dr. Albert Hertzog was here will remember that I never had any sympathy with the stories he used to spread here about the sinister control Mr. Harry Oppenheimer was allegedly exercising over the political opinions of the English-language Press. Even when I was sitting on that side, I did not have any sympathy with Dr. Hertzog and with his obsessions about the control of the English-language Press, simply because I knew from experience that this was not true; and in regard to that matter my attitude is still exactly the same. Sir, the second is this: I have never subscribed to the outlook that whatever is Afrikaans is morally obliged to support the National Party, and that whatever is English has a moral obligation to support the United Party. We on this side are not an English party; we are a South African-oriented party, and we believe that every person, whether he is English or Afrikaans speaking, should feel free to choose his party and his politics according to his likes and according to merit, irrespective of what his cultural background may be. For that reason I myself have never resented any English-speaking person for having joined the National Party, nor have I considered such a person to be a kind of traitor because he is English speaking and has chosen the National Party. [Interjections.] I have never adopted that attitude. I regard an English-speaking person as being just as free and just as entitled to choose his political side as I am, and in my view the same goes for the Press at large. I reject the idea that an English-language newspaper is under any kind of obligation to support the United Party simply because it is an English newspaper. Sir, there are Afrikaans newspapers which criticize the United Party, and there are English newspapers which do the same, and in my view the one does not have less of a right to do so than has the other. It goes without saying that every party would like to see itself getting the support of the entire Press if possible, and I myself should like to see the Press in general supporting the United Party, but I cannot claim this as its party, to give preference to certain political trends, as it chooses, and to plead for changes. That is why I reject any attitude that amounts to considering an English-language newspaper to be acting subversively, to mention that example, if it criticizes the United Party or advocates changes which affect the United Party and which are not liked by everybody. If a political party feels that it is not getting a good Press, there are two remedies open to it. It can work towards gaining the support of that Press, just as it is working day after day towards gaining the support of the electorate, or it can establish its own newspapers, as was in fact done by the National Party. But to take the view that a newspaper is acting subversively if it does not support one and one’s party unquestioningly, is to my mind completely in conflict with the politics of democracy.

I put two questions to the hon. member this morning. Will he reply to them?

Unfortunately time is so limited; I think I have replied to those questions; the hon. member can check my speech again. Sir, in spite of the defeat we suffered in the April elections. I think most of us came to this session, this first session of a new Parliament, with a certain measure of expectation; and the reason for that is this: during the election campaign of April several leaders of the Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, created the impression in their speeches that the Government had developed a certain understanding in respect of the threats with which South Africa has to contend today, and that action on the part of the Government could be expected. After all, he came back to this House with an increased mandate, and there was reason to hope that he would arrive at this session with a political agenda of urgent change. Against the background of the events in Mozambique and Angola and the increasing pressure against us on our borders, our growing problems with South-West Africa, and the international onslaught against us at the U.N. and elsewhere, and together with that, of course, also the intensified demands made by the non-White population groups in our country, it is true to say that this session has been characterized, conspicuously more so than was the case before, by a spirit of concern about the safety and security of our country. In fact, my view is that since the days of Sharpeville we have perhaps not had another session in which Parliament, generally speaking, has been as aware of the gravity of the situation in which we find ourselves as is in fact the case in this session. But the question is this: How much progress has in fact been made? It would be unreasonable of any person to suggest that nothing special has happened and that now, at the end of this session, we stand exactly where we stood at the start of it. I am referring, of course, to the predominant question of human relationships. It must be conceded that a number of important changes have taken place. We have had the important new policy in respect of the representation of South Africa at the U.N. A good precedent has been created, a precedent one will not be able to change easily, for on every future occasion on which South Africa will show its face on the international platform, this will have to be a representative and multi-national face. The Departments of Foreign Affairs, Information and Tourism will simply have to hurry up with the training of non-White personnel to help with the promotion services of South Africa in countries abroad. I think it will never be possible for this situation to be different again.

Nevertheless, I want to be frank and point out the following: To us on this side the importance of this step lies not only in the influence which it will eventually have for South Africa in the outside world, but also in the implications which it must gradually have in the internal political set-up. There can be no co-operation between White, Black, Brown and Indo-South African on our fronts abroad and in the fighting lines of our borders without this not having to lead gradually to co-operation on the political and social fronts within the country itself. If there are hon. members who do not realize this yet, or do not like realizing it, I believe that they will in fact see the inevitability of it later on.

During this session we have also had a number of other adaptations that are important. To my mind the most important one is what happened to and in respect of South-West Africa. The National Party of South-West, which has the support of by far the majority of White voters in South-West, have finally realized that their salvation does not lie in trying to find a future in isolation and away from the other population groups in South-West. They realize now that there is only one way of resolving the South-West issue, i.e. that the various population groups in South-West Africa itself, Whites and non-Whites together, will have to work out their own independence for themselves in Windhoek and nowhere else, and that they will have to do so by way of direct round-table negotiations and agreement. Even the disappearance of the system in terms of which only the Whites of South-West are being represented in this Parliament has been envisaged by Government members. I must say that this is indeed a remarkable adaptation that has taken place. It does not matter whether this has been effected under pressure of circumstances; it is important that it has been done and that such a new course has been adopted.

I want to say in passing that I am rather sorry about the fate suffered by Mr. Jannie de Wet, the Commissioner-General for the Native Nations of South-West. In the interview he had with the Sunday Times on the future of South-West, this unfortunate man did no more than propagate the gist of Dr. Verwoerd’s Odendaal Plan. The ideas he expressed do not differ fundamentally from the political ideas which speakers and candidates of the National Party in South-West dished up to the electorate of South-West only six months ago on the occasion of the April election. However, the fact that ideas as Mr. De Wet did, is to my mind still the best proof of the new approach that is evident. What is to my mind the most interesting aspect, though, is above all, the faith which Mr. Jannie de Wet expressed in an internal confederation as a solution to South-West Africa’s problem of multi-nationalism. However, he is not the first commissioner-general to do this. A former commissioner-general, the late Prof. Hannes Bruwer, expressed exactly the same conviction, except that he used the word “federation” and not “confederation”. In A Dictionary of Political Analysis, a British publication, the word “confederation” is defined as—

“Previous powers”.

Yes, “previously autonomous powers”, not “sovereign powers”. In other words, a confederation, just as is the case with a federation, is not without an umbrella authority or “collective authority” with limited, agreed-upon powers. Let met say at once that it is unnecessary to quarrel about the difference between a federation and confederation. There are constitutional lawyers in Europe who hold the view that a confederation is a more firmly connected form of federation than a federation is, whereas those who have had British training hold just the opposite view. In the major part of Europe a federation is accepted to be a more loosely connected relationship than a confederation is. One finds that a country such as Yugoslavia, with its six republics, considers itself to be a federation. There are other examples which I could mention. On the other hand, Switzerland, with its federal parliament, is considered to be a confederation. Similarly, the Constitutions of America, Canada and several other countries which I could mention describe these countries as confederations. I repeat that I am not interested in quarrelling about the finer shades of meaning implied by these two concepts. The fact of the matter is that both are based on the same principle, namely a political unit in which provision is made tor such decentralization of authority as may be necessary for protecting the various regional or ethno-cultural interests, or both, against domination. All I want to add here is that I have no doubt in my own mind that the Republic and also South West are unavoidably going to develop in a federal direction. The best proof for that is to be found in the fact that every adaptation made on the part of the Government today contains to an increasing extent the acknowledgement that our various population groups in South Africa are interdependent and that the one cannot do without the other. We shall simply have to find a course along which we shall be able to co-operate politically with one another without the one threatening or dominating the other. Basically the same goes for the relationship between our country and our neighbouring states and countries in Africa. Considering the events that have taken place during the past week, I want to say I am pleased it has dawned upon the Government that if a country wants to have friends it cannot find those friends on its own implacable terms only. The world does not work that way. Hon. members will recall that there was a time when the Government took the view that we wanted friends and the countries in Africa, but that they had to accept us on our own terms with our apartheid and all and as we were. However, I notice a change in attitude, a realization that accommodation between states simply cannot be achieved if both stand on its own terms having to be accepted fully by the other. The way I see it, this is the attitude adopted at present: “Let us talk, even about our domestic policy, and see where we can effect improvements in order to reach an understanding.” [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. members must not converse aloud.

On behalf of this side of the House I want to say at once, as far as the foreign aspect is concerned, that this is an attitude which we heartily welcome. We are terribly pleased that new hope for an understanding between us and especially Zambia has come about during the past week.

†Zambia occupies a key position in African affairs. We believe that a genuine understanding between South Africa and Zambia could change the whole face of Southern Africa. The interests of the countries of Southern Africa have become so interlocked that it would be short-sighted leadership on the part of any leader concerned if he did not support determined efforts to find mutual understanding in respect of the problems which are associated with Southern Africa. One need only consider the question of harbour outlets, of communications in general, development projects like the Kunene scheme, Cabora-Bassa, Kariba and others, which stretch over more than one country, to realize how interdependent the countries of Southern Africa really are. In fact, I wonder if any of the more difficult problems of Southern Africa can be solved separately and in national isolation. The statement made by President Kaunda on Saturday is tremendously encouraging, and so is the statement by the hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Everybody is holding thumbs that we are indeed on the threshold of a new deal and accommodation between the countries of Southern Africa. Sir, I want to say to the Minister of Foreign Affairs that we are prepared to give the developments an open chance and not to express more than cautious comment until the developments have gone somewhat further. One does not want to be too optimistic about things, but nevertheless I think I can say that we all look forward to the day when there will be a summit meeting of the leaders of all the countries in Southern Africa including, of course, South Africa and Zambia and the new Governments of Mozambique and Angola. Perhaps we should look again at the Lusaka Manifesto on Southern Africa and see to what extent it could become a basis for discussion with a view to finding agreement and understanding. Undoubtedly we will all welcome the day when Pretoria or Cape Town becomes one of the venues for summit meetings of Southern African leaders or for meetings of a wider African nature.

*Time will not permit me to examine further the process of adaptation and change of Government policy which has become perceptible during this session, however limited this may be. But it must nevertheless be clear to everybody that a certain consensus has developed here. One can almost say that an unwritten “bill of rights” has quietly been born here in Parliament. Its main points, as I see them, are, firstly, that supremacy, domination and dominance have become untenable and cannot be upheld; secondly, that all population groups, including the Whites, are entitled to being safeguarded against domination by others and the obliteration of its national identity; thirdly, that colonialism has become just as untenable as has supremacy; and, fourthly, that the time is past when one could discriminate against a person solely on account of his colour or his descent. It is interesting to all of us to see how sensitive and jumpy hon. members opposite are of late whenever mention is made of discrimination. The trouble is, however, that there is still a gap between this new attitude on the part of the Government and the practical situation. More than anything else at the moment we expect the Government “to translate their fighting words into action”, to use a quotation. This is really the main criticism we have against the Government. We believe that it is too nervous of the electorate and, consequently, too slow to do what it has to do. Frequently it is a Government of reaction which would rather react to pressure than take the initiative in a manner indicative of sound advance planning. Take the two examples I mentioned, namely the fact that non-White leaders were taken along to the U.N. and the new course adopted by the National Party in respect of South-West Africa. Both of these are commendable, but for a period of almost two years South Africa was in a most advantageous strategic position in respect of the U.N.—that was in the time when the Security Council gave Dr. Waldheim a mandate to conduct dialogue with South Africa and to conduct negotiations on the future of South-West. I believe that if the Government had in that time, in that period of silence, arrived there with these non-White leaders, and if it had in that time brought together the population groups of South-West on the basis of an open agenda to decide on a joint future plan for the Territory, our position would not have been nearly as difficult as it is today, that Dr. Waldheim might still have had his mandate, and that the circumstances in which our membership of the U.N. is being threatened would not have been what they are today. One can only hope that the Government will safeguard itself against the tendency of allowing itself to be overwhelmed by events before it takes any action. The country expects from the Government a new political agenda, a new series of priorities which will reflect the urgency of the situation. The very first thing it will have to do will be to move at a much faster pace as far as the abolition of petty apartheid is concerned. To be worth anything, it will have to be seen to be abolished. Not a single day passes without incidents. Just to mention another example, the other day The Cape Times carried the report that prominent people, a White man married to a woman of another race, got off a ship in Cape Town and could not find a taxi in which he and his wife could travel together. This is but one example, but such incidents occur day after day. We must eliminate situations of this nature if we want the world to attach credibility to what the Government says it will do. We cannot go on this way. The Government must immediately put an end to separate entrances, counters and lifts in the official buildings of the country.

The hon. member for Carletonville referred here to the policy of geo-political separation. In principle there can be no objection to this if it is everybody’s wish, but if the Government is in earnest about the creation of Black states, within or outside the Republic, states which will constitutionally co-operate with the rest of South Africa or be associated with South Africa in some way or other, it must stop its process of evasion. Then the Government must come forward and really create those Black states. We do not expect the Government to implement our policy, but when is it going to start with the formation of states in terms of its policy? Surely no intelligent person in South Africa would say that a political patchwork quilt such as KwaZulu or Bophuthatswana could ever become an independent state within or outside the Republic? As I have said, we do not expect the Government to implement our policy, but if the Government is in earnest about its own policy, there is only one way it can set to work, i.e. it has to stop moving people to and fro and it has to redraw the map of South Africa by indicating now the borders of the Zulu-controlled area, the Tswana-controlled area, the Xhosa-controlled area, etc. The Government must bring this matter to finality if it is at all going to do what it says it wants to do; otherwise we must come to the conclusion that the Government cannot do it or is not going to do it. Once this map has been redrawn, it can conduct negotiations on the position of the Whites in those areas and that of the Bantu outside those areas. Up to now there has been no evidence of states actually being formed, but we hear about emerging states all the time. If the Government is unable or does not have the drive to form the states for which its policy is supposed to stand, it does not have a hope of succeeding.

The other priority to which the Government must give attention is the question of the Coloureds and the Indians. Nowhere else in the world would one find any Black people, Brown people or Indians who are not governing themselves, but here we still have the situation that the Government has given the Coloureds a council, a council which they will now have for another five years, and which for a third consists of appointed members. We also have the Indian Council, of which the vast majority of the members are appointed, whilst the Indians are the most experienced non-White people in South Africa—a council which consists of members of whom the vast majority are appointed by the Government. Experience has shown that if one conducts negotiations with people and really wants to solve something, one has to ensure that one is dealing with a representative body. The Government can enter into as many negotiations with a body as it pleases, but if that body, of Coloureds or of Indians, is not absolutely representative of that particular people, everything done by them will be rejected because that body is not representative. If we really want to work out a future for those people, the Government must scrap at once the election which is to be held by the Coloureds, and say to them: “I now grant you a fully elected council, and once you have finished electing your members and have established your own executive committee elected by you yourselves, we can come together and talk about your future.” It should do the same as far as the Indians are concerned. If it cannot do so now, I think that we shall not be able to accept the Government’s credibility. I want to emphasize this: It is no use conducting negotiations and reaching agreements with any council which is unrepresentative. I hope that the Government will think along these lines; for wherever negotiations are taking place, they should be conducted on a basis of equality with the White elected Government of the country.

Our security demands that there should be an understanding between Whites and non-Whites; but an understanding can only be effected if the basis on which discussions are conducted is one of equality. There will be no equality as long as the Government conducts discussions with bodies of which it itself has appointed part or most of the members.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members will perhaps pardon me if I do not say a great deal today about what was said by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. It was probably just another typical Japie Basson speech. Perhaps I could just comment on one point he raised. If I understood him correctly, he said that one of the features of this parliamentary session which is drawing to a close now, was the concern for the security of our country. I want to suggest that he has allowed himself to be seriously misled if that was what he had said. One wants to pose this question: Where is this really being said and where is this feeling prevalent? It is most definitely not the case on this side of the House. In the light of the facts I want to say today that South Africa is the safest country on the entire continent of Africa. Internally law and order is being maintained in such a way that the whole world may take this as an example. Our policy is quite clear as far as South-West Africa is concerned. We stated unequivocally that we are leaving it to the various peoples of South West to consider their future. This includes all the peoples. To my mind this is a very reasonable and sensible policy.

Sir, I hope you will grant me the time to refer to certain standpoints adopted and arguments advanced by, inter alia, the hon. members for Yeoville and Constantia, who discussed economic matters. I want to deal with these matters as quickly as I can.

†When I said that inflation at the moment was running at approximately 12%, the hon. member for Yeoville interjected and said “No. 15”. In his speech, he subsequently came back to the point and said that my figure was not correct, and that, in fact, the rate of inflation was higher. I just want to mention that, on the basis of the statistics I have, which are official statistics, if you take the average over the 12 months to the end of September—that is the latest period for which we have the statistics of the consumer price index—and you compare it with the figure for the previous 12 months up to September 1973, you find that the average increase in the inflation rate was 10,6%. By taking 12 months, you are in fact eliminating most of the seasonal fluctuations. In fact, these are figures adjusted for seasonal fluctuations. I want to say at once that one can make a very serious mistake if one simply takes the figure for one month, for example, September, and compares it with the figure for the same month last year. Supposing there had been a big adjustment in rents, for some reason, which had not been included in the figure for last September, the comparison could be completely misleading. The same applies to any other item of cost. So one must average out these statistics. This is, of course, a very well known statistical procedure. Measured in this way, the average increase in the inflation rate for the year ended September, 1974, compared to the year ended September 1973, was, as I have said 10,6%. I made a rough calculation and, in fact, I overcompensated for the seasonal adjustments. I come back to the point I have made before, i.e. that this is one of the lowest rates in the world. Extraordinary as it sounds, we have an inflation rate of 10,6% and yet it is one of the lowest in the world. There is not the slightest doubt about it. The hon. member for Yeoville mentioned a figure of 15%. The only way I can get 15% from the official figures is by comparing September 1974 with August 1974 and multiplying by 12 to get the annual rate. That gives 14,9%, but as I mentioned a moment ago, it is a very dangerous procedure to base your figure for an annual rate on the basis of one month. Therefore, I come back to 10,6%, which is in fact lower than I stated.

I want to say further that we have investigated this problem of inflation as we best can and we have found—this is no easy calculation but it has nevertheless been carefully done—that of this average increase of 10,6% in the general price level as measured by the index over a period of a year to September 1974, the imported content is between 4% and 5%. So for less than 11%, the imported inflation may be said to account for four-elevenths to five-elevenths of that amount, which is a very substantial figure. The rest, of course, arises in different ways here. I want to say at once that I am not complacent about this issue and I never have been. This inflation rate is certainly too high, but at least in South Africa where we have this inflation rate we also have full employment, as anybody who studies the situation would have to call it, unlike many countries where there is serious unemployment and higher inflation. At least we have this measure of inflation but also virtually full employment, and in some sectors over-full employment, where we simply cannot employ more workers. We have a rapid and a sustained rate of economic growth, by all accounts at least 7% per annum in real terms at the moment. It is certainly one of the highest in the world, and one we are fortunate to have, so at least we have this very substantial compensation which many other countries have not got. In fact, if you look at the average rate of growth in the leading economies of the world, the picture is an exceptionally sombre one and I do not have to go into the figures again.

When it comes to what we are doing about inflation, we have a problem. I think one can say the best minds in the world today are extended to the limit by this issue and if one reads what the great authorities say in different countries of the world, one will not find any consensus. One will find substantial, and in some cases, fundamental differences of approach and it all adds up to a very intractable problem. However, I should like to say that when people point a finger at the Government and ask what it is really doing, we could halt this inflation in its tracks. We could simply embark on a comprehensive and drastic policy of control of prices, costs, wages, profits and dividends, and we could slap a complete prohibition on the issue of credit. Thereby we would undoubtedly bring down the average price level—make no mistake about that—but we would also bring down other important things in the process, something we simply cannot afford to do. We would so severely and adversely affect our growth rate that we would have a very grave problem in trying to maintain, let alone increase standards of living. In fact if we adopted this extreme approach to inflation we would very gravely impair our growth rate and we cannot possibly risk that. It is for this reason that we say our approach is to endeavour at all costs to keep the growth rate going. We do not say that we can necessarily keep it at 7% for ever—it is a great challenge—but even if it came down slightly, we would show a very substantial rate of growth. We do say that we must do everything possible to enhance competition in the economy. I am not satisfied that the economy is as competitive as we could possibly make it, and I think we have to take a very long and critical look at efficiency in our economic institutions, at our labour, at our management, and at the use of capital. This question of productivity is at the very core of the problem. However, I think those are constructive approaches and not negative and destructive ones in the context in which we find ourselves. I do not want to take that matter further, but if I may I should just like to comment briefly on the hon. member for Constantia’s remarks. I enjoyed reading the hon. member’s speech. I am sorry I was not here to hear it. He put forward a very careful argument, I thought, on protection policy. He seemed, I think, to be critical of the protection policy in regard to textiles, a criticism which he has already expressed earlier in a previous debate. He also mentioned the motor industry. I would just like to say that in regard to protection our policy is very clear. We are doing everything possible to steer away from import control. Import control is a direct control, a quantitative control. One simply says that certain goods will not come in. We are practising much less import control than a number of other countries with which we trade. The hon. member will know, for instance, that our import control is very much less severe than that of the United States, for instance. We do this deliberately. But where we feel that it is essential for us to accord some measure of protection to industries which deserve it, we do so. I think my hon. friend, with his business experience, will agree that we have not yet reached the state of Utopia where we do not require some measure of protection against severe competition from outside, at least for certain industries. There are some industries in this country which are still building up and which have a great future. However, they do need what I call “protection”, which in fact, I think it is, in order to really get on their feet and make themselves thoroughly viable.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question before he leaves the question of import control? Is he providing, as a condition for the issuing of import permits, that long-term overseas credit must be obtained as a qualification for import permits?

No, it is not a condition. I am glad the hon. member mentioned this. We do suggest to importers that they should try, in these days of relatively tight monetary conditions all round, to get longer terms and they should also try to get more overseas financing wherever they can.

But you are refusing permits that do not have credit.

No, I would not say we are refusing. We are reviewing the matter the whole time, and there may be some examples. However, it is not a condition. That would not be the only consideration by any means; I can assure the hon. member of that. The hon. member for Constantia felt that the latest duties we imposed on textiles in that tax proposal perhaps went too far. He said that some of the taxes were excessive. I cannot agree there because we had a very serious problem that arose, and I do think that I tried to put my case at some length in a previous debate. I believe that the measures we took were absolutely essential. In fact, in the short time that has elapsed since then, the benefits of that are to be seen because this industry is gradually getting back on to an even keel. In relation to the other argument that we should exempt goods already on the water or in bonded warehouses, I did mention, in the previous debate, that we would of course refer the matter further to the Board of Trade and Industries for a more thorough investigation because we had to act very quickly on the previous occasion. This has been done, and as soon as I have the opportunity, the Department of Industries and I will examine the Board of Trade’s report on this very carefully. At the time I did not have the power to grant any relief. We can, however, do it by way of a Board of Trade recommendation by Government notice, in terms of the procedure which the hon. member knows. If it is necessary, we shall adopt that course. We shall then table that notice next year and we can discuss it and review the position again, but I merely want to say that that is a matter which we shall give very careful thought to in the next couple of weeks.

Coming to the motor trade, a very important industry, the position there is that some of the traders selling motor cars are finding that credit conditions are somewhat stringent—and there is no question of that—but all round the figures of motor car sales for the first nine months of this year show only a very small drop on the figures for last year. It is a very small drop percentage-wise. Nevertheless it is a drop and I accept that. It is not something we want to see and I want merely to assure the hon. member for Constantia that I have for probably two months or more been discussing this whole matter with different branches of the motor industry and with certain other interested parties. We have gone into the matter very carefully. Perhaps the most careful inquiry into the motor trade lately has been done by the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut. We have been discussing these matters and giving great care to the whole future implementation of the so-called local content programme to see whether, as has been represented to us from certain sources, and important sources, we should bring forward the so-called standstill period, which would have operated in 1977-’78, to give an opportunity to the manufacturers to consolidate. I am not in a position to give a final decision on that now, but I will be ready soon to do so because we have been busy on it for two and a half months. I did undertake to have discussions with one of the interested parties again, and I must do that first. But I can assure the hon. member that we are looking at the whole issue to see whether in fact that policy is inflationary at the moment, or seriously inflationary, and what some of the other problems are that might attach to it.

*I want to leave those aspects at that. I just want to refer to two matters which I consider to be very important, and I think the House will also regard them as being important. I want to refer to the response to my request and appeal to the public to support the fuel savings measures as strongly as possible.

†You know, Sir, I was greatly astonished at the way some of the newspapers reacted to this appeal. I stated three reasons and I said I thought any one of them was sufficient to justify my making this appeal to the public once again. There is great uncertainty about the fuel and oil situation throughout the world. That is constantly being brought to our attention by the very best experts we can consult. There is the necessity to build up our strategic reserves of oil and fuel. We have got to do this in this uncertain world in which we are living. There is the very substantial cost, an enormous increase in the cost of fuel and oil imports. I thought that I would give the reasons to the public, and that once the public knew all the detailed reasons, they would simply support us hands down and there would be no more problems. Now, Sir. I do not think a single member on that side of the House would differ from me on this. When France recently announced that they were going seriously and severely to curb the import of oil next year in order precisely to conserve oil and to reduce the heavy drain on the balance of payments, did France give all these various particulars as to what the different measures they had adopted had meant in terms of quantities? Of course not. When America recently again stressed that they would maintain and strenuously implement their speed restrictions, which even on those enormous highways was 88 km per hour, did anyone object?

But Europe did away with all speed restrictions.

No, let us just talk about these cases, which are very good cases. Here is the strongest economy in the world saying they have to discipline the people to save fuel. But they do not give the figures; they do not say what percentage they will save or have saved, or what it has cost them in extra fuel. These are things which surely the Government must judge, whether it should do these things in the national interest. What has the reaction been? I was relying on the Press.

America gave those figures six months ago to the nearest barrel.

Sir, I have contacts in a number of countries in this connection. We are studying the issues the whole time. I have just spoken to a world authority on what is happening in the U.S.A. and I can assure you that man says we are absolutely correct in what we are doing. He says we have no option. But what does the Rand Daily Mail do? I expected these newspapers to support us. This is in the national interest. It is not any pleasure to me to be the Minister responsible for these curbs. The nicest thing for me to do would be to let them go, because all I get for doing this is severe criticism, but that is fair enough and I am not trying to evade my duty. But immediately the Rand Daily Mail said: “Give us the facts, and if you do not give us the facts we cannot take this seriously.” That is in effect what they said in a leading article, and they are not the only ones. I can cite others. But I really think this is a very serious issue. And do you know the way it was put? What did I say? I said—and I think this is important—that this was not a political issue. I said that in this House. I said we were continually being asked: “Why not immediately introduce legislation in terms of the National Supplies Procurement Act, to make provision for the withdrawal of licences of people who drive in this way, people who repeatedly ignore these appeals to drive more slowly? Why not do this, or indeed, confiscate the vehicles? Why do you not do these things in the national interest?” That is the representation being made to me. This is how I put it. I did not say that I was going to do this. In fact, what did I say? I said I did not wish to make threats of any kind, but I would appeal to the public to make a great national effort. It is all here. But what happened?

But what about a reasonable speed limit?

The hon. member for Durban Point is a fairminded man. Let us see how this was put to the public. It was put to the public in one newspaper after the other, and mostly in the English newspapers. Why? It was said that I had uttered threats. I had threatened to withdraw licences, or even confiscate vehicles and that I was brow-beating people, and there were all sorts of other phrases which were used, some of which were very unpleasant. Why make a personal attack on me by distorting what I said? These things were not said by me. I said these were representations. I received letters, and people came to see me, saying: “We can do these things and we can abide by those regulations, but a lot of people are not doing so, and why should they get away with it? If you can withdraw a licence because a man persistently drives dangerously, why can you not do so if he persistently ignores this appeal in regard to a matter of national importance?” I did not say it at all. I made no threats whatever. But look at the Press, and the reaction of the English-language Press in regard to this, and you will see nearly throughout that I have been presented as if I was threatening the public with all sorts of dire measures. Had I wanted to introduce these measures, I had a perfect opportunity, because in a day or two there will be a measure before this House to amend the National Supplies Procurement Act in order to give us the opportunity to appoint inspectors and controllers more effectively than we have been able to do, and so on. I could very easily just have inserted a clause there to cover this whole thing. I deliberately did not do it because I do not want to wield the heavy stick and neither does the Government. However, I think the time has come for a little bit more responsibility on the part of newspaper editors and newspapers on a matter of national importance. I make that appeal tonight and I think the great majority of the public would like to see that and are going to watch to see what happens.

May I ask the hon. the Minister in relation to the releasing of information and his judgment that he should or should not do so, whether it is not correct that earlier this year his predecessor, the hon. S. L. Muller not only stated that we should aim at a saving of 35% but in addition gave weekly percentage figures of the savings which had been achieved?

It is correct. I believe my predecessor did give that information early on. The matter has been discussed very carefully with the Controller of Petroleum Products and it is felt very strongly that we should not continue making those figures available.

But did you not also say that no country ever gave that information?

No, I say you won’t find it at the moment. On the information given to me I can say that none of the countries imposing these restrictions are prepared to release such statistics. The other point to which I should like to come …

May I ask a question?

I really have very little time. I have an important matter to discuss and I, therefore, hope that the hon. member will bear with me for a moment. Time is marching on.

I want to refer to another important issue, viz. the question I was dealing with in regard to allegations of corruption and the way in which this was represented again by most of the English-language newspapers.

And by Rapport.

Yes, Rapport did have a little reference … [Interjections.] … and I shall refer to that. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister has very little time left.

This is not a political issue. I do not think it is a political issue and when I have dealt with it, hon. members can judge. I am not attacking the other side. I am putting what I believe is a very fundamental issue here and I do not wish to bypass anybody. What did I say when I dealt with this issue? This is what I said—

I then proceeded to say that we had given careful thought to a measure which would be a perfectly democratic measure on all fours with our legal system in every respect. How was this presented? Hon. members have probably seen the newspapers, but if I were to read some of the calumny and the slander which have been hurled at me by some of these newspapers, I think everybody in this House may feel it is a disgrace. I do not think this House feels this is the way our public life is to be run. When it was asked whether I had in mind some sort of curb on the privilege of members, I said “Of course not; it has never entered our minds”. I made it in a Press statement, but how many newspapers have published that Press statement? I have a long article here by the Tribune in the course of which they quote the opinions of a whole series of extreme leftists. There is Barend van Niekerk, a man who stands rather seriously discredited, because look back at his record and see what happened to him in the Supreme Court of South Africa recently. Then there is Gordon Bond. These are people I know very well—they are extreme leftists. These are people whose opinions they published; they do not present a representative view. [Interjections.] Yes, you can see the levity, Mr. Speaker.

Order!

What did the Sunday Times do? I listened with the keenest interest to the hon. member for Simonstown’s speech on Saturday. I am not in a position to tell hon. members whether all the details he gave of the Press organization as an interlocking industry are correct, but I want to say that I believe that that speech of the hon. member for Simonstown marks a very important occasion in this House. He spoke some very serious truths. Why do we have to put up with this slander, calumny and defamation when we try to carry out our duty? What does the Sunday Times say in its leading article on Sunday? Talking about me they said … [Interjections.] Wait a minute; I think the hon. member for Yeoville ought to be quiet. He is rather rapidly acquiring a reputation in this House for being frivolous. What do they say here? They say—

I say this is a blatant falsification of the truth it is a deliberate distortion of the facts, because what I said is on record and my Press statements, which they had, are on record. They go further and say—

There is not, Mr. Speaker. You cannot libel Iscor. How does Iscor get redress against a libel charge? It is absolute nonsense and it is misleading the public. What do they say further? Referring to me they said—

The Sunday Times had before it my Hansard in which I dealt at length with the great authorities whose views are accepted throughout the English-speaking parliamentary system or, let us say, the democratic parliamentary system. That is clear and yet they completely ignored that and they came back to this point which has no substance.

Order! The hon. the Minister’s time has expired.

There is one further blatant lie here, Mr. Speaker, which I would have liked to have dealt with. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. the Minister himself has demonstrated this evening why he gets into trouble with all these extreme leftists. I must say that if he includes as an extreme leftist the editor of Rapport, I think the hon. gentleman is losing his sense of responsibility as well.

Are you a Rapportryer now?

One sat in this House, one listened to that hon. gentleman and one heard what he said. Even the Leader of the Opposition after listening to the Minister’s speech put this question to him at the beginning of the debate: “Perhaps he will tell us then whether in his view the absolute privilege accorded to members of this House should be restricted in any way? ” The hon. the Minister asked: “Who suggested that?” The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that he, the Minister, had made threats that members who made statements in this House would be called upon to substantiate them outside the House.

No.

The hon. the Minister says he has not.

I said in my statement …

I do not care what the hon. the Minister said in his statement. I am concerned with what he said in this House. Talking about these matters he said—

Does he remember that? Perhaps he will give me his attention. Does he remember that? He said—

He was referring to hon. members. I must say that it ill becomes a gentleman who has the privilege of speaking in this House because he was appointed, firstly, as a Senator and, secondly, as a Minister, to start to question in any way the right of hon. members of this House, of the Volksraad, representing the people, to question anything this Government does. I think it is an impertinence on the part of the hon. gentleman to make any kind of suggestion like that.

You will have to do a bit better than that.

I am going to do better than that. The hon. gentleman has been blustering here all the time and has fumbled and bumbled the whole thing. Then he blames the Press because of the nonsensical statements he has made. He does not even tell us what he wants to do. He did not bother to tell us what sort of measures he had in mind. He is still mumbling and bumbling about it and we still do not know in fact what he wants to do. I wish he would tell us.

It is perfectly clear.

What is perfectly clear? That he has made a statement which has several meanings and that intelligent people have taken his statement to mean what they have interpreted it to mean? They are quite entitled to do it. We expected him to give us a clarification of what he means, what in fact this legislation is, whom it is going to affect, and what that effect will be. But what does he do? He fiddles around until his time has expired.

Just you wait for your time to expire.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that his attitude towards State corporations is an alarming and authoritarian attitude. It is an attitude that will not be tolerated by us on this side of the House. I would have thought that hon. members opposite would also have found the situation intolerable when a Minister threatens us and says that we are asking too many questions about public corporations.

I do not often ask questions but in the light of what has been said and the very clear and authoritative statements I made on the answering of questions affecting public corporations, will the hon. member tell the House precisely where he differs from those authoritative opinions which I am carrying out?

That is another thing that hon. gentleman has to learn about this House.

Answer him.

I am answering him. When the Minister has something authoritative to say he should say it in this House. We will then debate, discuss and examine it, because that is the function of this House. [Interjections.] Does the hon. gentleman mean that all this hocus-pocus nonsense that he spoke here under this Vote was authoritative statements?

I do not think you were here.

I was here.

Did you not hear me quote Ralph Kilpin?

Yes, and if the hon. gentleman would look at his Hansard he will see that there were two interjections by me. One of them was when he was talking about Britain and the House of Commons and what you cannot do in relation to questions. I asked him whether they did not have select committees in Britain to deal with State corporations, but he did not care to answer that. That hon. Minister misled the House when he spoke about public corporations. I will not say that he deliberately misled the House, Sir, because you would not allow me to say it. I would not say it anyway because that would mean that he knew what he was talking about. But he did not know what he was talking about. The fact of the matter is that in Great Britain it has been the practice for a long time for select committees to sit in relation to nationalized industries and State corporations. Why did the hon. gentlemen not tell the House that? Was it because he did not know or because he did not want us to know?

What has that to do with the answering of questions about public corporations?

That has everything to do with it. We deprecate the attitude of this Minister to questions in this House about State corporations. He went to great lengths to say that he should not answer these questions because these bodies were autonomous. The growth of State corporations in South Africa and their assets and what they handle have now rached an alarming state as I shall demonstrate.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, I am informed that I have only seven minutes before the time allotted for this debate expires. I would like to get on with what the hon. the Minister said. He said he made an authoritative statement to the Press and that it was not published. I asked him why he did not make the statement here to which his reply was: “Well, I did make it here”, but one does not really know what the hon. the Minister means. He worries how the hon. the Leader of the Opposition could have got the impression that he wanted to gag MPs or in any way affect the absolute privilege members have in this House. His statement was in fact taken up by the Press. Indeed, it was printed in The Cape Times which reported as follows:

According to the report legislation to stop this kind of thing will be put before Parliament early next session. Furthermore, the hon. the Minister warned that even M.P.s would “find themselves in trouble if they do not act responsibly.” What does that mean?

What statement is that?

It is your authoritative statement to the Press which was printed in The Cape Times and which I must say is clearer than what the hon. gentleman said in this House. Then he wonders why people are under the impression that this is in fact the kind of legislation that is contemplated. This is a threat to the absolute privilege that we have in this House, and it comes from a man who is not even a member of this House and who cannot take part in any of the decisions of this House. Indeed, he apparently does not want to become a member of this House. Although he is called the leader of the Nationalist Party in Natal, for want of a better descriptive noun, as the leader, he finds it impossible to stand for election in any constituency in Natal.

Where is your leader for Natal?

He could have stood against the man he calls our leader, the chairman for Natal, my bench mate, in Zululand and if he had stood there, he would have lost and he knows it. That is why he did not stand there. He had another opportunity to come to this House. He could have stood again against my bench-mate in Umhlatuzana but he would not do that either because he knew he would not have got in.

Mike, you are really funny! Tell us about the results in Natal.

Even in 1945 when these State corporations were still in their infancy, Gen. Smuts, whom those hon. gentlemen say was a very authoritarian person, said that some of them and especially corporations such as Iscor should be accountable to Parliament. I do not have the latest figures but in 1970 the balance sheets showing the money or assets controlled by four State corporations, i.e., the IDC, Iscor, Sasol and Escom, who all use public money, exceeded by R200 million the entire Budget for the country, a Budget on which this House spends at least six weeks, or it did last year anyway. They are entirely excluded not only from control by this House but also from the investigations of the Public Accounts Committee, the watchdog of the people and of this House with regard to Government spending. The hon. the Minister, I think, must appreciate what he is dealing with. He has a pet among all these State corporations, and that pet is Iscor. He asked my hon. friend from Yeoville whether he had ever heard of the authority on public finance, Deviti de Marco.

What are you reading from?

I am sorry, I am just reading Hansard. If the hon. the Minister does not bother to correct me, that is his trouble, not mine. However, let me tell him about his little pet, the one about which he levels accusations left, right and centre. He does not want members to ask questions about it.

The one I defended against false accusations.

Yes. The authority I want to quote is the late Prof. Ben Roux. He said the following:

What has the hon. the Minister got to say about that corporation now, which in fact, is in competition, as he conceded, with private enterprise. There are at least 20 first-line public corporations like this over which the public and Parliament, their watch-dog, has no control whatsoever. That hon. gentleman, instead of applying his mind to accountability to Parliament, applies his mind rather to finding ways and means of gagging Members of Parliament who merely ask questions. He is the hon. gentleman who earlier was trying to create the impression that in the House of Commons members had no right at all to ask questions about these public corporations, whereas, in fact, in Great Britain they do have this right, as he ought to know. All he has to do is to go and look at some of the reports that are around. Since 1956, they have had Select Committees of Parliament that have the power to look into these organizations and call before them, as the Select Committee on Public Accounts and the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours do, all the people concerned and examine, not only policy, but the whole direction and the whole principle of the spending of public money.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 87.

Mr. Speaker, as you will understand, it is very difficult at this stage of the debate to effect proper co-ordination between the business of this House and that of the Other Place. I think we need to prepare some work tonight in the form of legislation which may go to the Other Place tomorrow. For that reason I do not want to continue with this debate and I accordingly move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members are aware, the Coloured Development Corporation has as its objective the advancement and progress of Coloured people in the industrial, commercial and financial field, which objectives are being pursued in Coloured group areas and industrial areas. In 1966 the Corporation was declared a statutory body for the purposes of the Group Areas Act. Although the Corporation, therefore, is able to acquire immovable property in Coloured group areas without a permit in terms of the provision contained in section 29(1)(a) of the aforementioned Act, this has little practical use since the development projects of the Corporation are being undertaken by its fully owned subsidiaries, i.e., companies in which the Corporation holds all the shares. At the moment the Corporation has no group character as statutory body in terms of the Group Areas Act and therefore its associated companies have to be regarded as unqualified to acquire or occupy land or premises in Coloured group areas unless the necessary permits are obtained. The task of the Corporation can be facilitated if its projects are exempted from the abovementioned statutory requirements. The best method of achieving this is to declare the Corporation’s subsidiaries which launch its projects to be companies in which members of the Coloured group are deemed to hold a controlling interest. Only companies in which the Corporation and/or its fully-owned subsidiaries and members of the Coloured group have the majority shareholding are involved in this.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has presented this Bill with commendable clarity and brevity and I shall be equally brief. I want to say to him that we appreciate the necessity for this legislation. We feel that it is desirable in that the Coloured Development Corporation should now be classified as a Coloured company and any of its interests or subsidiaries will now be confined in their activities to declared Coloured group areas. I believe that it is also desirable that one should include the provisions contained in this Bill to control the transfer of shares in these companies created by the Coloured Development Corporation to members of the Coloured group. One hopes that this will take place at an ever-increasing pace so that the Coloured people will obtain a steadily growing interest in these industries or businesses which are established in their group areas. I hope that it will also lead to the elimination of what I believe to be an undesirable practice at the present moment—the hon. the Minister must certainly be aware of this—namely that businesses or industries established in Coloured group areas are ostensibly Coloured according to the share register but that in fact Coloured persons are being used more on an agency basis than in an ownership position to represent White interests. I hope that where instances of this nature come to the notice of the hon. the Minister or to the notice of the Coloured Development Corporation steps will be taken to ensure that those businesses established in a Coloured group area are in fact set up for the financial benefit, as shareholders, of the Coloured population, and that they are not merely being used as nominee shareholders to cover up White interests in the Coloured group areas. We support this measure.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move subject to Standing Order No. 49—

I should just like to thank the Opposition and hon. members of this House for their general support of this Bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Hon. members are aware that the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions is a department geared mainly to rendering service to fellow human beings. In fact, this is the reason why this department’s legislation is being awaited with so much interest and why it is possible for us to discuss it in such a good spirit in this House.

As hon. members will notice, quite a number of very important pension laws are affected by the amendments which we propose here. The relevant provisions are, as usual, aimed at improving or supplementing certain pension laws, and are actually self-explanatory. From the nature of the case legislation of this nature can be discussed in a much more profitable manner during the Committee Stage. Therefore I only want to refer to one or two aspects of the Bill at this stage.

The provincial ordinances regulating matters relating to the pensions of members of provincial councils contain, just as is the case with the Parliamentary Service and Administrators’ Pensions Act, provisions in terms of which special pensions are payable in respect of service rendered by a member as the holder of some or other official post. Hon. members are aware of the provision in terms of which any person who becomes a member as defined in the Act may elect to count for pensions purposes his service in respect of which he made contributions to a provincial pension scheme, and of the conditions attached to such an election.

As hon. members are aware, however, no recognition is given in respect of the service rendered by a member in an official post with a provincial council. Furthermore, it should be noticed that if such a person should lose his seat or die before having at least years pensionable service to his credit, he or his widow will, as matters are at present, receive no pension because he gave up his special pension and does not qualify for a pension in terms of the Parliamentary Service and Administrators’ Pensions Act. In the light of these facts you will agree with me, Sir, that the provision that a member has to give up his special pension whilst receiving no recognition for it is unfair, and that the matter ought to be put right. Consideration has been given to the possibility of recognizing the relevant periods for pension purposes for the sake of these members, but unfortunately it is not so easy to devise a workable formula on the basis of which this can be done. I have therefore decided, as an alternative, that it would be fair to allow the members concerned to retain the special pensions. I am sure hon. members will agree with me that this arrangement is justifiable and fair.

Section 10 of the Act provides that if a Minister or any other member of Parliament is appointed to the office of ambassador without there being a break in his service, such Minister or member shall remain a member of the pension scheme for parliamentarians as though he has continued to be a member of Parliament. For pension purposes, therefore, his service as an ambassador is actually a continuation of his parliamentary service. This arrangement has the advantage that such Minister or member can improve his pension position while serving as an ambassador or in a related office.

However, a short break in his service as a parliamentarian or an ambassador, even if it is for only one day, has the effect that his membership of the parliamentary pension scheme is terminated and that his pension in terms of that scheme immediately becomes payable to him. We may therefore have the position that two Ministers or parliamentarians, both of whom are appointed as ambassadors, are treated differently in that the one remains a member of the parliamentary pension scheme whilst the other, because there was a short break in his service, finds that his membership is terminated and that he immediately becomes a pensioner of that scheme.

This arrangement makes for undesirable results in that some members are given an advantage over others or are prejudiced in relation to other colleagues.

To a Minister or member of Parliament appointed to the office of ambassador, such an appointment really amounts to a large extent to his continuing his services to his country. What is more, there is no real reason why he should not continue to be a member of the parliamentary pension scheme.

In the light of all these circumstances it has now been decided that any Minister or member of Parliament appointed to the office of ambassador shall remain a member of the parliamentary pension scheme. In that way we are eliminating anomalies and ensuring that nobody will suffer any loss.

To link up with this, therefore, I should also like to refer briefly to the provision which we envisage by clause 13, in terms of which any right to a pension under the Parliamentary Service and Administrators’ Pensions Act will in future lapse as soon as a person who is or will become entitled to such a pension is elected to the office of State President. This will prevent the possibility of the State President receiving two pensions, or of his receiving in future a pension while holding the office of State President.

Mr. Speaker. I should also like to refer very briefly to the formula which we have devised for calculating the special pension. As the relevant Act reads at present, it means that every time salary adjustments are made section 9 of the Act must necessarily be amended. We find this to be unnecessary and a waste of the valuable time of this hon. House, and that is why we have devised a formula which will produce the same result as does the present method and will at the same time eliminate this unnecessary periodic amendment of the Act.

A good friend, who recently decided to retire, has been acting as the champion of the Bantu volunteers over the years. I am referring here, of course, to Brig. Bronkie Bronkhorst, who, as hon. members will recall, has been pleading so persistently for Bantu, too, to be accepted as war veterans in order that they may also be eligible in terms of the War Veterans’ Pensions Act. Although I cannot refrain from pointing out that it was actually the United Party which, in the first instance, was not prepared to accept the Bantu as war veterans, it nevertheless gives me pleasure to announce tonight that the Cabinet has decided that the definition of “war veteran” should be amended so that it may also include the Bantu. I am sure hon. members will welcome this announcement.

A last aspect to which I want to refer is the provision which we envisage by clause 13. Hon. members will recall that during the debate on this department’s Estimates a great deal was said about pensions, and that hon. members on that side, as well as the hon. the Minister, pointed out that it was desirable for every person to contribute to a pension fund or scheme in order that he might make provision for his own old age in that way.

Hon. members are also aware of the fact that some services which used to be rendered by some or other local authority have been taken over by the State and that, from time to time, other services will also be taken over by the State in this way. In such cases those persons employed by such institutions will become employees of the State. By way of this clause we are arranging for the retention of the previous pensionable service rendered by the persons concerned and making provision for the transfer of their contributions to the Government-controlled pension fund in question.

Sir, I refer specifically to this clause in order to illustrate once again the serious attitude adopted by the Government in regard to the retention of pension rights, and in order to point out that, as far as membership of the pension fund is concerned, no additional financial burden is being imposed on the persons concerned as a result of the take-over of such services by the State, for, as hon. members will notice, we are providing that any deficits which may arise in the pension fund in the process of recognizing their previous service will be met out of the Public Exchequer. I think this will suffice for the time being.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House indeed welcome the Second Reading of this Bill. As I understand that this is the first time that the hon. the Deputy Minister is introducing legislation in his capacity of Deputy Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, it is pleasing to note that this legislation is constructive and will as such be of great assistance to a number of people who will benefit from the provisions thereof.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has explained the basis of this Bill but there are one or two observations which we on this side of the House would like to make. I first of all come to the position of war veterans and the position of military pensioners, a matter which has been discussed in this House on many occasions. It is therefore, pleasing to see that the additional bonus to be paid to those persons who receive pensions under the War Pensions Act, will be payable as from 1 December, bringing the bonus up to 60%. In regard to those persons who receive benefits in terms of the War Pensions Act—in other words, war disablement pensions—I should like to point out that in terms of the 6th schedule of the Act of 1967, although it provides for pensions for widows and dependants of all race groups, a situation was created whereby a gratuity was payable only to White persons. In terms of clause 2, a gratuity is now to be paid to the widow on a certain basis, as far as clause 2(l)(a) is concerned, of R132 and of R44 per child, as far as persons other than Bantu are concerned. Therefore one must assume that this is applicable to Indians and Coloureds. The next paragraph of the same subsection, paragraph (b), grants a gratuity to the widows of R66 and R22 per child for “Bantu volunteers” which were the words used in the original Act of 1967. Although we welcome this provision indeed, it is certainly a matter in regard to which I understand the South African Legion and the Moth organization have made repeated requests. This gratuity that is to be paid appears to be based on the ratio of 4: 2: 1. I think it is unfortunate that due consideration was not given to the narrowing of this gap and to amending this ratio. We know that the hon. the Minister of Finance and indeed the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions have indicated the Government’s intention of narrowing the gap as regards pensions and awards where they are based on race. Here we have an example where the Government could have seen fit to amend the ratio of 4:2:1 and where meaningful steps could have been taken to narrow the gap as far as that payment is concerned.

While still dealing with the position of war veterans, hon. members will know that the definition of “war veteran” in the Social Pensions Act of 1973 still precluded the Bantu people from being classified as war veterans. I thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for paying a compliment to Brig. Bronkhorst, a former member of this House who used to raise this issue as a hardy annual. If I may say so, Mr. Speaker invariably ruled him out of order when he wanted to discuss that under the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions’ Vote. It has appeared in this Bill today, however, as being under the authority of the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. Therefore it does appear that Brig. Bronkhorst’s persistence has had its reward. The S.A. Legion, which plays a very vital role in looking after the welfare, the rights and benefits of ex-volunteers, as well as the Moth organizations, also deserve credit for persuading the Government to take this step which we welcome 100%. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give us some indication in his reply to this debate of whether he has had a discussion with the Minister of Bantu Administration in order to ensure that by amending this definition it will really become effective and from what date it will become effective. If one looks at clause 20 of this Bill, a clause which deals with the commencement of certain provisions of this Bill, the particular clause which amends the definition of a war veteran, namely clause 15, is not indicated there. For that reason I should like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister when this will be given effect to. I should also like to know from him whether he has had negotiations with the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development so as to en sure that these people will be able to receive the additional benefits which have been enjoyed by Whites, Coloureds and Indians in the past. Will they be receiving an additional allowance and will they also be able to qualify for a pension at the age of 60, or before 60 in the care of poor health or certain mental conditions? These are the material benefits which will arise from the amendment of the definition of “war veteran” as contained in clause 15 of this Bill.

The hon. the Deputy Minister referred to the preservation of pension entitlement of persons who are presently employed by local authorities and who belong to a pension fund which has been established by the local authority. Of course, this is only applicable, as the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated, where certain functions are taken over by the Central Government and these people then become the employees of the State and therefore are entitled to join the Government Service Pension Fund. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister can give his attention to a further extension of this provision, perhaps at a later stage, in order to ensure that all persons who are able to join the Government Service Pension Fund are able to retain some degree of their pension benefits, which they might have achieved under some other employer.

There is one other aspect which requires some comment. Members of the House will recall that on a previous occasion we had legislation ensuring the pension benefits, for example, of employees of the Durban Corporation who were in the telephone department. When the telephone department was taken over by the State, legislation had to be introduced for the transfer of these people to the State in order to safeguard their pension rights. Similarly, when Bantu authorities and some of the Bantu Departments of local authorities were taken over by the State, these people too were given the opportunity to join the Government Service Pension Fund. However, in both instances, there was the right to elect to remain a member of the pension fund of the local authority should the person so desire. If one looks at clause 16 as it stands here, it appears that these people do not have the right to elect to remain a member of the pension fund of a local authority should they so desire. I think it is quite an important point of principle as far as their pension rights are concerned although I immediately concede that in terms of the provisions of this clause, if the contributions of a person previously employed by a local authority do not meet the requirements of the Government Service Pension Fund, this will be set right by the State. This is a generous provision to assist these people to transfer their pension rights.

Other clauses of this Bill deal with a matter which is close to the heart of many of us sitting in this House, viz. the Parliamentary Pension Scheme. We agree that it is necessary to amend any pension scheme from time to time. We know that with the passing of time certain difficulties arise although in practice these difficulties can be eliminated. We also find certain anomalies arising from time to time which can be met by means of legislation as well. First and foremost we would like to welcome the provision whereby persons in receipt of special pensions which have been earned by occupying posts in the provincial service are after transfer to the Parliamentary Pension Scheme, still able to receive special pensions in terms of the Provincial scheme. However, there are also other difficulties that can arise. If a person who is a member of a provincial scheme and who has had eight years’ service under that scheme, transfers to the Parliamentary Pension Scheme, his provincial service is reduced to only four years’ pensionable service as far as the new pension scheme is concerned. Should he cease to be a member of Parliament and his total pensionable service is less than seven years and six months, such person could lose his right to a pension, whereas if he had remained in the provincial council, he would have received retirement benefits in terms of that scheme. I understand that this point has received the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister. It is an important point, particularly where a new Parliament has recently been elected and we have the opportunity to set right certain shortcomings that might exist.

The provision whereby a member can qualify for a maximum pension after 15 years is a welcome one. We have seen from time to time that members have been elected to this House and have had to sacrifice their careers in the private sector or careers in professions for which they are qualified. If they were elected to this House at the age of say 45 years, at the age of 60, having served for 15 years, it would be almost impossible for them to pick up the threads of their professions or seek any other form of employment in the private sector. I think this is a fair and just assessment because today the demands on a member of this House in particular make that membership a fulltime occupation. It certainly makes it extremely difficult for a member still to participate in the private sector or to further any other career.

The hon. the Deputy Minister also dealt with the formula that is applied when calculating the additional pension which a person holding the office of Cabinet Minister or some other office of this House is to receive. If one takes an example based on this formula, it would appear to be an improvement on the previous system whereby merely set amounts were allocated. Based on this formula it does appear to be a fair and equitable way of granting the additional benefits to persons after they have gone on pension.

There is another aspect I would like to deal with, namely that the provisions of the Parliamentary Pension Scheme are a vast improvement over the provisions of the existing position. I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider some kind of assistance to those persons who have qualified for pensions on the old basis. I believe it is important that some provision should be made in this regard and I also believe it will also be possible at some future date to devise a means whereby these pensions can be adjusted on a regular basis. If one looks at the legislation that was passed in 1973, the Pension Laws Amendment Act of 1973, one finds that it does make provision for pensions to be increased from time to time under the authority of the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. However, if one compares figures, this vast improvement will mean a considerable gap between the pensions of persons who receive their pensions under this scheme after 1 July of this year, which is the effective date for all the provisions amending the Parliamentary Pension Scheme, and those of persons who ceased to be members at the last general election. I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister the position of a person who under the old scheme served for 16 years and was therefore elected in 1958. Such a person qualified for a pension of R5 200 per annum, having made contributions for 16 years on the basis which was then applicable of one-twentieth of his salary. In terms of the provisions which are now to be passed by this House and which are to be effective from 1 July, that person would qualify for a pension of R9 100 per annum. Such person moreover made contributions for a period of 16 years, whereas in terms of the provisions we are now to pass, it is necessary to make contributions for only 12 years, after which the contributions cease.

One can see therefore that the person who contributed for 16 years on the same basis of 8% of his pensionable salary is in fact almost R4 000 per annum worse off than he would have been had the provisions of this legislation been applicable prior to 1 July or, indeed, prior to the last general election. I mention this in the hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister and, in turn, the Cabinet, will perhaps give due and sympathetic consideration to assisting those persons who are already parliamentary pensioners and who are finding it extremely difficult to maintain a reasonable standard of living due to the escalating cost of living.

We support the Bill now before us and believe it is a considerable improvement on the existing position.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umbilo has once again with his redoubtable ability covered every aspect of this Bill. We in these benches would add our own word of welcome to the introduction of this Bill and would also say a word of congratulation to the hon. the Deputy Minister, who, with this Bill, has introduced legislation for the first time this session. When one looks at legislation of this kind, it is always helpful to look back a little to see what the attitude of the Government and, indeed, of the House itself has been on matters related to pensions. I have been looking back a few years and in doing so, I noticed in particular, even as recently as last year, a very interesting development and change that has taken place. I refer especially and quite briefly to the amendment which incorporates Africans, or Bantu, as it is stated here, as war veterans. I think the hon. member for Umbilo is being unduly modest in giving praise to a number of other people and organizations. I think he ought to take a great deal of that praise and credit himself because, in looking back, it is quite clear that he, too, has fought a long war or battle in order to have this change made. If one look at the debate on this very issue last year—I refer to the Hansard of Tuesday, 27 March, 1973, col. 3503-4—the then hon. Deputy Minister who is now Minister of Justice had very different views on this question. I refer to this, not to score a cheap point or to ask: Why did you not do it last year? I merely want to give those of us on this side of the House a little of hope, because if that attitude could be adopted a year ago, and we see this quite drastic change now before us, who knows whether there might not be other changes along the way as well?

I can also not resist referring to an interjection which was made first by the hon. member for Rosettenville, and then in response to him, by the hon. member for Gezina. I am sure he remembers it. At that time the then Deputy Minister said that it was quite impossible to make this change, but that some indication might be given in terms of homeland legislation. I now quote from Hansard—

Do you recommend that?

Then the hon. member for Gezina interjected to the hon. member for Rosettenville—

I do not know whether the hon. member for Gezina wants to apologize now. However, we are delighted with this change and we hope very much that this trend will be maintained. The principal Act, the War Veterans’ Pensions Act, 1968, lays down different scales The hon. member for Umbilo has already referred to this aspect. I would simply like to make the point that it is unfortunate and a matter for regret that the gap between pensions paid to veterans and others, of different race groups, is so large. One would hope very much that in the same way as this change is now being introduced, a different kind of change may well be entertained for the future. It seems that, whether one is Black or White, when one is fighting and defending one’s country and facing hazards and dangers, there ought to be due consideration of this fact. There should be a reward for those people who respond in that way to the challenges in the past and of course for those who will respond to the fresh challenges that face us now.

There are many other matters which one could raise. However, it would serve no purpose simply to repeat the arguments which have already been made and ask questions that have already been asked. We would simply say that we welcome this Bill very much indeed.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members opposite, specifically the hon. members for Umbilo and Pinelands, for the positive spirit in which they conducted this discussion. I should just like to say to the hon. member for Umbilo—this applies to the hon. member for Pinelands as well—that, as far as the qualifications for the dependants of non-White war pensioners are concerned, the position is simply that we still have a ratio of 4: 2: 1. I hope hon. members will at least view it as a real narrowing of the gap. The fact is that the last figure of the ratio used to be 0, and now we have already reached this stage. However, I should like to add that this clause actually gives effect to an announcement made by the hon. the Minister of Finance during the short session earlier this year. It is in accordance with the schedules to that Act as they read at that time. If hon. members were to look into this matter, they need have no doubt that the Government will also approach these matters sympathetically in future.

The hon. member for Umbilo asked me whether there had been discussions with the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development regarding the payment of social pensions to Bantu. I should like to reply to that in the affirmative—there were discussions with both the Deputy Minister and the Minister himself, and on the level of officials as well. They are satisfied that it can be done by way of regulation. I was told that the intention was that it should be done as from 1 December this year, because that particular department also needed time to prepare itself for this arrangement.

The hon. member for Umbilo also referred to the position of members of this House who had already been contributing for 16 years and who actually had to contribute for 20 years, and said that they were actually worse off than members who joined now under the new scheme. I should like to point out to the hon. member that the contributions which were paid were in fact paid at the same rate, but at a far lower salary, and I think that if one takes into consideration the fact that the members who are still contributing, the younger members, do it on a bigger amount, it is more or less equal.

The hon. member referred to the position of members of the provincial council who were elected to this House and whose term of service there was halved for the purposes of this scheme and might fall away before they qualified for seven and a half years’ service. This is a theoretical problem. The hon. member for Griqualand East also discussed the matter with me. We went into the matter, but I do not believe it will be worthwhile making an amendment to the Bill at this late stage, because I cannot recall a single case of this nature. However, it remains a theoretical possibility. In the meantime, however, there are other ways of dealing sympathetically with such cases. We can go into the matter further.

That is about all I want to say as far as ex-members are concerned. The hon. member also referred to ex-members. I regret to say that we cannot accept the view that automatic adjustments should be made for those who have already retired. The hon. member referred to last year’s legislation, which provides the Minister with the necessary powers. This means, in fact, that the Cabinet passes a decision to effect improvements in the pensions of ex-members when the time is considered to be ripe. However, should it amount to automatic adjustments, I have to point out to the hon. member that there would be no reason why any other group, especially social pensioners, should not insist on the same adjustments, with appalling consequences for the Treasury. The fact simply is that certain categories of pensioners are affected, and that their position may deteriorate as the laws are amended from time to time, but I think hon. members may be satisfied that the Government keeps a close watch on this situation in order to make the necessary adjustments from time to time.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 16:

I would be grateful if the hon. the Deputy Minister could confirm the position as far as the transfer of persons who are employees of local authorities are concerned and who then become employees of the State. A provision is made in the clause to facilitate the transfer of pension benefits they have built up in terms of a pension fund applicable to the local authority concerned and makes provision for shortages that might arise. However, it appears as if no provision is made for the right of the person so transferred to elect to remain a member of the pension fund of the local authority. I shall be grateful if the hon. the Deputy Minister will indicate to this Committee whether he has given consideration to this point and if there is a provision in this legislation in terms of which it will be possible for such a person to have the right to elect to remain a member of the Local Authorities Pension Fund.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry. I should have replied to that point as well during the Second Reading debate.

For persons falling in this category it is certainly more profitable to join the State scheme. If one takes into consideration all the advantages arising from the State scheme, one realizes that it is more profitable to join that scheme. The problem is just that people do not always exercise the right choice. Perhaps they do not get the right guidance either. Suffice it to say to the hon. member that by joining the State scheme the officials concerned will definitely be much better off, and accordingly it is our intention to encourage them to do so.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill simply gives effect to the recommendations contained in the report of the Select Committee on Pensions. As hon. members know, these recommendations have already been approved by both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated, this Bill merely seeks to give legislative effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee. We on this side of the House support it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This legislation gives effect to a unanimous resolution passed by the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council during the course of its session in August/September 1972, i.e. that with reference to the contributory pension scheme applicable in the case of members of Parliament and members of the provincial councils, representations be made to the authorities concerned for the establishment of a pension scheme of their own for members of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council to which members would also make contributions, and, furthermore, that in the consideration of such a scheme special attention be also given to the possibility of taking into account any service rendered by members of that Council in the former Union Council for Coloured Affairs as service qualifying for the purposes of any pension scheme that may be introduced.

Just as is the position in the case of White parliamentarians, public life also demands sacrifices from a member of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council. Especially in view of the fact that the corps of Coloured leaders is so limited, a member’s entry into public life often results in his having to forfeit or abandon, either immediately or gradually, his business interests or profession or his occupation for the uncertainty of a political career. Hon. members will therefore agree with me that it is right that such a member should at least be able to depend on pension benefits. Hon. members will recall that a Bill to provide for the payment of pensions and other benefits to members of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council was introduced early in this session, and that it was withdrawn, after it had already been read a first time, in order that it might be substituted by new legislation. The reason for this was that the above-mentioned Bill would have had to be amended in several respects in order to bring it in line with the corresponding Parliamentary Service and Administrators’ Pensions Act of 1971, as it has in fact been amended now by legislation which we have just dealt with. This new Members of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council Pensions Bill, which was prepared and introduced, is now based, in all respects where corresponding circumstances apply, on the pension scheme for members of this Parliament as contained in the Parliamentary Service and Administrators’ Pensions Act of 1971, as just amended. Although the Bill is largely self-explanatory, I should like to comment further on some of the most important clauses.

Clause 2 provides that a member must contribute to revenue at the rate of 8% of his pensionable salary, i.e. at the same rate as the one for members of Parliament. Just as is done in the case of members of Parliament, a member of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council will not have to make any further contributions once he has had 12 years’ pensionable service and has contributed to the scheme for 12 years.

Clause 3 deals with the option to have certain service counted as pensionable service. A member may elect to have previous service in the present Council—i.e. service as a member of the Council prior to the fixed date, as well as service in the former Union Council for Coloured Affairs—counted as pensionable service, provided that a member making such an election in respect of service in the Union Council will only have the right to have half of such service in the Union Council counted as pensionable service. This is the same principle which also applies at present to former members of the provincial councils entering the parliamentary service. Just as service in the provincial councils is not comparable with service in Parliament, so service in the former Union Council for Coloured Affairs is not comparable with service in the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council either, and this provision is accordingly quite justified.

For the information of hon. members it may be mentioned that only seven members of the former Union Council for Coloured Affairs are serving in the present Council at the moment, and that at this stage all of them qualify for a pension if they should make such an election and were to cease being a member of the Council at this stage. Hon. members will also notice that the recognition given to such service is not free of charge, but that members wishing to avail themselves of this provision will have to pay for it at the rate of R40 in respect of every month of the period so elected. Such service carries the same pension earnings as does actual service, and accordingly it is fair that it be bought at the same tariff as the one applicable to uninterrupted service.

Clause 5 lays down the amount of the pension payable. What it amounts to is that there shall, on the termination of his service, be payable to a member who has had not less than eight years’ pensionable service, a pension calculated at the rate of one-fifteenth of his highest annual pensionable salary in respect of each year of his pensionable service. This pension is therefore being calculated on the same formula as the one which will now apply in respect of these members of Parliament. For instance, the pension of a member who now has ten years’ pensionable service and ceases to be a member will amount to one-fifteenth of his present pensionable salary of R6 325 × 10, i.e. R4 216-66 per year. The maximum annual pension which a member may earn is equal to his highest annual pensionable salary, i.e. R6 325.

Mr. Speaker, now we come to clause 7, which refers to a number of councillors who, over and above the pension to which they will be entitled as members of the Council, may also receive a special pension by reason of the offices they occupy in the Council, i.e. the members of the executive, the chairman of the Council and related offices such as we have here in this Parliament. The formulae in accordance with which such special pensions are calculated are basically the same as those for which provision has also been made now in respect of members of this Parliament.

Clauses 8 and 9 make provision for the payment of pensions and benefits to widows and children of deceased members. The principle that applies here is basically the same as the one for which provision is made in respect of widows and children of members of Parliament in the Parliamentary Service and Administrators’ Pensions Act, 1971.

The last clause which I want to explain further is clause 18, which deals with the application of the provision of section 22 of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council Act concerned with financial procedures. As section 17(6)(a) of the above-mentioned Act reads at present, the implementation of the pension scheme for the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council cannot be read into one of the matters assigned to the Council to be dealt with by it. Clause 18 therefore seeks to bring the administration of the provision of this Bill under the control of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council as if it is one of the matters mentioned in the said section 17(6)(a). In the absence of this clause there would be no provision for the collection of the pension contributions due or for the payment of the pension in question. Although this arrangement is legally possible as far as the financial implementation is concerned, the said section 17(6)(a) of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council Act does not, however, authorize the Council to make for itself a law relating to a pension scheme for its members. The said section, in so far as it includes the matter of community welfare and pensions for example, only deals with the Coloured public at large. Of course, it is possible to extend this section by statutory amendment in order that the Council may specifically be given the power to make a pension law for itself, but that would mean that a wide detour would have to be taken to achieve precisely what is envisaged by this Bill. Besides, such powers and a pension law of its own will not really be consistent with the existing position, i.e. that the State President determines the allowances and privileges of the Council. Payments, both in and out, under the scheme envisaged in the Bill under discussion will be handled by means of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It is therefore no more than right that, as is the case in respect of hon. members’ allowances, their pensions should also come from the Central Government, and the legislation under discussion is necessary for regulating that.

In conclusion, I should just like to say that through this legislation—I think it will have the support of all sides of this House—the confidence is being expressed which this Parliament has in the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council to develop into a meaningful institution.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated certain background as regards the introduction of this Bill and we on this side of the House give it our wholehearted support as we believe it is most important to ensure that those persons who are rendering a public service as members of the Coloured Representative Council should also have provision made whereby they may qualify for pensions in respect of which they have made contributions. The hon. the Deputy Minister has also indicated the reasons for clause 18 as it stands in the Bill so as to empower the Coloured Representative Council to take the necessary action in reviewing the scheme. The hon. the Deputy Minister has also indicated why it is necessary for this legislation to be passed by this House. We believe it is important that the legislation should be proceeded with in view of the fact that this scheme is one which is agreed upon by the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Coloured Representative Council to ensure that it is a scheme that bears great similarity to the scheme as obtaining to members of this White Parliament. That is why we welcome the Bill. We believe that by the greater contributions and the benefits which will be derived from the contributions and from the services rendered, those persons serving in the council will receive a pension which will be comparable to their service and to the posts that they have held as members of the Coloured Representative Council and the various positions they have held during the life of that council. There are certain aspects, of course, which are applicable to our own Parliamentary Scheme and which are repeated in this Bill. I do believe that they do justify some comment, however. The first one is in regard to the contribution which is made in respect of past pensionable service. This service is on the same basis as our Parliamentary Scheme, namely R40 for every month of service and past service in the Union Council of Coloured Affairs. This seems to be rather a high rate of contribution, in view of the fact that the pensionable salaries that are paid to members of this council are of course on a lower scale Compared to the salaries that are paid to members of this Parliament. I should like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether this rate of contribution in order to qualify past service as pensionable service was an agreed measure as far as the Coloured Representative Council is concerned.

The other aspect which does require some comment is the definition of a “widow” as contained in clause 1 of the Bill. In terms of this clause, a person qualifies for a widow’s pension provided that person was married to the member whilst he was a member of that council. I think this is an aspect which requires due consideration because in the case of a person who remarries after having ceased to be a member of this council and predeceases his wife, the latter would not qualify for a widow’s pension in terms of the Bill as it now stands.

Then there are other aspects in regard to the rates of contribution to which I should like to refer. If one looks at the provisions of the Bill, one will see that there is a provision in terms of which a person who has less than eight years’ service does not qualify for a pension, but this then subject to a refund of such contributions. The refund of contributions is an important aspect because these are the contributions of the members concerned and it is also refundable to a widow should the member leave a widow. Furthermore, it is also refundable to children if there is no widow. Therefore it is important that the refund of these contributions be given due consideration. For that reason it is a pity that the refund of these contributions is only subject to interest at 5% on the aggregate of contributions made, particularly if one takes into consideration the increases in the rates of interest which are presently prevailing. This is perhaps another aspect which should receive due consideration in due course.

We on this side of the House consider this scheme to be a good scheme and one which I am sure will be welcomed by the Coloured community and which will ensure that these people are provided for, that they make a contribution and that they are entitled to certain benefits which are outlined in the Bill before us. We support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, once again I am grateful for the support given to this measure by the hon. member and by the other party on the other side of the House as well.

I should like to reply to the remark made by the hon. member when he said that the contributions which members of the Coloured Representative Council have to pay for past service, namely an amount of R40 per month, is high. This amount is exactly the same as the amount applicable to members of provincial councils who come to this House. I want to point out to the hon. member … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must not converse so loudly.

I should like to point out to the hon. member that members of the provincial council who come here have already contributed at a certain scale as members of the provincial scheme. A similar provision is now being included here. In this case these persons have not made any contribution in the past. If the hon. member were to work it out, he would see that it amounts to approximately the same scale of conditions required of members of this House. I do want to take this opportunity to point out that while a very good pension scheme is being created here for members of the Coloured Representative Council, we are proceeding on the principle that no benefit can be received without an obligation and that such members therefore have to make a contribution as well. I commend the members of the Coloured Representative Council for the fact that in accepting this decision which I quoted this evening, they themselves felt that they wanted to contribute. I think this is a principle we should underline in these times, that every benefit one receives goes hand in hand with an obligation. The hon. member also referred to the circumstances of widows. I just want to point out that these provisions run parallel to those providing for the widows of members of this House. The fact that only 5% plus the contributions are refunded should a person retire or die before 7½ years have elapsed, is also in line with the position in the case of the parliamentary scheme. No one will be able to reproach us for discriminating against members of the Coloured Representative Council. Once again I want to thank the hon. member for his support.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, I am just inquiring of the hon. the Deputy Minister whether where the word “widow” appears one can also apply the word “widower”. In other words, there may very well be a member of the Coloured Representative Council who is a woman and whose husband is dependent on her. In any case, I can see no reason for discrimination on the basis of sex in this Bill. I want to know whether in this case, too, the hon. the Deputy Minister intends “member”, just as in every other Bill, to mean a woman member or a man member and hence “widow” or “widower”.

I can assure the hon. member that she is quite correct.

Do you mean it includes a widower?

Yes.

Clause agreed to House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 49—

Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the Third Reading. I just want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister: Should he find that in fact he was mistaken—because there is a difference of opinion on this—will he undertake to do something about it in the Other Place?

Yes.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Hon. members will recall that in his recent Budget Speech, the Minister of Transport announced that it was the intention to introduce draft legislation to provide for the construction of a railway line between Nyanga and Strandfontein via Mitchell’s Plain for the conveyance of Coloureds being settled in that area, and of connecting lines to serve the proposed new central marshalling yard for the Witwatersrand complex.

A schematic development plan for the Cape Flats, which was approved during 1969, provides, inter alia, for the proposed settlement of large numbers of Coloureds between Nyanga and Strandfontein. The inter-departmental Committee for the conveyance of non-Whites, which has to report on and submit recommendations in regard to transport facilities for the conveyance of non-Whites between legally established non-White residential areas and their centres of employment, examined the anticipated rate of development in contemplated settlement areas in the Cape and the transport facilities to these areas that would be required. According to the Committee’s report it is planned to provide for the housing, by 1983, of some 258 000 persons in Mitchell’s Plain. It is also proposed to settle some 100 000 persons in the Strandfontein area, but this project will not be embarked upon until the development of Mitchell’s Plain has been completed.

It is expected that some 85 000 persons will eventually have to be conveyed by train daily from Mitchell’s Plain. The Committee consequently recommended the provision of a railway line from Nyanga to Mitchell’s Plain and also indicated that it would be necessary to improve existing rail facilities in order to cope with the additional passengers from Mitchell’s Plain and later on, some 33 000 daily commuters from Strandfontein.

The Railways and Harbours Board conducted an inspection in loco in regard to the proposed line of railway. It has recommended that a new electrified double line be constructed for the conveyance of Coloureds to and from Mitchell’s Plain and that the line be extended to Strandfontein when circumstances necessitate this, but on the explicit understanding that the Railway Administration be indemnified by the Treasury against operating losses incurred in the exploitation of the line.

The total cost of the proposed railway line from Nyanga to Strandfontein, a line which will be approximately 17,7 km long, is estimated to be in the region of R13 million. The portion of the line which is to be provided initially, viz. from Nyanga to Mitchell’s Plain, will be about 8 km in length and will cost approximately R6 million. It is expected that it will take three years to construct the section of line between Nyanga and Mitchell’s Plain. Full details of the project are contained in the report of the Railways and Harbours Board which has already been tabled.

*Mr. Speaker, with regard to the proposed construction of connecting lines to serve the contemplated Reef central marshalling yard, I want to point out that the existing yards in the Reef area were originally planned to handle only traffic emanating from their respective responsibility areas. As will be noticed from the report of the Railways Board, however, all the yards on the Reef, with the exception of the yard at Braamfontein, are at present handling large volumes of traffic actually destined for other yards. Consequently these yards cannot handle efficiently the increase in traffic from the areas they serve in addition to traffic which must pass through these yards for operating reasons. The handling of ungrouped loads, constituting the bulk of the traffic, is creating a serious problem since not one single yard in the Reef area has sufficient sorting lines where these loads may be remarshalled and the traffic may be marshalled in block loads, nor is there, in any case, a large enough concentration of traffic in the yards in question to do so. The present mode of operation results in shunting activities being duplicated and congestion taking place. This causes delays to both incoming and outgoing trains, and yards having to be expanded continuously in an effort to cope with the increase in traffic without improving the efficiency of working in any way.

In view of these factors and in order to cope with the numerous problems being experienced, it has been decided to construct a central marshalling yard with adequate receiving, sorting and departure lines for the Reef area. A certain sum has already been sanctioned by Parliament for the acquisition of the necessary land for such a yard and for the preparation thereof; land for this yard has already been expropriated to the north of Daveyton station at Bapsfontein, and it is anticipated that it will be possible to commence with earthworks in 1975.

In order that the central yard may serve the purpose for which it is intended, however, it is necessary that several connecting lines be provided. At the same time it is being planned also to relieve the pressure on existing lines where capacity problems are being experienced or anticipated. Furthermore, with a view to the difficulties being experienced in the Reef suburban complex, connection railway lines between the proposed central yard and the Germiston-Pretoria, Germiston-Witbank, Germiston-Springs and Union-Volksrust sections, as well as a connecting line between Germiston and Voëlfontein station on the Springs-Natalspruit line, will have to be provided.

Industrial expansion in the Vereeniging-Houtheuwel area, coupled with the conveyance of heavy block loads of iron ore from the Northern Cape to Newcastle, is also causing traffic problems in the first-mentioned area already. In addition, the increase in passenger traffic in the Vereeniging area is already hampering the smooth flow of goods traffic there. Consequently the provision of connecting lines between this area and the central yard will also have to receive attention in due course. Similarly, the construction of a connecting line to the North to link up with the Pretoria-Witbank, Pretoria North-Pietersburg and Pretoria North-Rustenburg lines, owing to the anticipated increase in traffic in the Thabazimbi, Rustenburg, Marikana, Beestekraal and Brits area as well as the anticipated increase in traffic to and from the North as a result of the construction of the railway line between Beit Bridge and Rutenga in Rhodesia, and the ever-increasing non-White passenger traffic that has to be conveyed in the Pretoria suburban complex, cannot be delayed for long.

Consignors of cement, lime, fluorspar, sand, iron ore, chrome and other commodities in the area served by the Krugersdorp-Mafeking section are also expanding their activities, and with a view to the problems experienced in the Reef suburban complex at present, especially during passenger train peak periods when goods trains are virtually forced to a standstill, the provision of an avoiding line from Krugersdorp to the central yard will also have to be considered in due course.

Since the proposed connecting lines, which have been set out in detail in the report of the Railways Board, are not intended only for providing effective links with the central yard, but are at the same time intended to relieve the pressure on existing lines where capacity problems are being experienced or anticipated, it will not be necessary to construct all the connecting lines in the initial stage. A further study will be made of the existing and anticipated flow of traffic before a priority order for the construction of the connecting lines is decided upon. However, a start will have to be made as soon as possible with the connecting line between the Germiston-Pretoria line and the proposed central yard as it will be required for the conveyance of construction material to this yard. As a result of the problems experienced in the Reef suburban complex the connecting line from a point between Sundra and Welgedag stations on the Germiston-Witbank line to the central yard will also have to be constructed in the initial stage of the scheme in order to ensure the efficient functioning of the central yard right from the start. The Railways and Harbour Board conducted an inspection in loco in regard to the construction of the proposed connecting lines, and is convinced that the construction of these lines is essential for serving the proposed marshalling yard effectively. In cases where goods and passenger traffic are conveyed over the same railway network it is customary to give priority to the transit of passenger traffic. It is the intention, however, that these connecting lines, once they have been completed, will be used for goods traffic only. This will prevent the present unsatisfactory conditions prevailing in the Reef and Pretoria areas from also being experienced on the connecting lines in course of time, with the result that it will not be possible to utilize these lines productively. It is roughly estimated that a total of approximately 2 500 ha will be required for the proposed connecting lines, and although several years may elapse before some of these lines will have to be constructed, it is necessary that the land required for all the lines be expropriated in the initial stage, otherwise much more would have to be paid for it later on.

The total cost of the railways lines, the total route distance of which is approximately 397 km, is at this stage very roughly estimated at R300 million. Owing to the magnitude of the project—it will be one of the biggest projects ever to be undertaken by the Railways—and the time that may elapse before some of these lines will have to be constructed, it is impossible to give a reliable indication at this stage of the ultimate costs of the scheme as a whole. However, the capital required for the first stage of the project—i.e. the acquisition of the land for all the connecting lines, as well as the construction of the two connecting lines which will be constructed in the initial stage, namely those between the central yard and the Germiston-Pretoria and Germiston-Witbank sections—is estimated at R40 million, of which R12,8 million is required for the acquisition of the land. It is expected that the construction of the lines in question will take four years, whereas the other connecting lines will be constructed as and when circumstances require.

Mr. Speaker, to start with I should like to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that we support this Bill. Having said that, I want to add, however, that there are a few thoughts that one would like to express in regard to this matter. As the hon. the Deputy Minister explained to us, this Bill relates mainly to two projects, namely the line from Nyanga via Mithcell’s Plain which will eventually end at Strandfontein, and the central marshalling yard at Bapsfontein. In his Railway Budget Speech the hon. the Minister announced the construction of the Mithcell’s Plain project. We did of course discuss the matter in this House on a previous occasion. It may be interesting just to point out that as long ago as February 1973, i.e. almost two years ago, the hon. member for Green Point put a question in this House on this very matter. He asked the then Minister of Transport whether it was his intention or whether he had been asked to construct such a line, and the hon. the Minister’s reply at the time was that he had been asked to construct such a line but had as yet done nothing about it since the stage of development reached in Mitchell’s Plain at the time was such that he did not consider it necessary. Almost two years have elapsed since, and now we have a Bill here in which we are asked to approve the construction of this line. Both lines, both projects, were examined in detail by the Railways and Harbours Board, and, on the face of it, everything seems to us to be in order. But I nevertheless want to say that as far as the Mitchell’s Plain project is concerned, specific questions are cropping up.

The Railways and Harbours Board made it very clear that it would take approximately three years to construct this line to Mitchell’s Plain, and slightly longer still to extend it to Strandfontein in due course—as and when required. In looking at the report of the Railways and Harbours Board, we find that a start will be made next year with the construction of the line to Mitchell’s Plain and that it will only be completed in three years’ time. At that stage as many as 42 000 people will be living in that area and 14 000 passengers will have to be conveyed. A year later, in 1977, when we hope the line will have been completed, we shall have 21 000 passengers. The question that occurs to me is this: By what means are the people to be conveyed when they start moving into their houses next year? In the first year there will be 7 000, in the second year 14 000, in the third year 21 000 passengers, and the line will only be in use after three years. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister ought to give this House the assurance not only that he will have this line constructed as speedily as possible, but also that he will give us an indication of what the Railways plan to do to make provision meanwhile, in the transition stage, for the conveyance of these passengers. I can foresee that during the first two years we shall possibly find that buses can undertake the transport. But once the railway line has been completed, we shall find that those people who provided the bus service will apply for licences, for they will be able to argue that they invested thousands upon thousands of rand in providing this bus service and would therefore like to go on doing so. Then we would once again have the question of vested interests, and we would be faced with a problem.

In my humble opinion all of this can be traced back to the problem with which we have been contending in the case of the Railways for years, namely that the Railways wait until the customers are there before they construct a line, i.e. when they know the passengers are there. If they had started three years ago, they could have started conveying these people as from next year already. If they should advance the argument that the line would not have been a paying concern, I can only say that at this stage the line will not be a paying concern either. The hon. the Deputy Minister made it very clear that the line via Mitchell’s Plain to Springfontein would be subsidized by the State.

Strandfontein.

I beg your pardon, Strandfontein. This is a serious matter, for we are dealing with thousands upon thousands of people, 14 000 in the first two years, who will really have no transport because the railway line will not have been completed yet. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell us, firstly, when they are going to start constructing the line, and, secondly, when the Railways will be ready to convey the passengers of that area. This is a matter of the greatest importance to these people. As far as the Coloured population is concerned, there are some objections to the idea of Mitchell’s Plain. It would be a great pity if we should have to leave these people in the lurch as regards transport. For that reason I want to plead with the hon. the Deputy Minister to do his best to expedite this matter and to assure this House that there will be no delay and, in addition, to tell us when he thinks the Railways will be in a position to convey these passengers.

The second project, Sir, is an interesting one to me, i.e. the one at Bapsfontein. Here again we have an interesting position. We are dealing here, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, with the biggest project in the construction history of the Railways. It is going to cost R300 million. It is a most essential project; I have no doubt about that. It is a project which will be constructed over many years. The Railways and Harbours Board has told us that the figure of R300 million is a very big one. But it is actually an estimated figure, because the project is still going to take so long that one cannot determine now what the cost is going to be. All I have to say to that is this: When I think of the term “cost escalation”, which is used so frequently in these times, and when I think of the fact that this railway project will only be completed in perhaps 10 years’ time, I just want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that the figure will not be R300 million but more probably R600 million. However, having subjected the matter to a close scrutiny, I am convinced that such a project will be worthy of the Railways, and the entire Bill therefore meets with our approval.

Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take up much time, except to say that we in these benches support this Bill. I should like to add my voice to that of the hon. member for Maitland regarding the question of Mitchell’s Plain. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether it would not be possible to expedite the building of this line. If the Railways Administration had realized three years ago that the question was a more pressing one, this line could have been well on its way by now. Now we are faced with this situation where a considerable number of Coloured people will be without transport. It is a good thing that they have finally made up their minds to get moving on the project, but three years is a long time and we would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister please to do what he can to hurry this up.

There is no doubt at all about the necessity for the marshalling yards at Bapsfontein. Again I should just like to add my voice to that of the hon. member for Maitland and ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether, in fact, he anticipates enormous cost escalation over the years which the project will take to complete. R300 million, if one says it quickly, does not sound like very much, but it is a considerable amount of money. It is going to take a long time to build these various lines. We have had experience in the past of how cost escalation changes R300 million into considerably more, and we would like some sort of assurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister as to his thoughts in this matter. How far ahead have they projected? What is the possible escalation in relation to this estimate of expenditure? Does he feel that the cost will become considerably more during the period needed for the completion of this scheme? Being in the construction industry myself, and having seen cost escalation myself over the last few years, I know it is very difficult to make such calculations. However, I think this House is entitled to know how far the hon. the Deputy Minister has planned ahead in terms of cost escalation, which can to a certain extent be anticipated when making an assessment of this nature.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Maitland’s main objection to the Mitchell’s Plain part of the Bill is that it was not commenced sooner. He requested that it be proceeded with as quickly as possible. The fact that the Bill was introduced at this stage during this session, should indicate to the hon. member that it is our wish to proceed with the project as soon as possible and to minimize the delay. That is why the Bill was squeezed in here at the end of a session, at the earliest possible stage according to the procedure which he himself knows.

Sir. I just want to tell the hon. member that Mitchell’s Plain was only proclaimed a group area for Coloured people during 1971 and that a delegation of the interested parties only had an interview with the previous Minister of Transport on this matter on 27 April 1973. This was followed by the necessary inquiries and the necessary preparatory work, and I want to assure the hon. member that this is the first opportunity at which it has been physically possible to introduce this Bill in this House. Sir, building operations will be commenced next year, and I want to assure the hon. member that work on this line will proceed with the greatest possible haste and speed. At the moment it is thought that it will take three years before the first approximately 8 km of the line between Nyanga station and Mitchell’s Plain will be completed, and then the further extension of the line to Strandfontein will be undertaken at a later stage. Sir, the hon. member has a real problem; he asks what is going to be done with the passengers in the meantime.

I am worried about that.

I want to give the hon. member the assurance that from the Railways point of view, everything possible will be done to give the necessary assistance there, because it is simply a physical impossibility to tackle this project and complete it in a shorter time than 1 have envisaged, and if interim problems arise, I want to give him the assurance that the Railways will go out of their way to try and meet these problems with all the means at their disposal. It is obvious that bus transport will have to be used, and once again this situation will have to be dealt with in a way which is satisfactory under the circumstances and which will give the best results in our opinion when the situation is reviewed. From the nature of the case it is difficult to predict at this stage what the position is going to be.

Sir, the hon. member also referred to the central marshalling yard. His estimate is probably a good deal rougher than the assessment I made. I clearly said that the estimate of R300 million was simply a rough estimate. It is totally impossible—and at the same time I am now replying to the hon. member for Orange Grove, who gave me a translated copy of the speech of the hon. member for Maitland—to give hon. members any reliable indication of what it will cost. A very thorough and prolonged investigation will have to be made for a reliable figure to be given. Sir, I do not like the old story we have once again had from the hon. member for Orange Grove, i.e. the story of “blame the Railways”. We often hear this story without the facts of the matter having been taken into account at all. Sir, a start is now being made with these proposed lines. The hon. member for Maitland will note that an amount of R200 000, admittedly a small amount, appears in the Brown Book for the initial operations, but it is essential for a start to be made at the earliest opportunity with these first lines which will serve as supply lines for the eventual project. I should like to give hon. members the assurance that this is not only a major project, but indeed an imposing project. I do not want to take up the time of the House with a full description of it, because hon. members already have a full description of the technical details. Sir, I may tell you that it will be of inestimable value to the transport pattern of South Africa, and that consequently I am grateful for the fact that hon. members opposite, too, appreciate this great project which is to be undertaken.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Schedule I:

Sir, the distance that will be covered is approximately 18 km, and the cost involved will be approximately R13 million. This comes to nearly R700 000 per km, if my calculations are correct. I just wondered whether the hon. the Deputy Minister could give us an indication of what the high cost may be attributed to. As I know the Cape Flats, virtually the only thing that will have to be done is to lay the tracks; the terrain is as flat as a pancake and there are no mountains to cross; the land does not seem to me to be all that expensive, and I shall be pleased if the hon. the Deputy Minister would satisfy himself that the figure is not too high.

Mr. Chairman, my department went to the trouble of tabling the report of the Railways and Harbours Board. It contains all the technical details. If the hon. member were to go to the trouble of consulting the document concerned, he would find full details regarding the cost items, as each of them had been calculated. I do not think there is any need for me to tire the Committee by repeating the facts contained in the report which was tabled. I really do not believe it is necessary for me to do so as the hon. member will find the details in that report. In any event, at this stage I am unable to supply him with more details than those appearing in the report.

Mr. Chairman, in relation to the cost of this line, a query has been raised as to whether it would not be cheaper to build a mono-rail system rather than a conventional line. To save me the trouble of answering the question for the benefit of those who raised it with me, I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he will answer the question for me, i.e. whether they have considered a mono-rail and whether it would not be cheaper and more effective.

Mr. Chairman, the whole question of mono-rails is still in a very early stage of research. I think France is the most advanced country in this regard at the moment, if my information is correct.

What about Japan?

Probably Japan too; I do not want to dispute it. However, there are certain technical problems which have not been ironed out as yet. One of the most important is that of propulsion. At the moment very interesting research is being done in connection with propulsion. It is called linear propulsion of mono-rails and it works on a magnetic principle, but this whole matter is still in an early stage. Not one of the people engaged in the research is able to give me the assurance at this stage that the effectiveness of such lines does compare with that of existing lines in any way. In this particular instance we are concerned with a network which has to link up with our existing network. If we want to make use of a mono-rail system, it will mean that a mono-rail will have to be built from Nyanga. This will mean that all passengers who wish to travel to a point beyond Nyanga, will have to change at Langa to catch trains running on the conventional lines. The disadvantages this has are of such magnitude that I do not think the hon. member will press me to make research facts on the mono-rail system available.

Schedule agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, this clause has been amended in the Select Committee and I rise simply to say that although I was the one who initiated originally the search for a solution to this problem and the hon. the Minister and his department drafted the original clause, there were difficulties in regard to the prohibition on questioning trainees which could have affected businessmen quite seriously. It would have hindered planning and therefore I rise simply to put on record that we are in agreement with the deletion of paragraph (c) of the proposed section 4A(1), which was proposed by the Select Committee, and also with the textual amendment, the addition of the word “solely” in the presumption clause. We shall support the clause as it is now before the House.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say that we support the amendments introduced by the Select Committee, but I should also like to move the amendments to this clause which appear under my name on the Order Paper. The first amendment reads—

The proposed section 4A(1), as it stands, reads—

1. (a) refuses an application for employment in his service or in the service of any other person, made by a person who is liable in terms of section 21 or 35 to serve in the Citizen Force or a commando, on the ground of such person’s liability to serve as aforesaid; or
2. (b) in any notice or advertisement inviting applications for employment in his service or in the service of any other person, declares or otherwise indicates that he or such other person is not prepared to employ any person who is liable as aforesaid, shall be guilty of an offence.

My first amendment, if it is accepted, will mean that section 4A(1) as inserted by clause 1 will read that any person who “without good and sufficient cause” does what follows in paragraphs (a) and (b), shall be guilty of an offence. What would constitute “good and sufficient cause” in these circumstances? Hon. members will notice from our amendment that we support the principle, which is that employers should not discriminate against persons liable for military service when they apply for a job. We argue, however, that there are certain conditions under which an employer can legitimately refuse to employ a person liable for military service. I can mention a few examples. The first example would be where an employer needs someone in his service who has to have particular expertise for a highly skilled technical job. When a prospective employee comes to him and applies for this job the employer can tell him that he needs him for a certain job and that he cannot be employed if he has to leave soon for an extended period of time, be it three or four months. I would say that that would be good and sufficient cause for an employer to refuse to appoint someone because that person is liable for military service. This in no way implies that the employer is being disloyal and that he is trying to subvert the Defence Force. He has a practical problem in his particular business in which it is simply economically unsound to employ that person. If, in terms of the present clause such a prospective employee is aggrieved by the refusal of the employer, he can take this person to court.

The second example is a common one, namely where a large firm has a large and time-bound contract and has to employ, let us say, 20 or 30 new people. As I have said, the contract is time-bound and has to be completed within a specified time and therefore the firm has to have the people on the job. If you have 100 people applying for 20 vacancies and the employer refuses employment to 80 of them, some of them still liable for military duty, those people can take him to court as well. I would submit that this is good and sufficient cause for an employer not to employ those people.

The third example is a technical one but one which could cause certain difficulties, i.e. when there is no vacancy in a particular firm and a person comes—I am now switching the argument to a prospective employee who may have bad intentions—to the firm without the vacancy having been advertised and asks for employment. They can then say that they cannot employ him. That particular person could then, if he wanted to and if he felt aggrieved, argue that the reason why this was so was because he disclosed the fact that he had to do military service and that as a result they were not willing to employ him. I am just trying to iron out certain technical difficulties that could crop up if we accept this clause as it stands.

There is another question which I would like to pose. I notice that the hon. member for Durban Point is claiming that he to a certain extent was the initiating factor behind this particular clause. The question I would like to ask is why it was necessary. Was there a particular problem in this regard? Were there many people who were being refused employment? This question was put to the hon. member for Durban Point in the Select Committee and his answer was that he has had ten or 12 complaints over the last two years. This question was also put to the adviser we had there from the Defence Force. We asked him whether this was really a problem and whether there were employers who deliberately discriminated against people liable for military service. He said that there were, maybe, 15 or 20 people he could think of. Therefore, I would say that this constitutes a simple case of over-legislation. If it was a common occurrence that employers in South Africa deliberately discriminated against young men who have to do military service one could understand the necessity for such legislation.

That was decided at Second Reading. You are discussing the principle now.

No. I am not arguing the principle. I am saying that there are certain circumstances where we have to protect the employer and at the same time prevent discrimination against somebody liable for military service.

How would you do that?

By accepting my amendment. It is very simple.

Which one?

The first one whereby any person who without good and sufficient cause discriminates against a person liable for military services will commit an offence.

My second amendment is a very clear-cut one and involves a sound legal principle, namely that we oppose the situation where the accused is presumed guilty and that the onus to prove his innocence rests on him. We argue that this is not good legislation. In fact, I feel quite comforted, because this is what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South feels particularly strongly about. In fact, he claims that his whole party feels very strongly about this. I want to refer to Hansard of 14 October 1974, when the hon. member spoke on one of the Bantu Laws Amendment Bills. I want to quote what the hon. member said in regard to a particular clause there to indicate that he actually supports my second amendment. I hope he will come out in support of my second amendment. He said:

We have exactly the same kind of proposal in this particular clause. If the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is consistent and feels so strongly about this kind of legal principle that he claims his whole party feels strongly about it too, then they should support my second amendment as well. I now move the second amendment which is printed in my name in the Order Paper as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I want to reply briefly to the arguments raised here by the hon. member for Rondebosch. I think I am best able to do so by referring to existing legislation in that regard.

Section 4 of the Defence Act enunciates the duties expected of an employer who has a person in his employ who still has to do his national service. I read briefly from the section: “Any employer who … by dismissing an employee … or in any other manner penalizes such employee on account of his … being engaged in any such service shall … be guilty of an offence.” In other words, in terms of existing legislation an employer may not dismiss a person in his employ if such a person still has to do his national service. This is in terms of existing legislation, and to contend, as the hon. members for Sea Point and Rondebosch did, that we are introducing a new principle, is therefore not correct. Neither do the provisions of this clause as its stands create any new offence, as I have indicated. In point of fact, it merely extends the provisions of existing legislation so as to counteract any situation of unfair exploitation of people who wish to work.

In order to prevent them from contravening these provisions, some employers blatantly indicated in advertisements that people still liable for national duty, were unwelcome. We cannot allow discrimination of this nature. It must be stopped. Appeals made by the hon. the Minister met with no response. On 4 March this year an article was published under the heading (translation): “Payment of national servicemen—Botha warns against discrimination.” However, this was to no avail. What more should the hon. the Minister have done other than introducing this legislation? We must not be so naïve as to think that if employers who act in this manner had been approached in any other way, they would have paid any heed or reacted. Therefore we must compel them by way of legislation to react in this manner.

Let us examine for a moment the amendments which the hon. member for Rondebosch moved. His first amendment relates, inter alia, to the proposed section 4A(l)(b). If this provision were to be amended as proposed, it would read as follows: “Any person who without good and sufficient cause in any notice or advertisement inviting applications for employment in his service … declares … that he … is not prepared to employ any (such) person … shall be guilty of an offence”. In other words, the implication is that this would defeat the purpose of this legislation completely, for the advertisements with those words we in fact wish to eliminate, will still appear as long as the employer, in his own opinion, has good and sufficient cause to include the condition in his advertisement. After all, what is “good and sufficient cause”? The State will have to prove that the employer did not have good and sufficient cause, and that would be very difficult. That is precisely our problem. That is why we are creating a presumption clause in subsection (2). Surely this amendment is in conflict with the concept of the presumption clause in terms of which we in fact want the employer who performs a certain action and has taken a decision for which he alone knows the reasons, to have to prove in a court on a balance of probability that he did not turn down an application because of the applicant’s having to do national service. In terms of the proposed section 4A(l)(a) he will not be able to reject the application of a person who is liable for national service, and therefore he will eliminate such applications effectively by saying that such a person should not apply at all. Then we cannot do anything to him, for if the clause were to be amended as proposed, he need only claim that he had good and sufficient cause for not doing this. The State must then prove that he did not have such reasons.

The second amendment proposed by the hon. member for Rondebosch, is that subsection (2) should be omitted completely. As I told you, this section creates the presumption that an employer refused an application on the grounds of the imminent national service of the applicant. The onus of proof is very light, and it rests with the employer to indicate that he did not employ the applicant for other reasonable reasons. As I have said, this rests only on a balance of probability. As in the case of the first provision which we are incorporating this is, however, not a new principle either. In section 4(3) of the present Act a similar onus has already been created in respect of an employer who discharges a national serviceman from his employ. Therefore this is by no means a new offence or a new principle. It is simply a necessary extension of the existing legislation. It is already included in the Act and it is only logical that we should also apply this to a similar offence which is being extended to another category of persons. How will we know whether an employer did not employ an applicant—perhaps the only one or the best one—for that reason if we do not place the onus on him to prove this to us?

But this is the only possibility open to the employer if he wishes to employ such a person. He is not entirely without recourse. In terms of subsection (1)(b) of section 70bis of the Defence Act he may apply for exemption or deferment, on the grounds of, inter alia, circumstances connected with any trade, profession or business in which he is engaged. In this way 3 919 of these applications for exemption were granted by the Exemption Board during 1973. The board is sympathetic and tries, where possible, to help our people particularly in the business world.

The Select Committee also received evidence by the Employers Community of the Cape in this regard. They were satisfied with paragraphs (a) and (b), and asked only that paragraph (c) be omitted. This was done. The S.A. Federated Chamber of Industries also submitted evidence to us. They were also satisfied with paragraphs (a) and (b) and asked only that paragraph (c) be omitted which, as I have indicated, was done by the Select Committee. I think that we satisfied those who made representations, sufficiently. For this reason I cannot support the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Rondebosch.

Mr. Chairman, this clause extends the application of a principle which is already enshrined in the Act, since persons have substantial protection if they are already in employment within South Africa. This provision now extends the protection to those not yet in employment. We have no argument whatever with the principle of the amendment contained in this clause. I do not think business has tended to discriminate in any way; but certainly, if it is in fact the case, I quite agree that it should be discouraged and regarded as an offence. But let us look at what this clause, as drafted, amounts to in practice. I think that even the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education would agree that, if it applied to his department as well, it would give rise to practical problems.

Paragraph (a) simply refers to any person who applies for employment. There is no question of advertisements or jobs being vacant. It could simply be somebody who walks into an office of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s department and says: “I want to apply for a job.” I should imagine that the hon. the Deputy Minister would normally send him to see his personnel department. They would then fill in the normal form and grant him an interview. At some stage or other, somebody is going to ask: “Will you be here?”, presuming that up to that point of time he has met the requirements of the department for employment. He then says: “No, I will not be”. Then the department, who has an urgent job and does not have any vacancies, but would like to employ him, is technically guilty of an offence. Sir, it is totally impractical. It is going to cause most business people to be put under the blackmail of a technical offence. It is virtually guaranteeing employment to any person who applies, because otherwise the employer would be technically guilty of the offence if he wanted otherwise to employ him. What is more, the onus is on the employer or the potential employer to prove that he did not even ask the simple question as to whether the prospective employee would be available for the next three to six months. Everybody will know that we can all think of examples where it is absolutely vital that over a short period of time people should be available for a particular job. They might even be under contract to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs! It might well be in the national interest to have full employment on a particular project, and then one will be hamstrung by this technical offence. And all this, for the sake of the hon. member for Durban Point who says he has had 10 or 12 complaints. I gather there has only been one conviction on this point. I actually think that this clause is going to be self-defeating; it is going to cause a great deal more trouble, far from putting business in the frame of mind to continue, as it has done in the past, to attempt in every way to meet these obligations. I may say that I have yet to hear anybody say they have not done so in regard to the defence of this country. This is simply going to cause them, because they are going to be put under this blackmail for what amounts to a technical offence, not to regard this obligation with the same enthusiasm because of the paper work and everything else it will involve.

May I ask the hon. member a question? As the hon. member has not referred to it, I would like to know whether he has read the last part of the clause which reads “on the ground of such person’s liability to serve”. The provision therefore refers to a person who is refused because of his liability to serve. Does he realize that nothing at all is said about a person being simply refused?

Sir, I expected the sort of reaction we have had, seeing that the hon. member for Rondebosch wishes to discuss matters which took place in the Select Committee where, as a matter of tradition, we try to find common agreement. I feel I must answer him. The first point I should like to make is that apparently the hon. member for Rondebosch feels that an evil which affects 10 or 20 people, is not important, whereas if it affects more people than that it becomes important. In other words, it is a question of the number of people who are affected. Depending on whether you can point to and name them and say: “These are the people,” that makes it either evil or good. If it is only a few people who are concerned, it becomes good but if it is a lot of people it becomes evil. We do not have those double standards in the United Party. [Interjections.] A matter is either right or wrong; it does not become wrong because it affects more people and become right if it affects only a few But the hon. member for Rondebosch has these double standards. He challenged me to name how many people had come to see me personally and my answer was that somewhere between 12 and 20 people had seen me over the last 18 months. Because one member of Parliament has only some 20 odd people with a problem it is not a problem! You see, Sir, he is not a member of Parliament who looks after constituents. They come to me, but they have not been to him and they will not go to him because they will not get any sympathy. When people come to me with what is a genuine problem, it is my duty as a member of Parliament to bring that problem forward and to try to solve it. Ask the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications—I see he is not here at the moment—the hon. the Minister of Transport and the hon. the Minister of the Interior how many thousands of young men apply to join the Railways, the Post Office and the Public Service because they cannot get jobs anywhere else while they are waiting for the July call-up. In the six months they are waiting they go to the Government because employers will not employ them. While only a dozen or 20 people may have come to me, a dozen I can name, and 20-odd that I know of, the Government has the answer because they know that many hundreds, in fact, thousands of people, half of those called up in July, have the greatest difficulty in obtaining employment when they are awaiting service.

[Inaudible.]

If we call on our youth to serve their country and to defend it, despite the chirping from the hon. member for Houghton who is clucking like a hen …

[Inaudible.]

Despite the hon. member for Houghton, we believe that if we are to call on our youth to serve South Africa, the least we can do is to protect them. That is why we support this measure. There are two other aspects, however. One is that the Progressive Party is disobeying the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Industries. They are going to be in trouble over this.

I thought we were …

The Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Industries both said they had no objection to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this clause. I do not know what they are going to say when the Progressive Party comes along and says: “You have no objection, but we are going to oppose it.” They are not following instructions.

We shall take that chance.

Let me now come to the presumption clause on which the Progressive Party has such deep, fundamental feelings in principle. They feel that the whole basis of natural justice is being shattered. Act No. 44 of 1957 also has a presumption in section 4(3). Except for the fact that we have softened the presumption by adding the word “solely”, making it easier to rebut, this presumption is identical to the presumption to which the Progressive Party objects.

So what?

They say “So what?”. The point is that this Act was passed in 1957. Here is the Hansard. It was dealt with on 26 February and clause 4 of the Bill was put and agreed to.

On the part of the United Party.

There was no argument. There was no fundamental difference on principle. On 26 February, on the following clause, there was a division. Amongst those who voted were Mr. Ronald Butcher, Mr. Zac de Beer, Professor Fourie. Mr. Harry Lawrence and Mrs. Helen Suzman.

Yes.

They should be careful of this. There was also a Mr. H. E. Oppenheimer.

Try getting the initials right.

Mr. H. F. Oppenheimer. He knows the initials. [Interjections.]

Order!

We have a split in the Progressive Party. We have the hon. member for Houghton …

Come off it.

… we have Mr. Oppenheimer whom the hon. member for Johannesburg North may have heard about. They were satisfied with this presumption. The hon. member for Houghton claims that she was a member of the United Party.

Undeniable!

Was she a member of the United Party in 1967?

No, I should not think so.

No, I should not think so either. She was not a member of the United Party; she was a member of the Progressive Party. Now, Act 85 of 1967 amended this section. I have the Hansard here.

And?

And the hon. member for Houghton did not oppose the presumption clause.

No party member …

She was quite happy then to presume something. In 1957 it was good enough for her; in 1967 it was good enough for her …

No party member …

But now because she smells a little political gain, because she smells a Schlebusch …

Oh, rubbish!

… she smells the chance of playing a little cheap politics …

Order! The hon. member for Houghton must not interrupt so much, please.

Well, I do think he ought to moderate his language.

Because the hon. member for Houghton thinks there is political advantage to be gained, suddenly there is a high moral objection to a presumption which deals solely with issues known to the accused. It is quite different from other presumptions. Does it presume him guilty? The State must prove the act, and only the accused knows what is in his mind. Therefore only the accused can rebut it. It is a presumption which has always been accepted, and I charge the Progressive Party with trying to play politics with a matter which affects the welfare of every young man who is liable for duty in our Defence Force, and that is the sort of Opposition that we have to deal with on a matter of this nature.

Mr. Chairman, what we were short of was a lecture on patriotism. [Interjections.]

Order!

As I listened I heard nothing more ridiculous than the suggestion that because there is a problem the only way to deal with it is by legislation. Let us accept there is a problem. But does that mean that one must necessarily deal with it by means of legislation, that you punish people. You can take them to court and you can fine them, that does not mean you have remedied the problem, you do not say automatically that because there is a problem, although one of a small size, we must take people to court and we must punish them. Is this the way to deal with social problems, with economic problems, that when a problem arises, you take people to court? We tried at the Second Reading to find out how many people are involved. We have now heard from the hon. member for Durban Point that there are 12 or 15 in his constituency. He being the shadow Minister of Defence …

Some shadow!

… one can assume that a significant number of people come to him. What I want to know is what attempt was made to help those people. Has the Department of Defence set up a labour bureau, have they discussed this with the Chambers of Commerce, the Chambers of Industries?

Yes.

Have they spoken to the Civil Service, to the universities, to the local authorities, to the various professional bodies, because one will find that there are very few employers in South Africa who are not one way or the other bound to an employers’ association. I believe that good public relations with employers’ associations can overcome this problem, if indeed there is a problem of any magnitude. What has happened is that there is one member of Parliament who has indicated a problem in his constituency …

No.

We had nobody else. We asked at the Second Reading and it was said that the hon. member for Durban Point had had some complaints, but the hon. the Minister could not give us any information. We have not had any substantiation of the quantum of complaints and we were not told whether the complaints were investigated or whether any assistance was given to these people. We have no other statements on the extent of this problem. Secondly, I want to put it to the hon. the Minister—I do not know whether I should put it to the hon. the Minister or to the shadow Minister—whether they do accept that there can be occasions on which an employer ought to be entitled not to employ somebody who is liable to military service. I ask the hon. the Minister: Can there be circumstances in which it would be reasonable for an employer not to employ somebody who is going to do military service? I put it also to the hon. member for Durban Point.

One of these highly qualified specialists who has just left school?

That is not the point. I would say that the appointment of pilots to the South African Airways must be quite important. I think people working under contract must be very important. There are hundreds of occasions, and anybody who is in business, especially smaller businesses, will realize that there must be occasions in which somebody comes to you for employment. You are replacing somebody who is already in service, you may be replacing a second person who is on service and you then find that the next person comes along and he wants employment and you do not employ him. It is said that you can go to the Exemptions Board, but you can only go to the Exemptions Board once the man has been employed; you cannot ask for the theoretical exemption of somebody who is not in your employ. What you first have to do is to employ him and then leave yourself at the mercy of the Exemptions Board to see whether this is going to be practical. The hon. member seems to rely heavily on the word “solely” in the last subsection. I want to ask him …

It softens it.

No, it does not soften it at all. This “solely” merely has to do with the presumption of guilt. If it was “solely” for that reason you would be found guilty. In fact, there is no exemption and there is no case and you cannot argue …

It is justifiably so.

That you as an employer were in a predicament and had no alternative. If I were a doctor and was looking for a replacement as a locum or a man operating a small company …

We are talking about people who are 18 years old.

We are not only talking about 18 year old people and this is what is so ridiculous about the hon. member’s argument. We are talking about people who are liable for service for at least 10 years and, consequently, we are dealing with people from the age of 18 to the age of 28. You can take architects, quantity surveyors, engineers and contractors who are very often looking for replacements for people who are on service. Legislation is being passed which says to employers that you may not take this situation into account. It seems to me quite incredible that you may not take this into account.

Thirdly, I do not know why the Select Committee deleted paragraph (c), which provided that an employer could not ask a person whether he still had to undergo service. We now have the situation where the hon. member says that paragraph (c) had to be deleted but that the person who applies for employment can, consequently, be asked whether he is liable for service though it may not be taken into account. Why ask him then?

Of course you take it into account when you are planning your leave rosters …

The hon. member says that it is necessary for planning the leave roster. If you are planning your leave roster it would assume that you are employing a number of people and that you can stagger your employees’ leave schedule. What happens, however, if it is a firm of three people? What happens if it is a firm of two people? What if you have a small business? I want to say that the two letters to which the hon. member for Verwoerd-burg referred, the letters from the Cape Employers’ Association and the Chambers of Industry in Cape Town which in supporting the deletion of paragraph (c), actually advanced arguments which support those of the hon. member for Rondebosch.

I wish to say that the letter which came from the Chambers of Industry said:

They say that for that reason they should be able to find out and that for that reason paragraph (c) should be scrapped. That statement is in fact a direct negation. You cannot refuse to employ that man; you must employ him. You cannot say that you have found out that he is on military service and that somebody who is already on military service has to be replaced. It would mean that you would be guilty of a criminal offence. Likewise, a letter from the Cape Employers’ Association also deals with a large company. It talks of the Old Mutual with over 1 700 people. It says:

Once again, when you have 1 700 employees it is easy. You can shunt them around and you can make arrangements. When you have a small company, however, when you are looking for specialists and when you are tied to contracts, it does become necessary to take the fact that the man is going to military service into account when you have to decide whether or not to employ him to replace somebody else who is already on military service. In terms of this clause you may not take that into account because as soon as you take it into account, you are falling foul of the law. So, if it is common cause, and my hon. friend, the hon. member for Smithfield, who knows something about business agrees with us …

You are talking nonsense.

… that you can have good and sufficient reason, we believe that these words should be written into the clause. In the absence of the amendment of the hon. member for Rondebosch you would be falling foul of the law if you did not employ that individual even if there were very good practical reasons for not doing so.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.