Mr. Speaker, when we came here to Parliament on Monday, each of us came with a document in our hands. I, too, had one in my hand. In the light of the events we are experiencing, one asks oneself what the public at large thinks of the Prime Minister and the Government. What is the image of the Government in the eye of the public at large? I think that if one is to call in an umpire, one could perhaps call in one’s enemies to tell one what the image of the Government is. I think that a very good enemy of the Government is the Sunday Times, to be specific Mr. Stanley Uys. I decided to call him in as umpire and to see what he says about the Government and the Opposition. I then read in the Sunday Times of 2 February—

And then the columnist asks the further question—

And then he replies—

After all, this is not a secret: surely we know that many of the members on the other side of the House have already bought themselves those “I like John” badges, but as yet they are only wearing them at home. They are still too ashamed to wear them here. After all, we know from private conversations that there are many members who wear such buttons. I do not say that the hon. member for Simonstown wears such a button, but who am I, now, to tell him that he does not wear it. I shall not express an opinion on the hon. member for Yeoville. In these times in which the Leader of the National Party, our hon. Prime Minister, is described by a body like the Institute for the Study of Conflict—a body which does enjoy status—as the “leading statesman of Africa”, we get a motion of no confidence in the Government from the Opposition!

When last, or when ever has the Prime Minister of South Africa been built up in such glowing terms by the world Press and throughout the world? But the Opposition in South Africa comes along and introduces a motion of no confidence in that internationally recognized leader of ours! Surely, that is too crazy for words.

While I am discussing that party, I should like to return to the Randburg incident, or the Enthoven ’t Hooft incident, or, as I understand it after last night, the “Enthoven onthooft” incident, to see what the situation is in that party. I come back to this matter which was touched on by my colleague, the hon. member for Pretoria Central, and the hon. Minister for Information, because it is relevant to raise it again, new facts having again brought to light yesterday concerning the affair. Yesterday the hon. member for Yeoville was asked, in his capacity as leader—one does not know for how long—what he was going to do about the case of Randburg. Was he going to kick him out of the United Party? Was he going to follow the lead of his caucus here or was he not going to follow it? The hon. member was clearly “zipped” at that stage because he did not want to reply to us. Since we adjourned yesterday, further facts have come to light. No one had really known exactly why the hon. member for Randburg had been suspended. Now I cannot provide the reasons, but I quote the chairman of the caucus of the United Party, viz. the hon. member for Griqualand East, who is known as one of the verkrampte members of the Old Guard of the party. That hon. member made a statement to The Argus on behalf of the caucus—

Then he said a little more, but here is the real coup de grace—

The caucus considered his conduct which was deliberate …

In other words, “doelbewus” (deliberate)—

This member is accused of serious things, in political language. He was “deliberately disloyal” to his colleagues and still worse, to his leader. And if I read The Argus correctly here, he also refused to apologize after an opportunity to do so had been granted him. Apparently he was fairly impudent to the caucus and said that he would not apologize.

No, he was not impudent, he was only honest.

The hon. the Minister is quite correct—he was probably only honest, or trying to be honest in the United Party. The hon. member for Randburg intentionally made himself guilty of casting suspicion on, subverting and undermining the Leader of the Opposition, his colleagues and the position of his party in the eyes of the public, with military precision. The worst of all is that the hon. member for Randburg apparently then admitted to the caucus that he had initiated the opinion survey, according to The Argus. I do not want to put words he did not use into the hon. member’s mouth. But, Sir, the worst of all is this: after having been deliberately disloyal towards his leader and his colleagues, he refused to apologize. Mr. Speaker, what did the hon. member do? He challenged the caucus, the hierarchy, the leader of the United Party; he coldbloodedly challenged them; that is what the hon. member for Randburg did.

Sir, I now come to the new facts. Yesterday, when the hon. member for Yeoville was asked, “Are you going to follow, in the Transvaal, the leadership of your caucus here in the Cape as leader of the United Party in the Transvaal?”, he was unwilling to reply. Surely it is customary for hon. members to ask each other reasonable questions across the floor of the House to which one can provide a prompt reply. After all, the question to the hon. member was not a trick question; he was asked: “Do you stand by the leadership of your caucus or not?” That was the question to which the hon. member for Yeoville had to reply, but the hon. member was not prepared to take Parliament into his confidence. But what I find shocking, Mr. Speaker, is that at that stage when the hon. member for Yeoville was unwilling to reply to fair questions across the floor of the House, he had already issued a statement and a reply to The Argus, which was then virtually on the street. Sir, that hon. member did not want to reply to the question here in Parliament. I do not know why, but I suspect that the hon. member was afraid that if he were to say here what he said to The Argus, there would have been a reaction from the hon. member for Wynberg, the hon. member for King William’s Town and the hon. member for Albany. What then, Sir, did the hon. member for Yeoville say in connection with the Randburg incident? After his caucus had found a man guilty of deliberate undermining, he said the following, as reported in yesterday’s Argus—

He said: “He hoped he would remain so.” [Interjection.] There the hon. member confirms that he said so; there is therefore no dispute. Sir, there was another statement in The Argus and that was the statement by the hon. member for Bryanston—

That is what the hon. member for Bryanston said. Sir, to me the conduct of those two members of the caucus of the United Party is absolutely unheard-of. Surely it is accepted that the caucuses of parliaments and of parties throughout the free world work as follows: A caucus discusses a matter and if it is unable to agree, it votes on that matter, and then the minority must abide by the decision of the caucus majority and when one leaves that caucus, whether one likes the decision or not, one defends the decision of the majority. Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of honour; if one has lost in a caucus vote and one leaves the caucus, one defends the decision of the caucus majority. If one is not prepared to do that, then, as a man of honour, there is only one course of action open to one; then one must leave that caucus. One does not remain in that caucus and then go and make statements to the newspapers which one does not even want to make in Parliament; one does not go and tell the newspapers that one is going to retain that suspended member in one’s party. Sir, that is absolutely disloyal; it is unheard-of.

He is simply saving his own skin.

Mr. Speaker, I now want to put this question to you: Can you imagine, after the caucus of the National Party had got rid of Mr. Hertzog and Mr. Jaap Marais, the Leader of the Transvaal subsequently standing up and saying that they would remain in the party, that they were very welcome and that he was going to support them? Sir, surely that is absolutely unheard-of. One does not allow such things in politics; one cannot allow them because what becomes then of one’s party discipline? Sir, I want to tell you what happened. There is a deep-lying struggle, a fight to the death in the United Party; they have each other by the throat. I want to tell you what the decision of the hon. member for Bryanston implies. Is the hon. member in the House?

He is on his way here.

Sir, I want to tell you that the hon. member for Yeoville cannot accept defeat; he cannot lose. After all, I have known him for many years. We were together in the Provincial Council. When the hon. member loses, then he gets angry, and he could not accept the defeat his little friend suffered in the caucus; that is why he is standing by him. That is what this implies. Since the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the Sunday Times decided to build him up, he has been a winning horse. He has overtaken everything in his way. He stampeded Mr. Oberholzer, the leader in the Provincial Council, out of his way; then he stampeded the former Leader of the United Party in the Transvaal out of his way and from there on he simply kept on running and kept on winning and he ran right into this House. His image has always been that of a winning horse; he was a winning horse. It was said of him: “Nothing succeeds like success.” The hon. member for Yeoville, who is a winning horse, has now come a cropper for the first time, here in Cape Town.

Now he is a donkey.

Mr. Speaker, that winning horse has contracted botts, and I shall tell you what the symptoms are of a horse that contracts botts: It grazes as if entirely healthy and then suddenly it starts kicking at its own stomach etc.; it kicks for a time and then suddenly it dies. Sir, I do not want to assume the garb of a prophet, but one can also compare the hon. member to a cow that has eaten poisonous irids. Everyone knows what is going to happen; it may be the following day or the day after that, but one knows that it is going to happen at some time or another.

Can we buy his skin?

Sir, yesterday I heard the interjection here that his skin is already hanging behind the door of the hon. member for King William’s Town. One does not know what else is going to happen, but, Sir, what do these events imply? The Young Turks in the United Party, because they are not prepared to follow the leadership of their party, because they are not prepared to dissociate themselves from the hon. member for Randburg, are guilty of the most extreme form of disloyalty towards their leader and towards their party. As decent United Party supporters it behoves them to stand by their leader and their caucus and not to take the part of a man who has been accused of deliberate disloyalty towards his leader and his party and his colleagues. Sir, I now want to put this straight question to the hon. member for Yeoville: Is the hon. member for Randburg going to remain a member of the United Party of the Transvaal? I do not know whether the hon. member has already made his statement to the newspapers as was the case yesterday, but I want to ask him directly whether the hon. member for Randburg is going to remain a member of the chief central committee of the United Party in the Transvaal? He must reply to this. Does he want to deny that there is polarization in the United Party caucus between Young Turks and Old Guard supporters? I ask the hon. member for Yeoville to reply to this. But I also want to put a question to the hon. member for Albany: Does he approve of this action on the part of the Leader of the United Party in the Transvaal, of his standing by a suspended member of the U.P. caucus, and is he going to take action against the hon. member for Yeoville and against the hon. member for Bryanston? Since the hon. member for Bryanston is now in the House. I want to ask him whether he is reconsidering his position in the U.P.

Zip!

The hon. member can reply to this at a later occasion; probably my question embarrasses him at this stage; that is how I interpret his silence. Mr. Speaker, I want to put this question to the Old Guard in the U.P.: They have now bullied the little one; they have now dealt with the hon. member for Randburg; are they now going to act against the other two, the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Bryanston, who are guilty of a more serious crime, particularly the former in his capacity as provincial leader?

That is our affair.

I ask the hon. member for King William’s Town: Is he going to tolerate this? I also put the question to the hon. member for Maitland. Mr. Speaker, there is no reply.

I shall tell you, Mr. Speaker, that tremendous infighting is taking place, a fight to the death with a death rattle that can even be heard on this side of the House, but the hon. members do not want to speak. They are afraid to speak, because there are members on that side of the House whose feet are itching. This struggle between Young Turk and Old Guard has now reached the point at which that bomb is going to explode and I tell you now, Sir, that there are members on that side of the House who are going to leave because they are disloyal towards their caucus, towards their leader and towards their party.

Why are you so worried?

Mr. Speaker, hon. members are aware that I have had a spot of bother with my caucus. I do not want to go into details as regards the infighting within the United Party because it does not concern other people. Hon. members will probably recall that about this time last year, in January, the hon. member for Yeoville also had a spot of bother with his caucus. I have thought much about these two incidents and I am sure that the House would be interested to know what my conclusion is. My conclusion is that it is something about the stars in January which just does not favour reform. That is all I wish to say.

Mr. Speaker, addressing the House from the cross-benches has certain advantages. One has a certain amount of freedom from restraint, when one talks from these benches that one does not have from the benches of a political party. One can perhaps be a bit more objective than one can be if one talks as a member of a political party, and I intend using that freedom today in talking to the motion before the House.

I think to any of us who have listened to this debate during its course so far it is quite clear than when one forgets all the party political ballyhoo across the floor of this House, there is in fact quite a sincere and meaningful consensus amongst all the members of the House and amongst the political parties represented here. It is a consensus which is meaningful as to how we, the Whites in South Africa, should face the future. I think I should like to mention a few of the points which have struck me as being very important.

The first is that there is no political party and no member of this House who does not welcome the changes which are taking place in Southern Africa and who does not regard them as necessary changes, changes which in the long run are going to work towards a more stable southern continent. Secondly, I think, we all accept that more changes are going to come in the future and that these changes will also be necessary. I think, thirdly, that we accept that there is a method which has been worked out in this part of the world as to how these changes should come about. It is on the model of consultations where the various leaders who are involved in a certain problem get around a table together and talk about solving problems without any interference from any outside source, so that they can sit there and come to decisions which are in the best interest of their own people. I think this model has been established in Southern Africa, it has been very successful up to now and I think it is going to be successful also in future. I also think that we have reached a consensus that in regard to the new dispensation which has come to this part of the world, there will be no room for discrimination on the lines of race. I think this has been accepted by everybody in this House. I think we have also accepted that under the new dispensation there has to be equality of opportunity for all and I think that we all in this House accepts that we have to work for a free enterprise community in this southern part of Africa. I think if one analyses it this is a very meaningful consensus and a very encouraging thing for South Africa to know that the parties represented in this Parliament are agreed on such basic principles as these with which to face the future. But there are stumbling blocks, Mr. Speaker, which make it perhaps difficult for us to act on this consensus with the determination and the forcefulness which we would like to apply to it. I think that to explain some of these stumbling blocks, to my mind perhaps the most serious stumbling blocks, one has to look at the various paths by which we have come to this consensus at this particular moment in time. We have come by different political paths and different political parties and although these political parties at times in the past took decisions which perhaps at the time seemed right, the result of those decisions and the inheritance we have from those political decisions are serious stumbling blocks to our advancement in the future. I should like to take two examples, one in regard to the Nationalist Party and one in regard to the United Party.

In the case of the Nationalist Party the party built up a complete edifice of legislation to enforce separation in South Africa. It indoctrinated its people through its propaganda machine. It told its people: “If you tamper with this legislation in the slightest you will find yourselves on a slippery slope which will result in integration and the end of White identity in South Africa.” This was believed by the people and when the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government felt that it was in fact necessary to get rid of some of this legislation or to adjust some of it they immediately ran up against what I call the political inheritance of an earlier era. They ran up against people who genuinely and sincerely believed that if you tampered with this legislation it would mean the end of the White man’s survival in South Africa. Quite clearly, when we sit in this position and we look at the consensus which we have for the future, this still remains a problem for the Nationalist Party. It is a problem which the United Party are not slow to exploit. I refer to the fact that the Nationalist Party has built up this process of discrimination.

When we look at the United Party, we find that the United Party has not been blameless in this sort of thing either. It has also made very serious mistakes. I think, when I look back, that the most serious mistake which the United Party made was when the late Dr. Verwoerd came to this House with a policy of independent homelands. The United Party then took the line that independent homelands would be a threat to the security of the White man in South Africa. Their propaganda machine told their people that if you had independent homelands they would become platforms of Communism and havens for terrorism and that they would house all sorts of anti-White forces. The United Party, to combat this threat which was presented by Dr. Verwoerd’s policy, introduced a slogan to describe their policy. The slogan was “White leadership over an undivided South Africa for the foreseeable future”. The effect of this was to instill amongst United Party supporters the idea that unless one had the security of White leadership the future of the White man was not secure. It sowed tremendous distrust amongst the White people against Black people, and especially against Black people who had control over their own destinies. It sowed distrust, obviously, amongst the Black people as to the motives of the White people. In hindsight, I do not think there are many of us who look back on that and can say that, as we sit here today, we can benefit from those decisions which were taken then.

We find ourselves in the situation that the United Party has now changed its stand radically from the stand which it adopted in those days. The policy of the United Party is now shared power. I think it goes without saying that shared power is not reconcilable with White leadership. They are two distinctly different ideas. But, in the same way as the Nationalist Party had the problem I discussed earlier, so also the United Party had the problem that it had indoctrinated its people for so many years to believe that White leadership was their security, that when it came to amending the programme of principles of the party, it was felt that you could not drop White leadership. So what the Party did was that it in fact altered the definition of White leadership to make it absolutely clear that White leadership did not mean baasskap, did not mean domination, but in fact meant the proper use of the evolutionary process and the constitutional process which we have. We have the situation in the United Party today where our policy is that we believe in using the constitutional evolutionary process to bring about a situation of shared power in South Africa through consultation. But unfortunately the policy of the United Party can also be interpreted as being one of White leadership until such time as the White electorate decide they want shared power, in which case the machinery will be there to bring about shared power. It is this kind of problem, this dichotomy of thought, which is a stumbling block to the United Pary in going forward as fearlessly and as determinedly as we would like to see it on this consensus which I have discussed earlier.

I think there is also one further aspect which applies both to the Nationalist Party and to the United Party. It is also something we have inherited from the past in the same way as the other two examples which I have shown. I think it is perhaps one of the greatest tragedies of White politics that because we both have a dilemma in respect of a certain issue it is never properly debated across the floor of this House. In this regard I want to refer to the fact that both the main parties as we are today have built into them a protection of White privilege at the cost of Black opportunity. Let me explain it in this way: In the policy of separate development a certain situation has arisen in respect of the consolidation of the homelands. According to the Government’s policy it has taken the stand that it cannot go beyond the provisions of the 1936 land legislation. That means that over 80% of the present area of South Africa by law is going to be preserved for the exclusive benefit of the White person save for what he is going to give to the Indian and the Coloured people. In view of the consensus which I have discussed earlier and the concepts of equal opportunity and no race discrimination, can we reconcile this with giving all the Black people 13% of the country and retaining for ourselves 80% of the country? Can we reconcile this with those two principles? On the second aspect we are committed to sitting around a table and talking and discussing our problems with the leaders of the other race groups. Let me put any member of the National Party in the position of any Black leader. Could you imagine yourself sitting around a table and agreeing to a formula whereby your people, for evermore, are going to be excluded from land ownership in 80% of the country? I do not think you will be able to do that. I do not think it is reasonable to expect negotiations where this is a prerequisite to come to any success. It is not only the National Party that has this problem; the United Party also has this problem. In the United Party the same problem will arise within a different formula. Eventually the Black leaders you are going to talk to are going to say: “Right, what percentage of South Africa is going to be governed by Black people and what percentage of South Africa is going to be under the jurisdiction of the Whites? What percentage of South Africa is going to be reserved by legislation for exclusive White use?” I think these are the cardinal questions which are going to be asked and the cardinal questions that we, in fact, have to face as Whites before we can ensure the success of the prerequisites I mentioned earlier. I think it is a tragedy in a way, that because of the dilemma which exists in both parties, the official Opposition has not been able to challenge the Government on its consolidation plans for the homelands and has not been able to say to the Government that its consolidation proposals are just not adequate enough, that they will never be successful and that they must be done on a far greater and far more imaginative scale. I think it is a tragedy that the official Opposition is not in a position to say to the Government that in order for separate development to succeed you have to have something which is equitable in the eyes of the people of South Africa and in the eyes of the world. This goes far beyond the buying of land, because it is absolutely impossible to consider that this could be done through the purchase of land. It is going to mean redrawing boundaries and it is going to mean the acceptance of the fact that White people are going to live in Black areas. There is nothing else we can do if we want the policy to have any chance of success. Through not being able to challenge the Government on this, it has been left to the Government to challenge itself. I think that this has perhaps been one of the great lost opportunities over the past few years of our political development.

At this particular moment in our history, I do think we have this consensus to go into the future. I think we all do have a genuine feeling to see this future dispensation in South Africa on a proper and justifiable basis. I am convinced of that. However, I think that this question as to whether we as White people are going to be prepared to realize and accept that our entrenched position of privilege cannot last if we want peace and prosperity, is going to necessitate negotiation for something more equitable and more justifiable. Unless we are prepared to solve that question, the fact that we have all the right formulae, the fact that we have the right model of consultation, the fact that the spirit is good and that everything is now going for us, will not matter because we shall fall down on the basic, fundamental issues. We here who represent the White people of South Africa and who realize this particular fundamental problem, must tackle it. If we are going to do this by way of separate development, let us do the thing properly. Let us consolidate on an enormous scale, spend the money which is required for economic development and let us get the show on the road. If, on the other hand, practical problems arise that make it impossible to do things this way, let us look at federation and accept the situation that one cannot reserve the majority of the country for oneself by means of a Group Areas Act; one cannot, with federal councils, have the vast majority of South Africa under the control of Whites in a federal parliament, because the Black people whom one wants to have as partners in this arrangement will not agree. If we can come to grips with this problem I think we will settle the present problems of South Africa which perhaps appear to be so enormous to many of us, in a very short space of time. That is all I have to say.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Randburg will probably not hold it against me if I do not pay much attention to his speech. It sounded such a lonely speech. The hon. member must surely feel particularly lonely today. It must be particularly difficult for one if one is pushed out and one looks over one’s shoulder and does not see any of one’s friends nearby. Perhaps they are still coming. The hon. member must make another speech; perhaps they are still coming. In the meantime he is very close to the home where he belongs. Not that he will get more clarity there than he had before, because there they are also looking for a policy. The hon. member made a point of referring to the 80% of the land which was supposedly in the possession of the Whites in South Africa and which was reserved for the Whites by this Government. He also referred to the remaining small part assigned to the Black peoples of South Africa. The hon. member did not, however, mention at the same time that some of the best land in South Africa was in the hands of the Black people and that a large part of the land which the Whites have is land which is not as fertile and not as rich in water as the land which the Black man possesses. The hon. member must learn one thing. I think I can give him some advice in this regard. In politics a man has to have a standpoint; he cannot have three or four at the same time. The hon. member will have to decide very soon for himself whether he is at home in the left wing of the United Party or in the right wing of the Progressive Party. He will have to decide for himself what standpoint to adopt, because he cannot sit on all the chairs at the same time. I hope he will find a home very soon. Then perhaps he will be happier and less lonely.

No reasonable person will disagree with me if I make the statement that the present unrest and the present tension being experienced throughout the world, and consequently on the continent on which we live as well, may be attributed to a number of factors. The first of these is that the present tension in the world has its origin in Russia’s expansionist urge and in its indirect strategy and militaristic intimidation of peoples. I do not think any reasonable person will dispute that. The second factor is that the initiation of insurgence and revolution by Red China, especially in certain parts of Africa and in under-developed countries, is the major cause of tension and strife between peoples. In the third place the inability of the free world to take united action against these whether at the U.N. or in NATO, or in other organizations into which the free world organizes itself, is one of the causes of tension. A fact which is closely bound up with this, is the fact that Russia and China understand something entirely different by the concept “détente” from what the Western World and the free world usually understand by it. What the free world understands by it, is co-existence and non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, while what Russia and China understand by it amounts to world domination by means of world revolution and even violence. A further cause of the tension in which we are living, is the degree to which the labour organizations of the free world have in many instances become the objects and the victims of leftist penetration as a result of which large parts of the free world have been rendered helpless, so that governments cannot act properly. The hon. member for Mooi River spelt it out in so many words the other day when he said that this was one of the problems of democracy. Another important factor giving rise to the tension in the world, is the sham power-bloc of Afro-Asian countries which had its origin in the anti-colonialistic period. As a result of the actions of this group, irrational decisions are taken at the U.N. today, causing the weapon of oil to be employed against Western countries and countries of the free world. Without my running the risk of over-simplification, I think I can say that the factors I have mentioned have contributed successively since 1946 to the heightening of the tension in the world and have also contributed to the position in which the Republic of South Africa has come to find itself in due course.

It is strange to me that a responsible Opposition which lays claim to being the alternative government of the country and which has moved a motion of no confidence in the hon. the Prime Minister because he has either accomplished certain things or failed to complete other things, has failed to see the whole background to the tension in the world in launching its attack. They have concentrated exclusively —and I have two speeches with me from which I can prove this—on the so-called policy of this Government and its fundamental internal premises. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made the following statement. In his speech he said—

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said it was largely the fault of this Government that South Africa was involved in and had been dragged into this tension. The Opposition makes four fundamental mistakes, apart from the fact that they do not take the factors I have just mentioned into account, factors which they ignore altogether as though they did not exist. They ignore the fact that the conditions which I have described existed as far back as 1946 when there was a United Party Government in power. It was at that time that South Africa suffered defeat in the council-chambers of the world for the first time. South Africa was slapped in the face and insulted, and that was under a greater statesman than the Leader of the Opposition will pretend to be, viz. his great predecessor. He said:

The great predecessor of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that as far back as 1946 the world was in such a position that it would not listen to arguments about South Africa and that “in the first clash South Africa suffered defeat.” That was not when this Government created its internal policy. At that time we did not have this Government which, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout alleges, is chiefly responsible for the condition in which our country is today. When General Smuts was at the height of his glory, when he was the statesman of the world, he had to admit: “South Africa suffered defeat because people would not listen to arguments”. That is the first blunder on the part of the Opposition.

The second blunder is that the Opposition negates and minimizes the National Party’s answer of the right of self-determination for the various peoples in South Africa. It is inherent in the U.N.’s manifesto—and their predecessor helped to write it into that manifesto—that if there is to be peace and détente and proper respect amongst nations, there must be the right of self-determination for nations, mutual respect for one another and the absence of interference in one another’s domestic affairs. This was written into the manifesto of the U.N. by the great predecessor of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and it is also the policy of the present Prime Minister and of the party which he leads, viz. that we stand by the principle of the right to self-determination and that we want to give the peoples in Southern Africa the opportunity, without interference in the domestic affairs of one another, to come to live in a spirit of détente, each exercising its own right of self-determination. This the Opposition negates in its motion of no confidence.

I think that there is a third blunder on the part of the Opposition, and that is that they, when they talk of détente, most probably understand it to mean something different to what we do. I want to put it this way: The National Party and the Prime Minister understand détente to mean relaxing of tension amongst peoples without interference in one another’s domestic affairs. We sincerely desire peace built on mutual respect. What of the Opposition? If one has listened to them over the past few days, one cannot come to any other conclusion but that they do not support détente, but that they support appeasement. They are in favour of appeasement.

Nonsense.

I do not say that the hon. member for Albany stands for appeasement. But he is not really a member of that Opposition. The only thing is that the hon. member is still sitting there. Surely the hon. member’s heart is not there. The standpoint of the official Opposition is not a standpoint of détente; it is a standpoint of appeasement. I say this can only lead to greater misunderstanding and to confusion. I want to direct a friendly warning to the Opposition this afternoon: Watch out that what you offer does not create expectations which you yourself know cannot be satisfied.

The fourth mistake which the Opposition makes, is that they do not take account of the White nation’s right and its will to self-determination. I have now been listening to speakers on the Opposition side for days on end, and if there is one thing which is totally lacking among them, then it is the point of departure that there is also a White nation in this country, a nation of Afrikaans- and English-speaking South Africans who do not want to abdicate.

What did the hon. member for Mooi River say?

H’s is a voice crying in the wilderness. I am speaking of the official standpoint of the Opposition and when I speak of the Opposition, I speak of the Progressive Party as well, because they are further on the road of “appeasement” than even the hon. Leader of the Opposition. No policy which the majority of Afrikaans- and English-speaking South Africans do not want to accept, will ever be able to succeed in the Republic of South Africa. Now it has been said, inter alia by the previous speaker, that this Government is the cause of the Whites in South Africa thinking this way. That is not correct. This Government is the result of what the Whites in South Africa think. If this Government were to take up the standpoint tomorrow which the Opposition does, then the day after tomorrow we would be sitting where they are sitting and they would have no place at all to sit. If change has to come to this country by peaceful means, if it has to come by means of evolutionary development and not revolution, then it must come with the assurance that White South Africa does not have to abdicate, otherwise there cannot be peace. White South Africa is, however the very assurance that peace can come here, because from its heart, from its tradition, from its convictions and from its philosophy of life, it wants to bring peace and has been bringing peace over 300 years. The fact that White South Africa does not want to abdicate and that they do not want any appeasement, has been experienced by the Opposition for 26 years. For how much longer will they have to experience it before they understand it?

If these matters are to be discussed, then surely we as South Africans must make a few admissions, and the few admissions which we must make are that the National Party, the Government and especially the Prime Minister, have great merit in these times. A party which after 26 years should be showing signs of growing old, is showing the opposite; it is showing the signs of a party which has a message; it is showing the signs of a party which is full of vigour in the modern time. Sir, this party has led South Africa on the road of economic strength and raised standards of living for all the people of South Africa. The president of the South African Foundation aid recently that the per capita income of the Whites in South Africa was higher than the per capita income in France, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands; that that of the Coloureds was higher than that in India, Brazil and Zambia, and that the ver capita income of the Black people in South Africa was higher than that of the populations of 35 out of 48 African States. Only yesterday evening the following extract from the report of the World Bank appeared here in the evening newspaper—

This being the position, Sir, surely things cannot be going as badly with South Africa as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition alleges. Why does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not rise above his petty party political squabbles in this time; why does he not act like a South African for South Africa in these days?

Sir, in the second place this Government also has merit because this Government is the party and the instrument which has created other instruments in South Africa so as to enable the different peoples of the Republic of South Africa to make their voices heard, and not only to enable them to make their voices heard in the world, but also to deliberate with one another. Sir, before this Government came into power, there were, after all, no means by which different peoples could make themselves heard. Before this Government came into power, there were, after all, no instruments through which the different peoples could deliberate with one another; this Government created these. After all, this Government has created the round tables for the peoples of South Africa at which to confer and deliberate with one another and tell one another where things are wrong and where things are right. This has happened under the leadership of this Prime Minister more than anyone else. Sir, that is not reason for a motion of no-confidence; that is reason for a motion of recognition and of thanks.

Sir, in the third place, this creation of instruments for the various peoples of South Africa in the spirit of self-determination in the modern world, did not take place on the basis of the principle of the sharing of power; it took place on the principle of the division and the distribution of power—not of sharing power, but of dividing power amongst those amongst whom it must be divided and of distributing power amongst those amongst whom it must be distributed, and that brought into being, also as far as government is concerned the germ of government on the basis of human dignity. Sir, let me say this here this afternoon; I believe in it personally: All people are equal before God; all peoples have the right to equal opportunity and self-determination, but equality, Sir, does not mean the surrender of one’s own dissimilarity for the sake of a deadly conformity, and that is the basic mistake which the Opposition makes, and as long as they make this mistake, they will continue to find themselves in the situation in which they are at present, and their situation will deteriorate and they will be consumed from within by moth and rust.

Sir, this Government has another merit. Its merit is that it has made South Africa an orderly state. In a world riddled with disorder, in a world riddled with riots, in a world riddled with industrial unrest, in a world riddled with subversion and insurgence, it has made this country an orderly state in which law is maintained, internally and externally—the guarantee of stability and the security of its people, also guaranteed by its military preparedness. Last night the hon. member for Durban Point gave his reason for not having any confidence in this Government as “The way in which the Government has acted by way of small thinking”. Sir, we have never been guilty of “small thinking”. When has this Government ever refused to co-operate with any country of the free world? Countries of the free world have refused to cooperate with us, under the intimidation of Russia and other powers, but we have never refused, generally, to co-operate with other countries. The hon. member referred here to Silvermine. He said Silvermine must be used for Southern Africa. But Silvermine is not intended just for Southern Africa; its intention is general and it is used generally; it is used for many countries. It is a large undertaking of this Government. “Small thinking”? That was “big thinking”. When this Government in spite of arms boycotts, in spite of efforts to cut us off, made South Africa prepared also in the military field, we thought big. The hon. member spoke of “common security”. In the past this Government has not refused to pursue common security with its neighbours, and when change came to the north of us, this Government declared immediately, through the hon. the Prime Minister and through the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and through myself in this Parliament, that we were prepared to cooperate with our neighbours and that we would not interfere in their internal affairs, but then they should not interfere in our affairs either. Surely that is not “small thinking”, Sir. I say in the past we cooperated with every neighbouring state in the technological field, in the economic field, in the agricultural field and in every field in which we could possibly make a contribution—and in future we must continue doing so. But the détente for which we stand, and the détente for which we guard this Prime Minister’s back and strengthen his arms, is to allow no interference in one another’s domestic affairs and to be prepared to conclude non-aggression pacts with every friendly country in Southern Africa, and, furthermore, in a joint effort to help guarantee the sea route around the Cape for free sea traffic; and in the fourth place to resist Communism as far as is humanly possible, with the help of all in Southern Africa who are prepared to help us.

Therefore, Sir, I say in conclusion that this is not small thinking; these are not grounds for a change in the fundamental thinking in the ranks of the Government. The National Party Government has a message for the future. The National Party Government has a message of good hope. It is a message of right and justice; it is a message from which strength radiates, also in our negotiations with other peoples.

Once again, today, Mr. Speaker, we have listened to the hon. the Minister of Defence who, in his customary fashion, tried to create the impression that this side of the House cannot really be entrusted with the future of the country and that when it comes to détente we are in favour of appeasement. I do not believe that anyone on this side of the House has anything to learn from that hon. gentleman or from anyone on that side of the House when it comes to patriotism or the question of the maintenance of South Africa’s position on the southern tip of Africa. Our problem with hon. members opposite is that when this side of the House shows the Government where it is wrong, as we have, in fact, been doing over the past 27 years, and it then has to change its policy in the course of time, we are accused of advocating appeasement. Sir, we have no quarrel with the hon. gentlemen concerning the fact that there are countries in the world, particularly the communist block, which are, perhaps, looking at South Africa with greedy eyes. Everyone knows that is so. But our quarrel with that hon. gentleman is this: If these dangers are facing South Africa, what, then, is the duty of any government worth its salt? Its duty is then to ensure that it enjoys the support of every last South African, be he White, Black or Coloured. That very hon. gentleman and his government have often given the enemies and the critics of South Africa in world forums, reason to criticize this country, more than ever before.

The hon. gentleman quotes the words of Dr. Jan Marais concerning the wonderful economic position of this country. That is correct, but he ought also to quote what Dr. Marais said recently when he spoke about the 50 questions which any South African finds difficult to justify to his friends overseas. How much have those hon. gentlemen done to rectify that? For years we have had to hear that it was the policy of this Government to grant self-determination to groups. But, Sir, they always put the cart before the horse. Before there was a chance to place the Bantu on the road to self-government, for example, their representation in this House had to disappear. Before the Coloureds acquired that mouthpiece of theirs, the Coloured Persons Representative Council, with which they could liberate themselves as the hon. gentleman now states, their representation here had first to disappear. That is why I do not find it strange that we had to endure the criticism we did. For how many years did that side of the House not say that it was their acknowledged policy to discriminate? They were a party of discrimination. Now, after 25 or 26 years we must hear that they want to move away from discrimination. That hon. gentleman himself made a speech at Stellenbosch last year in which he said that there was nothing wrong with sharing other cultural amenities with Brown people of the same cultural background, or attending gatherings with them. But, Sir, as the leader of his party in the Cape, he allowed the Nico Malan Theatre to be closed to the Coloureds for four or five years. But, Sir, that is now the fault of the outside world; it is the fault of the enemies of South Africa that we are criticized so much. For years members on the other side of the House told us that they advocated discrimination. As long ago as 23 January 1964, in a motion of no confidence, the then member for South Coast attacked the Government on its policy of discrimination in regard to the Coloureds. He stated the following in 1964 (Hansard, vol. 9, column 171)—

That is what the former Minister of Transport said. Then they still want to know why South Africa has the image overseas which it has. He expects of us that we should help him under these circumstances. But naturally we are prepared to defend South Africa under all circumstances in spite of that Government. We have never yet refused to do so. However that is what the hon. the Minister of Transport said on 23 January 1964. But what does the hon. member for Waterberg say, according to Die Transvaler of Thursday, 4 February? It was only a few days ago. In it the following words appear: “Discrimination—this is the thin edge of the wedge.”

No, those are not my words.

I read further (translation)—

Are those the hon. member’s words?

Those are my words.

Why, then, is the hon. member arguing? I read further (translation)—

If that is the hon. member’s attitude, I want to know from him, now that the hon. the Minister of Defence and the Administrator of the Cape have announced that the Coloureds, the Bantu and the Indians— everyone—may attend the Nico Malan Theatre, where he stands in this respect. I want to quote further from this newspaper report (translation)—

And now I come to the point (translation)—

If that is the attitude of our ambassador at U.N., namely that South Africa wants to get away from discrimination, if that is the attitude adopted by the Minister of Foreign Affairs when he made a speech before tire congress of the National Party at Stellenbosch, namely that the Government wants to do away with discriminatory legislation, legislation serving no purpose, and if the hon. the Prime Minister told the Coloureds that, I want to ask that hon. member where he stands in this regard with reference to this statement, speech or explanation concerning discrimination which he delivered himself of. In this House we must know what his standpoint is and what the standpoint is of other members who agree with him. I want to ask the hon. member: Does he, for example, agree with what appeared in this Morning’s Beeld, particularly where it states that if there are concessions now, there will have to be political rights later? Does he agree, for example, with the Club R.S.A. of Johannesburg which is going to offer and has already offered certain opportunities to non-Whites?

What about the Rand Club?

Does he agree with the Constantia Club that they may do that? Is that, then, not the thin edge of the wedge? It will not pay this House merely to discuss discrimination and to say that it is necessary to move away from discrimination unless that hon. member, who states that he is a supporter of the Government, tells us what his attitude is in regard to the concept that it is necessary to move away from discrimination. We on this side welcome this phenomenon. We are pleased that the Government wants it this way. It is just that it is strange to me that the hon. Administrator of the Cape could have told us, as recently as in November, that the Nico Malan would remain as it is and that the Minister of Defence could have said at the same time that that kind of thing must now be eradicated. Less than three months afterwards the announcement was made, by the hon. gentleman himself, that when he said it, no change was necessary as far as the Nico Malan was concerned.

Then his level dropped!

I find it strange that this Government, which has now decided that discrimination will have to be eradicated, still had this situation three months ago; and the hon. member for Waterberg is still not prepared to move away from discrimination.

Don’t talk nonsense.

Apparently the Government moved so fast that some people on their side were not even aware of it.

Very superficial, very superficial.

This House ought to know what the Government means, ultimately, by “moving away from discrimination”. Vague terms must not be used. People on this side of the House should be grateful that there has been a change of heart. There must be appreciation for the fact that the shortcomings of separate development have been perceived. Hover, one cannot have the situation, as is again the case today, where some members of this Parliament received an invitation to attend a certain regional symposium. That symposium is being arranged by the S.A. Co-ordinating Consumer Council. Members are asked whether they want to attend this symposium. However, it is also stated on the invitation that if any organization nominates a person who is not of European descent, it is a requirement that besides the name and address, the identity number must also be given on the application form. I quote (translation)—

That is the situation. I want to know from the Government: If they want to move away from discrimination, how is it, then, that we still have this situation that lately, when one is invited …

May I put a question to the hon. member?

Yes.

Who is responsible for the arrangement of the symposium and what kind of symposium is it? I should be obliged if the hon. member would repeat that.

I said that it was the S.A. Co-ordinating Council that was arranging this symposium. It is being held in a hotel in Newlands, Cape Town.

Which hotel?

The Newlands Hotel. Because the hotel is licensed, persons sending non-White representatives must make application before the time in order that the necessary permission may be obtained and the necessary permits issued. This is the kind of conduct which the Government must spell out to us. It has now had the opportunity—and it must not only do so at U.N.— to spell out to us in this House what they mean by “moving away from discrimination”. And it will be pointless to hide behind differentiation and regard it as a further loophole in consequence of which still further discrimination may be applied. Nor will that have the desired effect. Although one can understand what the hon. gentlemen on that side of the House mean or may mean by differentiation, I believe that under these circumstances it was not the right choice of word. It will be much better if hon. members on that side of the House stand by their point of view that they advocate the retention of group identity in this country. In the same way, separate development in respect of the Coloureds is now becoming something entirely different. Here, too, the Government, in conformity with its new movement, should rather think in terms of partnership or a joint say. I want to give the hon. gentlemen, and particularly the hon. Minister of Coloured Relations, an example. The Coloured university, the University of the Western Cape, has decided that it now wants to pay salaries and wages on an equal basis. They want to pay equal salaries for equal training. From reports in the Press it is evident that the reply they received was that if they wished to do this, they would have to utilize their own funds. If it is the Government’s policy to break away from discrimination, how can that kind of reply be furnished to the University of the Western Cape? The hon. members on that side of the House do not accept absolute separation, but they also say that they are not in favour of absolute integration. After all, that is the attitude we have adopted through the years, namely that there is a choice between absolute separation and absolute integration. Under the Government’s policy, particularly as far as the Coloureds are concerned, no doors are closed except that of representation in this Parliament. For the rest they leave the whole future open. Nothing is closed and any policy can be followed in the future. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations whether he envisages having a form of federation with the Coloureds in the future. If that is his solution, I believe that he must take the House into his confidence and tell us precisely how it is to be done. We want to know this because he has provided no final answer and the hon. the Prime Minister has provided no final answer. We on this side of the House welcome steps such as a statutory Cabinet Committee and a cabinet in place of the Executive with statutory status as steps in the right direction. We welcome the fact, for example, that they want to give more departments to the Coloured Council, but in spite of that and in spite of the increased status they are going to give the executive of the Coloured Council, there is only one thing they have in mind, namely to grant a greater joint say to these people. In the words of the hon. member for Waterberg, one cannot withdraw halfway, because the more effectively this group, the Coloureds, progresses in the handling of its own affairs, the greater is going to be the pressure to have a real share in the Government of the country. I believe that the Government has been influenced to come up with the changes it has announced. I believe that the Government has been influenced by certain factors in particular. In this regard there is, firstly, the enormous rise that has taken place in the educational level of the Coloureds, and then, too, the enormous rise in the level of their maturity as people and as a group. Another factor is that they have to an ever-increasing extent developed a sophisticated group of leaders among their own people. In addition I believe that the Government has been influenced because the Whites simply no longer have the human material to do everything for all groups in South Africa. I believe that the Government has possibly been influenced by a third factor as well, namely that in the face of the pressure from within and from without, they believe, as we have done through the years, that the common loyalty of all South Africans must be utilized in the best interests of the whole of South Africa. That is why a Dan Ulster had to go to U.N. How can one make use of such a man to represent one’s country at international level and then refuse him and his people a share in mutual internal affairs? After all, it is an anachronism to use a prominent non-White to represent South Africa at that level and then to tell him: “You and your people must take up a second class position and you will not have an opportunity to have a say in mutual domestic matters.” I believe that the Government itself also realizes this, but why do they not say so and why do they not take steps in accordance with that realization and that influence? But whatever it is that has influenced them, we on this side of the House can give them the assurance—this has already been done on a number of occasions by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—that we on this side of the House will not obstruct them in taking these steps. Then the hon. the Minister of Defence asks why we are not positive and why we do not stand up here like big South Africans and express our gratitude towards the Government. How much gratitude must we still express for steps which, as we regard them, are in the interests of South Africa? Wherever we are able, we too shall attempt to influence the Coloureds not to close the doors themselves that have been opened to them. They, as a section of the population of South Africa, should rather utilize all the opportunities to display greater self-administrative abilities, the better to prepare themselves for yet greater participation in the administration of the country, a participation which must inevitably come. We must all realize that we have the best weapon against domestic unrest in our hands and that there is more to win than to lose. We can only have peace if each person is granted his rightful place and his rightful share in South Africa. That is why it amazed me again, recently, to see that after the hon. the Prime Minister held discussions with the Coloureds, a press statement was issued in which Dr. Rhoodie, Secretary for Information, stated the following (translation)—

Whereas we now have the position that the Nico Malan Theatre has already been thrown open, is it really so wrong to demand that there should be restaurants in our major cities in South Africa where these people of note can enjoy lunch or supper with Whites, if they so choose? Why should the door for something of that nature be closed? Is it only to satisfy the hon. member for Waterberg again? The lack of open facilities provided by the public makes the entire situation undesirable and absolutely ridiculous. This is the kind of thing they can do. This is the kind of situation which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition envisaged where the Government ought to move faster and where it can do things with ease. However, the Government is placing a stumbling block along the path by having that kind of thing in South Africa. For how long can we allow overseas friends of South Africa, our non-White friends, to use our facilities, but deny them to our own educated and cultivated non-Whites. Your detente will be so much more substantial if you were to do this kind of thing, not to satisfy the outside world, but to have your own South Africans understand that they are appreciated and that they are not unnecessarily discriminated against.

May I put a question?

Certainly.

The hon. member has just said that the restaurants should be open to the well-to-do and educated non-White. Where does he draw the line in these restaurants? When can the uneducated non-White also use them?

Mr. Speaker, where one has facilities created by the public, it is the right of that man who is the owner or the company which is the owner to say who may enter those premises. One can allow them to do this just as one allows hotels to do this today. I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Defence and also the hon. the Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama relations that they must not confuse us with the Progressive Party. We suggest these things in a reasonable and sensible way. They need not only listen to us; they must also listen to what is being said by reasonable and intelligent people in their own ranks in connection with these matters. For example, I have cuttings in connection with the youth congress held in Natal which was addressed by the hon. member for Johannesburg West. Some of the members of the National Youth Bond themselves asked whether it would have been so wrong to have had a non-White to address them on that occasion. [Time expired]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member for Newton Park. It was interesting to hear how he interpreted what has happened recently and what his interpretation is of what underlies the philosophies of the Government party and the Opposition parties. I shall come back later to a few of the things he said. He raised quite a number of issues and I feel that I should react to a few of them. But I would prefer to discuss this entire matter in slightly more general terms, and then come back immediately afterwards to the one concept which ran through this entire debate. Although the motion itself comprises an entire page and touches on a variety of matters, like a round of bird-shot that is fired in the hope of hitting something somewhere, the debate was reduced to a discussion of lesser matters such as differentiation and discrimination. It was only here and there that it touched on fundamental matters.

My hon. Cape leader discussed matters of a more fundamental nature but, Sir, I want to say that the time for the sort of debate we have had here during the past few days,—and I am not including all hon. members in this—is rapidly passing in South Africa. I am saying this now for the second time within a year. Sir, I studied this motion very carefully. In view of the gravity of the times one must of necessity examine certain of the things raised here under a microscope. A number of reasons were advanced here as to why a motion of no confidence was being moved, but in my opinion those reasons were poor. I do not want to touch on the wide area covered by this motion, but I am also going to come back to the concept of discrimination of which we heard so much here. I hope we will now obtain a little more clarity on the concepts of differentiation and discrimination.

Sir, if we take into consideration the importance of the present times and how much these demand of us as leaders in South Africa, I must say that I was disappointed in the speeches made by the hon. members of the Opposition. I was disappointed because, as I said at the outset, this motion was reduced to a list of grievances, for the most part grievances of the other population groups, which we are all familiar with, without there having, in a balanced way, been recognition at the same time for the Government’s action in trying to eliminate legitimate grievances because the time was ripe for it. One gains the impression—and this is an inescapable impression—that we are now being placed in the dock in a court where the U.N. is the prosecutor and the United Party the advocate.

The counsel for the defence.

The truth, as we have already heard it in this House, sometimes makes me very despondent.

Don’t listen to your people.

But unfortunately I have to listen to the Opposition and that is why I sometimes know despondency. This strange brand of patriotism is then qualified by a kind of faint approval of the achievements and this is followed by a number of “buts” which overpower all the recognition, and the undertones are generally those of a Marcus Aurelius speech which was intended to overcome Brutus. He wanted to destroy him, yet he kept on saying: “Brutus is an honourable man.” [Interjection.] Later on I still want to say something good about the hon. Leader of the Opposition in the Transvaal. But would he not first give me a chance to make my speech?

It was Mark Anthony, not Marcus Aurelius.

The hon. leader in the Transvaal was guilty of this to a certain extent, as was the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, and other hon. members as well. The second reason for my disappointment was this. [Interjections.] You were guilty of doing so.

Who is the prosecutor now?

No, there is no charge. I am speaking with reference to what was said in this debate. Is it not relevant? I think you are a little off course in your conception of what is appropriate here. You said that this Government is to blame for what is happening now and all the problems that are arising.

Yes, many of them, of course.

Yes, that is what you believe. But is it fitting to bring it into the debate again now? We have heard it a hundred times already. It is monotonous repetition, and you achieve nothing by it. It is simply news for the outside world, and you know it.

They do not read Hansard.

Yes, they read the newspapers you like quoting so much. You yourself know that. Let us understand each other. The second disappointment was the lack of balance when it comes to the equal apportionment of blame for discrimination, in the destructive sense, where it occurs in South African society. The hon. members of the Opposition might say: Very well, the Opposition is there to oppose and we are now dealing with the Government. That is right, but have you ever considered, taking these times into account, that any parliamentary leader, when he rises to speak here, also has a broader responsibility? He can make his contribution and make use of his right by admonishing, especially if his own house is in order, and then effectively broaden the scope of his advice without placing the emphasis solely on the legalistic obstacles in discriminatory measures, whereas we all know that the main day to day problems which exists, the major obstacles, are not necessarily legalistic but are social customs and traditions which have developed over the years.

My third cause for disappointment in this kind of debate is this. Has it not yet dawned on you in the past few years that these people are now able to speak for themselves in respect of these matters which you over-emphasize in this way? Has it not dawned on you that in terms of this policy and the understanding we have achieved with these people in the course of four years, these people themselves are able to state their case well and articulately and are in fact doing so, and that it is not necessary for you to bring non-White politics into this House in this way. These people are able to speak for themselves. Do you know what? The day will come when they will tell you—they may already have done so—that you are engaged in a form of paternalism. They are able to interpret this list of grievances you have mentioned and convey them to us as one person to another in a far better and far more responsible way—this I can tell you, for I have had experience of it. These people are not afraid to do so.

The hon. members need no longer fear that those people are too weak, are not equal to the task or cannot state their case. Hon. members need no longer have that fear. Hon. members will be surprised at the responsibility which some leaders of the non-White groups display. Their responsibility is demonstrated when we discuss matters of real importance and not when we assemble as separate and opposing parties on the one side and the Government on the other. I want to mention just one instance, one which is quite interesting. A non-White leader complained about the ousting at a certain State institution of a certain ethnic group by another ethnic group. He said they were no longer able to tolerate it and that the Government had to do something about it. To this the Government replied: “Look, I have a duty to prevent friction and I can do something about it. In fact, it fits in with my policy. But on the other hand the Whites, in turn, are complaining that you are ousting them. What must I do under such circumstances? Must I now make arrangements which amount to my drawing a distinction?”

The non-White leader immediately saw what was at stake here. He immediately understood that there are certain cases in which this type of action is necessary because we cannot find a blanket reason, as it is called, why a distinction should never be drawn. Not all separation measures are evil.

Questions were asked about work reservation and influx control. If we have employment opportunities for 20000 and 30 000 stream in, what must we do? If something of this kind happens, surely it will cause friction. How will we really be able to determine, through free competition, which of these people are in fact the deserving ones? We will probably find an answer one day; I do not know.

Through education and training.

There is better understanding among these people and my experience has been that they no longer, as they did in the past, appreciate this kind of intercession on the part of the Opposition. I have said that to me there are three main disappointments in respect of this matter. No doubt it is not really relevant since the Opposition has the right to move a motion of no confidence just as I have the right to lock my front gate to all visitors, friends and foes alike, without having regard to the consequences of such action. It is my right, and I can do so. But the question is whether I am going to do so and whether it is a good thing. If South Africa’s vital interests are coming to the fore so urgently that it has been said on occasion that this session may become of decisive importance, one expects action of another kind.

Even the hon. member for Houghton said that this was an exceptionally important session and went on to take the official Opposition to task for being so divided among themselves. We know that there is still dissension among them and I only hope they will solve their problems. When a parliamentary session is of such decisive importance for our future, and the hon. Opposition can see that untiring efforts are being made to achieve a dispensation based on a policy which has repeatedly been emphasized and approved by the electorate, and an effort is made to carry that policy through to its logical consequences—I am coming back to that again later—and side effects are being produced which we find are no longer suitable, but harmful, and we want to get rid of them, I really do not know whether motions such as this one —I am not referring now to its having been moved, but rather to the way it was framed —have not finally deprived the Opposition of the chance to rise to a leadership level. I think it is depriving them of the chance of really rising to this level so that we can have full respect for them as people who fully understand what is happening in South Africa.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout says that the Opposition need not applaud, but without making any overtures I want to tell him that they can, to a large extent, help to praise the White man’s confidence in himself through what is happening. This is very important because it is very important for South Africa. The hon. Opposition should do this instead of sowing suspicion against the aims of the Government. Quite a number of Opposition speakers aroused suspicion about the ability of the Government to achieve the objectives it set itself. I do not want to mention names again. However, there is one hon. member who had too much to say a moment ago when I admonished him, but he has left the Chamber now. It seems to me as though he cannot keep quiet. If his nerves trouble him I can offer him a remedy. I am referring now to the hon. member for Yeoville. After the hon. member for Green Point and other hon. members had sown suspicion in this way, and after we had reached an understanding with the Coloured leaders, the hon. members for Edenvale and Port Elizabeth Central started to interfere in this understanding, this delicate understanding we are trying to develop.

The one says it cannot be carried through to a conclusion because there is no final decision and the people do not have a say up to the highest level. The other one wants to make better proposals for these people than they themselves have made. I then found it good to hear, recently, that the hon. member for Yeoville had sound advice for the United Party and said that he was more interested in South Africa’s interests than he was in governing. To me this was a fundamentally sound statement. He said by implication that there were people who played politics too readily, and had other considerations besides South Africa’s broad interests. I understand that the hon. member also discussed the homeland policy and said it ought to be accepted, but how certain I can be of that, I do not know. Hon. members on the opposite side allowed that opportunity to slip, those hon. members who sounded this positive note, have to a certain extent been treated fairly traumatically by them, for they have cut off a part of their arm and he is sitting to one side now, an outcast. I am afraid they have lost their opportunity for this year, and I want to ask the hon. Leader and his followers to think about these matters very seriously and see what they can do about them next year. Even if one has been moving a motion of no confidence here for 27 years, the demands of the times require that the United Party have taken the initiative and framed their motion in such a way this time that it would have been clear that they regarded the interests of South Africa as being so important that it was not a motion of no confidence which was called for, but in fact one of encouragement, and that they, by means of penetrating study, would have indicated where they thought the Government was not doing well. In the times in which we are living, this would have been statesmanship. I hope the hon. member for Yeoville will also participate in the debate.

I just want to round off this concept of discrimination, about which we have had a great deal to say, very quickly by saying that we have now brought it back to the point—everyone understands this—that there are two forms, as we understand it. This is irrespective of what the dictionary says, as it was quoted by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. There are two concepts in this regard, as they have evolved in political history, i.e. discrimination in the bad sense, where one once again draws a distinction and places the one in a worse position than the other, or in some way or another attaches a stigma to him, or whatever, and the other, according to which differentiation is applied because it is customary and acceptable and because, in its results, it really is better for both to apply it. This is as we see it, and where we differ with the Opposition. It is true, Advocate Pik Botha did say:

But surely this is nothing new. In August last year the hon. the Prime Minister, according to Hansard, said something which he has been saying here for many years. I quote:

But let us come to differentiation now. Here I have to cross swords with a learned friend who actually knows far more about the logic of this matter and about constitutional matters than I do. I am referring to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. The Prime Minister said something else as well and this is the basis of our policy. This is where our philosophies differ and for that reason I do not think that their philosophy, as it has been analysed, is really as correct as the hon. member thinks it is. The National Party adopts the standpoint of multinationalism. If the hon. member wants to laugh about that concept, it is his affair. I see the hon. member is not laughing after all; I am sure he realizes there is something in it. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who is trying to make an interjection there, mentioned in his speech the other day that he accepted multinationalism in South Africa. The National Party adopts the standpoint of multinationalism while the United Party adopts the standpoint of multiracialism. If one adopts the standpoint of multiracialism, one dare not differentiate between races, for then one would be discriminating and giving offence since each one is a unitary society. However, if one adopts the standpoint of multinationalism, one has a right to differentiate and it cannot cause offence since it is the right of every nation to separate itself from another nation at times, as often as it is in its interests to do so. The Prime Minister linked this to the idea of each nation’s retention of political power over itself.

Surely multiracialism is not uniracialism.

No, multiracialism, as the hon. member intends it, is nothing but a unitary society. It does in fact mean uniracialism.

What does multiracialism mean, then?

Multiracialism simply means that in one’s political authority in particular, one has an absolute potpourri, a homogeneous political system in South Africa. The hon. member must not try to convince me now that a federal system of government for South Africa does not also mean majority government, for it is in fact majority government, and in one’s central government decisions are still taken by means of a majority vote in order to determine what should be done for the country. If, as in the case in America, one then has a three-quarters majority, one might as well tear up one’s Constitution Act. So the hon. member need not cross swords with me on that score. I now want to say this to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana: If he believes in multiracialism and we in multinationalism, surely there is a difference. When we are separate peoples, the people, if they understand it as we understand it, will be less afraid that the Christian attitude governing interpersonal relationships will disappear, this attitude which does not differentiate, does not suppress, does not begrudge others what one desires for oneself. The people will realize that their political future cannot be prejudiced. However, the hon. member’s party is not trusted. Because his party mixes everything up it is being rejected, and has been rejected for 27 years. The hon. member will say now that his philosophy has been in existence for many years and that it is his philosophy which is being accepted. I really must quote to him what was said as long ago as, 1961 and has therefore extended over so many years that it can with justification be called the philosophy of the National Party. This is what Dr. Verwoerd said at that time already about the concept of “discrimination” (translation):

and now I am not denying that there may be suffering or that it may happen that people are hurt—

The hon. members on that side of the House say that their philosophy applied throughout, and that we are now acting according to their philosophy. Here I have now presented to hon. members a history which ranges over a period of 14 years which proves that our leaders proceeded from the standpoint that discrimination must eventually disappear. There is a time for everything and, when the time is ripe, we can allow measures to disappear. Why cannot we do this, especially if we gradually bring home to the people, so that they can understand it, the fears, traditions and customs and everything that is wrong? Therefore, from 1960 to 1974 the philosophy of the National Party has changed very little. However, occasions arise when we have to reconsider matters. What was the position with the philosophy of the United Party? Was it also as constant? In 1960 they advocated a common voters’ roll; in 1966 they advocated separate representation for the Coloureds, and in 1970 they announced that the Coloureds had to be removed from the voters’ roll. Last year, in 1974, they suddenly rediscovered that the Coloureds must have representation in this House. How much has the philosophy of those hon. members in regard to these people not changed!

That is method and policy, not philosophy.

Even philosophy can change. If we change we are admonished by hon. members opposite that we have changed our policy. Now the hon. member is talking about philosophy again. Philosophy is the basis of policy and policy might change.

*Do not let us get mathematical now. Over the past few years the hon. members opposite have trimmed the sails of their policy to the wind. Hon. members must not seize upon philosophy now to try and justify this. If mistakes have been made, both could have made them. But I am speaking about 1975 now. Is 1975 more important to us or is 1960 more important to us? If we can criticize one another, we on this side of the House can criticize hon. members just as much as they criticize us. A time arrives for taking matters into reconsideration and it has now been decided to reconsider this matter. However, we cannot go along with the world psychosis which says that all differentiation is evil. I think a number of the hon. members on that side of the House will agree with me when I say this. For that reason there is a systematic evaluation of obsolete customs. The customs have become obsolete precisely because of the development of a good middle-class among our other population groups, which is today entitled to proper recognition. Sometimes one also wants to recognize other people at certain levels while one feels that at other levels they would not belong with one or want to be with one. Many changes have been effected recently in hotels, in sport, in appointments to boards, in respect of salaries—about which hon. members opposite have so much to say—by means of consultation among the people, with dialogue, by means of separation measures and by means of theatres and in many other respects which I cannot enumerate now. If hon. members want to listen to the U.N. in cases such as this and want to allow themselves to be stampeded, they are doing the wrong thing by the electorate of South Africa. Therefore, hon. members should do their duty as this Government is doing. Hear the U.N. when it is so excessive and listen to it when it is fair. However, when it becomes as excessive as it has at present, so that Mr. Scali had to say of the U.N. what he recently said, one should take cognizance of it, but ignore it. One’s answer should be to do one’s duty to all the people of South Africa as this Government will do, and it is the duty of hon. members opposite to assist us as we are doing this from day to day.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs has had a very long exchange with the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and I do not intend to follow him in that. However, in the course of my speech I hope to return to the distinction that has been drawn by himself and by others between differentiation and discrimination. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister has expressed his profound disappointment in the contribution so far from the Opposition benches. It would appear that we have not spoken with the adoration which he was hoping we would lavish on the hon. the Prime Minister, although I think, in fairness, that most speakers have tried to give credit where credit is due. He also expressed disappointment at our raising the whole question of the non-White, so to speak, because he says they can speak for themselves. That is precisely the dilemma that faces any member of this House. He does not only speak for the White man, the White electorate, but he also has to speak with the knowledge that the vast majority of people cannot speak for themselves in this House.

During this no-confidence debate attention has been focused mainly on discrimination, and understandably so. Following the recent statements by leading Government spokesmen, including the hon. the Prime Minister, it is understandable that the two key areas of détente on the one hand and race discrimination on the other should be the key focus. However, there is a twofold irony underlying the whole debate. In the first place the harsh calls of “swart gevaar” which have resounded down the years and have actually earned many people their seats in this House, have scarcely died down and here we get the very members in the front row who advocated “swart gevaar” and berated those who spoke against race discrimination, discussing the ending of discrimination based on race and colour. It is very good that they should do so, but nevertheless it is somewhat ironic.

I said there were two points of irony. The second is that, now that we have decided that discrimination based on race and colour is wrong and that we must move away from it, suddenly we do not seem to know what discrimination really is. We have heard all kinds of long, tortuous descriptions and word-plays as to what it is all about and I am inevitably reminded of the conversation between Alice and Humpty Dumpty in the book Alice Through the Looking Glass. I quote—

That is exactly the underlying irony of this entire debate. We are very much in danger of indulging in a word game instead of focusing on the harsh reality which faces our country. If we do not know what discrimination is yet, I suggest we talk to those who are the daily victims of discrimination. Perhaps we should go around as a Parliament and talk to a family whose home has just been bulldozed; or perhaps we should talk to a group from the Maitland Garden Village whose community has been uprooted or is to be uprooted and transported elsewhere; or perhaps to the parents of a child who cannot be placed in a school; or to the wife who is forcibly removed from her husband and who has to spend 11 months of the pear apart; or to the approximately 2 685 urban Africans prosecuted daily under the influx control regulations; or we may even discuss the meaning of discrimination with, let us say, an African man who, not for the lack of qualification, but simply because of the colour of his skin, cannot get the job which his qualifications ought to give him entrance to.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Mr. Speaker, I have only 20 minutes. Perhaps the hon. member would talk to me afterwards. We must be very careful lest instead of focusing on the real issue we become involved in semantics.

In the first instance, from the debate so far it is clear that discrimination is out and differentiation is in. Very early on in the debate the hon. member for Vereeniging sought to draw a distinction between these two. He made what I think were three important points in his speech.

*In the first place he said, and I quote (translation)—

This is the first point. It is also the conviction of that side of the House that they recognize the human dignity of all people, and for that reason they want to eliminate discrimination. There is also a third point, i.e. that the Nationalist Party is in favour of good order. Now, we have these three points, and the Nationalist Party is now in favour of differentiation and not discrimination.

†However, what we have to be very clear about is that we are not just dealing with discrimination in another guise. To put it in another way, differentiation must not simply be a softening of the discriminatory blow. Is discrimination really and truly to be rooted out or is it merely to be gently pushed aside so that differentiation can take its place in the form of the sugar coating on a very bitter pill? We must never imagine that simply by the use of cosmetics we can hide the deep wounds that are on the face of this South African society of ours. If we do, our last state will be worse than our first.

Let us take a look for a moment at this word “identity”. We have talked a great deal about differentiation and discrimination so it seems logical to ask a question about identity. What does it really mean? It is clear from the remarks made by the hon. member for Vereeniging who was followed up by several hon. Ministers and others that the safeguarding of identity is not the separate safeguarding of the Afrikaans-speaking South African or of the English-speaking South African because these two are joined together. It is also not a question of language that we are discussing. It is certainly not merely the safeguarding of a culture. I want to go further and say that it is quite clearly not only, although it may well be included, the safeguarding of the Christian faith or belief. The safeguarding of identity, as it has come to us from hon. members on that side of the House, is undeniably the preservation of the White race and indeed of White privilege. The emphasis is on skin colour.

No.

Very well, if hon. members do not agree with me let me give them an example. Let us take a man who lives in the urban area. He is well-educated; perhaps he is a schoolmaster; he speaks Afrikaans; he lives in a fairly nice home; he is a Christian but he also has a brown skin. That is the distinction. It is not his faith, not his culture, not his language, not his education, so the protection of his identity does not mean the protection of all these other things but basically the protection of the white skin. If that is so then in heaven’s name let us admit it! We talk about political honesty. Let us then have some political honesty. Let me put it another way. A man may come to this country as an immigrant from Germany, France, Portugal or England. He comes to settle in South Africa. He knows very little English and no Afrikaans. He knows nothing of our culture and very little of our history. Despite all this, he is permitted to settle wherever he likes.

We have heard that story before.

The problem with hon. members opposite is that they do not listen. Mr. Speaker, this is a man who can live anywhere he likes.

That is not true.

It is true. He can get a job anywhere he likes if he has the necessary qualifications; he can buy a house if he has the money; he can settle just wherever he likes, and indeed, in due time, if that is his wish, he can actually become involved in political affairs and exercise a vote and participate in the administration of the country as a full citizen. But if that man happens to be Black, he cannot, although he was born in, say, Johannesburg and has lived there all his life, enjoy the same privileges and opportunities that the other man has. Sir, when we talk about identity, let us be clear about one thing: We are talking not about the preservation of a culture or a language or about faith or about history. [Interjections.] Sir, if an immigrant can come into this country and enjoy all the benefits and privileges of society and this is denied to people who are born here and brought up here, then I must ask in all honesty: Is this differentiation or is this discrimination?

Sir, the hon. member for Vereeniging also went on to talk about “goeie orde”. I agree with him that it is most essential to have good order. It is always desirable to have stability and order in any society. The hon. member emphasized strongly that to ensure the maintenance of good order, it was imperative that differentiation should be practised. But what if the opposite is the case; what if in fact in the long term the policy of separate development, especially as it is applied in the urban areas, is the very opposite and the very contradiction of good order? Sir, will hon. members on that side of the House then change their policy for the sake of the maintenance of good order? Because it is very clear that if this Government persists in its policy of separate development in the urban areas —let us leave aside the homelands for the moment—there can be no guarantee that we will not have very considerable unrest in South Africa. Separate development and the moving away from racial discrimination are mutually exclusive, and because of that separate development is a threat to good order. Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration said in this House yesterday, as I believe he said at a public meeting at Krugersdorp— and I am quite sure that there will be a lot of “Hoor, hoors” here—that the Progressive Party and the “dangers inherent in its policy” were a greater danger to South Africa than the United Nations, more dangerous even than all the threats of the Organization for African Unity. Sir, I sympathize with the hon. the Deputy Minister. I can well understand why he sees the Progressive Party as a real danger, not to South Africa but to the Nationalist Party, because as an honest man he knows that the only real alternative to the Nationalist Party policy is the policy of this party. He knows that full well. As he himself said, he was not going to dance on the grave of the United Party. He worries about that, but the only concern I have is that if this is the way people are being expelled, I am going to have to move up the row until I am at the very end! [Interjections.] That is a little disconcerting, to say the least of it.

Sir, may I now, in the few minutes I have left at my disposal, move on to the relationship between the South African economy and this policy of separate development, to try to indicate exactly what I mean by saying that the two are mutually exclusive. The ex-Minister of Finance has consistently stated in this House and elsewhere—and I am fully in agreement with him—that it is imperative, essential and desirable that the South African economy should grow and continue to grow. But it is equally clear that this economy of ours cannot grow, cannot even stand where it is, unless we begin to share the rights and the privileges and the responsibilities of skilled work with other people apart from the White members of our community. This is very clear, and it is recognized by the Government itself in its recent reduction of job reservation in the building industry for Coloured and Indian workers. But unfortunately it does not go far enough because it still stands in its policy, as enunciated in recent days, that it is contrary to Nationalist Party policy for a Coloured man, no matter how well qualified, to be in a supervisory capacity over a White worker. Am I right or wrong? Sir, if I am right, then of course I must ask some very hard, questions of Mr. Conradie, the Nationalist MEC, because he states in Die Burger that the South African White people have got to come to terms with the fact that there will come a time when Blacks on the basis of qualification will be in a supervisory capacity over Whites. [Interjections.] Sir, this is the question that has to be faced. If this economy of ours is to grow, we must extend the rights of skilled workers to the whole of our community. If you are going to do that, it follows as night must follow day that you cannot simply see economic integration in isolation from social and political rights. And that is where separate development breaks down, because you cannot hold in tension economic integration, which says that there must be a commitment to common goals in the workplace, common goals, a working together, in order for your economy to be efficient, and then when he leaves the workplace, say that the focus must be on group identity alone. Furthermore, it also goes on to say that the semi-permanent or permanent temporary Blacks—I do not know what the latest description is of the 5 million Blacks living in the urban areas—must eventually return to their homelands and that it is desirable for them to return to their homelands, and to be part of that group situation, and that that is why you have to differentiate. In actual fact you have nothing other than rampant discrimination against people whom we need in our economy on the one hand, but to whom we do not wish to extend the rights of citizenship on the other. Sir, you cannot on the one hand move towards economic integration, as we are doing, in order for our economy to grow, and at the same time disallow people to enter into their natural rights and responsibilities in the social area and in the political area as well.

Mr. Speaker, I should not like to enter into conversation with the Progressive Party. The premises from which we on this side and they approach matters are poles apart, and therefore we can never reach each other and we can never argue with each other on matters such as discrimination. However, I should like to tell the hon. member for Pinelands that the major difference between them and us lies in their failure to appreciate the fact that there are different peoples in South Africa.

They have never heard of it.

Therefore they are moving in the direction of one man, one vote. Until now they have been discriminating. However, I know that they want to get away from the franchise discrimination contained in their policy. The way in which they can get away from it is one man, one vote. If they acknowledge the existence of different peoples in South Africa, then the policy of majority rule, the policy of one man, one vote, is the biggest discrimination which has ever been introduced in South Africa, because it means discrimination against the peoples which constitute the minority groups in South Africa. Therefore I say that we and they cannot enter into conversation with each other on these matters.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition quite justifiably exercised his right to move a motion of no confidence with that content in the House. In this, however, we have only seen the United Party once again as we have always known it, viz. as the Opposition which always does the wrong thing at the wrong time. Therefore, in the idiom of the hon. member for Durban North, the United Party is what it is.

I should like to ask the hon. members of the Opposition, when they take up their Bibles before going to bed tonight, to read Titus 3, verse 3. By that I do not mean to suggest that everything in Titus 3, verse 3 is applicable to them, but I think they will find a few phrases which may provide them with food for thought. The hon. members of the Opposition are in the position that nobody really takes any notice of them any more as an alternative Government. On the political battle-front they are no longer a factor for an alternative Government. The political battle-front on which they are engaged is one on which they are fighting for the right to be the official Opposition. They are engaged in a battle to the death with the Progressive Party for the status of being the official Opposition in this House. I am coming to certain basic facts and philosophies which the United Party fail to see. Because they fail to see these, they can never make progress and they can never be an alternative government or hold the possibility of being an alternative government. The United Party has produced numerous policies which it has offered the people. The United Party beats the drum of emotional politicizing. Let me tell them immediately that the time for emotional politics in South Africa has passed. We in South Africa are engaged in the politics of reality, but this they do not want to accept. Over the past years they have tried to exploit supposed grievances in order to make progress. They have tried to run down the economy of South Africa in order to make people afraid of ending up in bankruptcy. It was all to no avail, and their position only weakened. For that reason I say that they are not engaged in a struggle to take over the government of the country, but that they are engaged in a struggle with the Progressive Party, and the Progressive Party might take note of this. However, I think they already know this. I want to suggest here this afternoon that even if the United Party kicked out ten Enthovens from their ranks, even if they made peace with each other—such a peace that even the hon. member for King William’s Town and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout held hands as only two lovers can—even if they elected for themselves another leader or any leader at all, they could still not become a party which could develop into a possible government for South Africa in the future. The hon. member for Albany agrees with me and in a moment I shall come to these basic facts which they ignore …

Since when have I been agreeing? Never!

On that he will agree with me. In this regard nobody is taking any notice of them any more. The recent survey indicates that the United Party got some water in its Pegasus. We know what the result of that is. A vehicle with which that has happened, stops dead. It jerks and snorts and then it stops. The problem with the United Party is that its vehicle has come to a standstill on an uphill stretch and is now going backwards. They are angry with the hon. member for Randburg about the results of this survey. If they are dissatisfied with him and have kicked him out of their caucus because the publication of those results would impede the United Party in its struggle to form an alternative Government in South Africa, I say that they have kicked an innocent man out of the caucus, because this is not relevant, but if they kicked him out because his findings would impede them in their battle against the Progressives, I say they had the fullest right to kick him out, for then he has harmed them.

In South Africa a process of national unification is increasingly taking place. This process has been going on for years. National unity, White unity which is developing in South Africa, does not develop purely by chance. White unity in South Africa is not developing simply on account of group affiliations. White unity is developing in South Africa on account of very strong basic reasons. Since the Second World War a tidal wave of equalization and emancipation has swept the world. It is a philosophy which has gripped the whole world. That philosophy has found expression in Africa. We have seen every day what has taken place in Africa over the years. From this philosophy which has swept the world South Africa has not been excluded. This philosophy concerns South Africa most intimately, because this philosophy has stimulated and developed the slumbering national consciousness of people. Because we have different peoples here in South Africa, this process is also taking place in South Africa. It has been going on for years. The Whites in South Africa have realized this. They realized it after the end of the war. Because the United Party thought in 1948 that they would still be able to go on with the existing pattern, they were defeated as far back as 1948. This happened because the Whites have, since 1948, come together and felt that it could eventually be a threat to the Whites. In other words, it is self-preservation which is stimulating White unification in South Africa. When national unification takes place, it takes place on a basis of principles. White unity in South Africa cannot take place of its own accord. It formulates itself around principles. The basic fact is that the principle on which national unity is built is the principle of recognition of the right of a nation to exist, to determine its own affairs and to be sovereign. In South Africa it would be wrong to recognize and to demand this right for the Whites and to proceed with the pattern without wanting to give the same right to the non-White peoples, for then the battle for self-preservation on the side of the Whites would be a futile one. It is precisely in this respect that the Opposition and the National Party differ from each other. This is where the great difference lies between them and us. This national unity happens to be growing around the principles of the National Party, because the Whites in South Africa can see that the principles of the National Party are those which offer them this guarantee of self-preservation. Now surely it is obvious that when national unity develops around the principles of a political party, this must cause other political parties to lose ground. It is obvious, therefore, that this process will in fact take place in the ranks of the Opposition, as is happening at the moment. The United Party has been losing support over the years. What is really happening? As the years pass, old loyalties which used to be shown them, loyalties which used to support them, disappear. For that reason they completely fail to see the will and aspirations of the present generation, for as new generations are getting the right of decision in South Africa, support for the United Party is declining and disappearing. That is why the United Party refuses to recognize the basic truths and that is why the United Party finds itself in its present position. Much has been said about the quarrels in the ranks of the United Party. These quarrels are seen as the cause for their losing support. It is not true, because their support which is caving in under them, is the cause of their quarrel. So it is just the other way round. Therefore it is my opinion that no matter how hard they try to restore the peace, if they do not come forward with a policy with which they can gain support, these quarrels in their ranks will continue. I do not want to accuse the United Party of not wanting to further or see the continued existence of the White nation in South Africa. I believe they are as anxious about the White man in South Africa as we are. I am not more anxious about that then they are, or let me rather say, than many of them are. But what does the United Party do? Time after time it elects for itself a policy in which it tries to entrench the position of the White man in South Africa. In other words, it accepts the principle of the survival of the Whites in South Africa, but it builds policies on this principle which could lead to its destruction.

That is nonsense.

I shall now tell hon. members why. In 1973 they announced their federal policy in the House of Assembly. There were two outstanding features which characterized this federal policy. The one was that initially they would have a sovereign White Parliament which would continue to exist in South Africa and which they would give to the Whites as a guarantee. I say that they would have a purely White Parliament which would be sovereign and which would command a right of veto. They guaranteed such a Parliament. Now I want to know whether it is still their policy that such a Parliament would continue to exist in South Africa.

Of course.

The hon. member for Simonstown says “Of course”. I want to put a question to the hon. member for Yeoville: Will there always be a White sovereign Parliament with veto power in the United Party’s parliamentary system? He will not say so. I know the hon. member for Simonstown says so …

Such a parliament will not survive.

The hon. member for Edenvale says that such a Parliament will not survive. It did not depend on the White electorate, but it was the policy of the United Party that there would be a White sovereign Parliament here. They did not say that they would leave it to the electorate. I want to read hon. members what Mr. Etienne Malan said in 1973. Hon. members must not tell me now that Mr. Etienne Malan was talking through his hat and that he has now been thrown out and repudiated, because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition confirmed every word he said. He said—

Does the hon. member for Edenvale subscribe to that? He does not subscribe to it. Now I want to warn the hon. member for Simonstown: Having made this public admission—and I know he stands by it—he must be careful lest his head be demanded in return for the head of the hon. member for Randburg.

They swop heads.

They gave the Whites another guarantee as well by implication. The other component which may develop into a component of power is the federal body. According to Hansard of 9 February 1973 (col. 340), what did Mr. Etienne Malan declare here in Parliament? What reassurance did he give to the Whites? He said:

In other words, here the assurance is given that through manipulation the Whites in the federal assembly will always be kept in the majority. Am I correct? In other words, what the hon. member is in fact saying here is that, if the sovereign Parliament were to transfer some of its powers to that federal assembly, the majority vote of the Whites would still apply in the federal assembly. I do not wish to comment on the folly of that, but I do want to say a few words about something which has a bearing on it. The fact is that I cannot believe that there is a single member on the United Party side who would believe that the non-White people would accept such a situation in which power is shared while the supreme authority of the Whites is entrenched. Now the question occurs to me, especially in regard to the composition of the federal assembly and these assurances which have been given: In all the negotiations of the United Party with non-White leaders, what safeguards do they give the non-White leaders in regard to their peoples and their position in the federal assembly and in the federal system? When I put this question, I think we have the right to get an answer to it. Do they tell the non-White leaders in South Africa. “We want to create a federal system, we want to share power, but the condition we impose is that we make the sovereignty of the White Parliament the supreme authority and that we shall make sure of having the majority in that federal body”? Do they tell the non-White leaders that when they negotiate with them? The hon. member for Yeoville is the negotiator. He has stated that the non-White leaders support the federal scheme. They give a guarantee to the Whites, but I want to ask them this: What guarantee are they giving the non-Whites of which we do not know? I am afraid they cannot give guarantees to the non-Whites and then let down the Whites with the guarantees they give. The United Party should take care, especially in the times in which we are living, not to engage in politics of outmanoeuvring, for on this basis the one or the other must be outmanoeuvred. Either the non-Whites or the Whites will be outmanoeuvred. Let them learn a lesson. The politics of outmanoeuvring may take one a short way, but eventually the moment of truth dawns when outmanoeuvring politics come to a standstill. Then those who have been outmanoeuvred bring to book the people who designed schemes to outmanoeuvre them. We dare not follow a course with the United Pary where people will eventually be brought to book in South Africa. By acting in this way the United Party is making a farce of our democracy in South Africa. No democracy can afford to have an opposition waging a political struggle in its own ranks for the status of being the official Opposition. Then we do not get rational thinking from an opposition; then we do not get sober thinking from an opposition. Then we get a state of panic in opposition ranks, and South Africa cannot afford a panicky opposition.

Mr. Speaker, one hears some very interesting things in this House, and I think the last two speakers on the Nationalist side have demonstrated this. The hon. the Minister of Health decided that he was going to rewrite Shakespeare and history and make Marcus Aurelius the speaker to deliver a speech on the assassination of Julius Caesar instead of Mark Anthony. If I may continue with this Roman metaphor, while Rome was burning the last speaker was riding Caligula’s horse and fiddling the facts of other people’s policies instead of dealing with what, in fact, are the important things in South Africa.

If I may, one of the things I should like to deal with is the new appointments that have been made to the Cabinet. In the first place, I should like to say to the hon. the Minister of Finance, who is not here at the moment, that I think it is very difficult to replace a man of the calibre of Dr. Diederichs. I think therefore that the hon. the Minister of Finance is starting at a disadvantage. At the same time, however, he and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs have advantages. On the one hand they have an easy job to do, but on the other hand there are some difficulties. The job is easy because I believe that both the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs are backed by extremely competent officials. I also believe that the job is easy because of the inherent wealth of South Africa and all that is beneficial in this country of ours. These are the things that make their jobs easy. On the other hand, the jobs become difficult because of the world economic situation, because of a threatening world recession and because of the dangers of inflation. I want to say to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, who is present—and ask him to convey these remarks to the hon. the Minister of Finance—that we in the Opposition, who deal with finance and economics, will give them every chance. If they go wrong, they must know what to expect from us. But on the other hand we will give them every benefit of the doubt.

Sir, may I make a few comments on finance and economics? I believe it is common cause between all of us in this House that the living standards of our people must be raised. This means that not only must wages be increased in order to keep up with inflation, but that real wages must go up, because in the South African scene the under-privileged people can in fact only be satisfied if there is an opportunity for them to improve their real living standards. I want to say to the Minister of Economic Affairs that it is not enough if in fact wages go up merely to keep pace with inflation. Sir, one of the matters which concerns me and which, with respect, should concern every other member in this House and which should concern the Minister of Labour, is that many of our wage determinations are grossly out of date; that the Wage Board is sitting with some 25 wage determinations that they are busy reviewing now; and that they are unable to take on extra work when it is conceded that in fact these matters need urgent attention. I would like to appeal to members of the Cabinet to give immediate attention to the setting up of quicker machinery in order to increase minimum wages in South Africa and in order to deal with wage determinations at greater speed. Secondly, Sir, I want to say that stability in South Africa is considerably dependent upon the ability of people to raise their living standards and not to have their existing standards eroded by inflation. If we are going to pay more in real wages then we must produce more. If we produce more, then people can in fact live better and their standards can be raised. Sir, I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister of Finance and to the authorities that under present conditions demand inflation is no longer a serious problem; that in fact we can in the present situation ease up on monetary restraints in order to enable our productive capacity to be increased; to promote greater production in South Africa, to encourage investment and to make sure that we can produce enough for all our people in South Africa. I also want to say that I believe that the hon. the Minister should apply his mind, particularly when it comes to the presentation of the Budget, to the question of including in it further incentives to productivity. Last year we listed a number of matters here which should be attended to in this regard, but we believe that one of the most important matters that we need to attend to at the present moment is to find ways and means of increasing productivity, because with increased productivity we can afford to pay higher wages, and if we can afford to pay higher wages then all our people in South Africa, irrespective of colour, will be able to live better.

Sir, I also want to deal briefly, if I may do so, with inflation. This is one of the matters which is ignored by the other side. [Interjections.] Sir, hon. members opposite do not like discussing inflation and economics in this House and they make a noise about it when one raises these matters. This debate has gone on for four days and I would like to know what kind of contribution there has been from that side of the House in respect of the real needs of our people and the improvement of their living standards. Hon. members opposite are very good at making noises, but they are not very good at improving the living standards of our people. I want to deal now with inflation and draw the attention of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs to the fact that inflation is in fact a danger to the social structure of any country. We all know that when inflation gets too high, it in fact affects the social structure of your country; it can undermine stability in your country and it can cause labour unrest, and in this delicate situation in which we find ourselves, I regard inflation as being a danger to race relations in this country. Sir, we need to deal with inflation in a more concrete and a more determined fashion. I think there are a number of things which we should bear in mind. Firstly, the rand as our currency should be maintained as a strong and hard currency in the world. I believe that the rand is under-valued in comparison with many other currencies in the world. If you give the rand its real value, then you will in fact be helping to reduce living costs, because you can then reduce the effects of imported inflation. Secondly, Sir, I think we have got to watch State-controlled expenditure to a greater extent, we have got to watch the tariffs which are imposed by the State. It is no good the State and the Government saying that they are not responsible for a considerable part of inflation, because you only have to look at the recent increases in telephone tariffs and postal tariffs and matters of that sort to realize what the State is doing to increase inflation in South Africa. I believe also that we have got to look at some of the imports into South Africa which are of a luxury nature. I think we need to take steps against the exploitation of the public as well, and I wish to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to this again. Nobody can convince me that in fact fruit and vegetables in many parts of the country should have gone up 200% to 300% in the last little while. Nobody can convince me of that and I ask the hon. the Minister to take action to avoid the exploitation of the public in every field where prices are being increased absolutely unnecessarily in the existing circumstances.

There is one other matter I wish to deal with, Sir. We in South Africa are very fortunate in respect of our gold. We all sneak about it. The former Minister of Finance spoke about it often. But one of the things happening in the world today is that there has been a campaign, particularly in the United States of America, to sow suspicion in respect of gold. There are people who have been told to be careful of what they buy because it may not be real gold. They have been warned of the tremendous expense of in fact owning gold. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister of Finance today. What we should do as a country is to launch a public relations campaign to go against these endeavours to discredit gold in so far as the private individual is concerned, because the truth is that by the private individual not buying gold he is in today’s circumstances, in this inflationary age, doing himself a disservice. I believe this Government should start a public relations campaign in this regard.

Then I should like to deal with another new appointment, and that is the appointment of the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs and of Tourism. Sir, I have not crossed swords with the hon. the Minister before in this House, but I want to say to him today that I appreciate that his appointment is the realization of an ambition, and an ambition which he was entitled to hold. I do not hold it against him at all, but may I say in all kindness that I had perhaps as much to do with that appointment as the hon. the Prime Minister had. Without me he might not be sitting where he is today. Sir, if I am responsible for the happiness of the hon. the Minister, perhaps I might also be permitted to say that he is responsible for some of my troubles.

What are your troubles?

May I say to the hon. the Minister that I regard the portfolio of Indian Affairs as a very vital portfolio. The Indian people are crying out for help. They are a people who want to cooperate with us in South Africa. The Indian people are a people who are vastly discriminated against. The Indian people are a people of culture, a people with a civilization, a people who have tradition and who have standards of value. Sir, they need much to be done for them. Now I think the hon. the Minister will realize that I cannot say to him today that I offer him the hand of friendship, because I believe that in the light of past events both of us would regard that as being hypocritical. But what I can say to him is that I hope that the people for whose welfare he now bears responsibility will prosper while he holds that portfolio. I want to say further that I personally will try to keep away from bitterness and that I will try to be constructive when I speak of matters pertaining to his portfolio. I also want to say, if I may, in conclusion, in dealing with this matter, that this portfolio will prosper under him if he carries out some of the things that he once said he would do if he had the power to do so. I wish him well in the job he has undertaken.

A number of questions have been put across the floor to me today concerning the issue relating to the hon. member for Randburg. There are some strange people in this House, the same sort of people who in ages gone by used to relish going to public executions and public hangings because they enjoyed the discomfort of others. They are perhaps the people who are the descendants of those who used to join in lynching mobs without knowing either the alleged offence or the individuals concerned. It is this kind of joy which is now pervading the Nationalist Party. Let me answer the questions that have been put to me so that there should be no misunderstanding about it.

Firstly, membership of a caucus and the membership of a political party are two distinct issues. It is clear … [Interjections.]

Order! Certain questions have been put to the hon. member and if he wants to reply, hon. members should listen.

It is clear that the caucus as a voluntary group in any political party, a voluntary group without a constitution, can by majority vote decide upon its own membership. The issue of whether any conduct on the part of Mr. Enthoven, the hon. member for Randburg, or any other person, warrants disciplinary action by the party is at present under investigation by a legal investigatory committee in the Transvaal of which, I may say, I am not a member.

Thirdly, whatever the personal feelings of any individual in any party are in respect of a decision of a caucus, those decisions are binding on him while he is a member of that caucus. The withdrawal of the privilege of the Whip need not be permanent in respect of any member and any caucus can, if it so chooses, re-admit the person from whom it has withdrawn the privilege of the Whip. I understand, on the highest authority in my party, that this is the view that applies in our caucus.

May I say immediately that, as far as I am concerned, there is no question of disloyalty to the party to which I belong, nor to its elected leader. I want to say also, and I make no secret of it, that I regard the hon. member for Randburg as a friend. I regard him as a person who has done tremendous work as treasurer of the United Party on the Witwatersrand. I shall not even tell you of the vast sums of money that he has been instrumental in raising. I believe, Sir, that he has also rendered a service, not only to the party, but to South Africa in respect of his endeavours in dialogue and race relations. I believe that he has made a contribution in that field.

The test of friendship comes in what you do as a man in adversity. I want to say, and I make no secret of it, that I am my brother’s keeper and I will not be his executioner; and if I must be the person to execute him, I would rather walk in the wilderness than be his executioner. [Interjections.]

Order!

May I deal with what I believe is the attitude of an opposition towards a Government. If a Government does right, I believe that it is the duty of an opposition to support it. When a Government does wrong it is the duty of an opposition to oppose it. It is also the duty of an opposition to provide an alternative. I want to say, with respect, that in so far as the hon. the Prime Minister is concerned, we in fact welcome his efforts to achieve détente in Southern Africa. I want to say to him today that even if his efforts fail, and I hope they do not, we will not attack him for trying; on the contrary, we will applaud him for having tried to bring about peace in Southern Africa. The same thing also applies to the elimination of discrimination. I want to say here today that if the hon. the Prime Minister—I accept his bona fides—stumbles in his endeavours to achieve the removal of discrimination in South Africa we offer him, whether he wants it or does not want it, whether he needs it or does not need it, a helping hand. The issue of discrimination has dominated this debate, and I believe that the issue of discrimination is an issue of credibility in so far as South Africa is concerned. It is not just an issue of credibility for a political party or an issue of credibility for the Prime Minister himself; it is an issue of credibility for South Africa. In the eyes of our own Black, Coloured and Indian people, in the eyes of Africa and in the eyes of the world this country is committed to the removal of discrimination. It does not help to say, whether on that side of the House or anywhere else, that we told you years ago to take action. It does not help if we merely say that you are now doing what we asked you to do before. What I want to ask today is if it is not possible in this debate for South Africa’s sake to find ourselves on this issue of discrimination. Is it not possible to find a basis upon which we can in fact agree in this House, that there are some practices which we all agree are discriminatory and that those be removed at the earliest opportunity. Where we differ as to whether a practice is or is not discriminatory can we not agree that we will endeavour in a manner to try to deal with that issue? There are no people better qualified to decide what is humiliating and what impinges and infringes upon their dignity than the people who suffer from those indignities. What I would like to see is that we take the issue of discrimination, because it is so important to us as a country, out of the political scene and that we agree to constitute a multi-racial body upon which the Black, the Coloured and the Indian can serve, on which the Nationalists can serve, the United Party can serve and the Progressive can serve. We could then all endeavour to make a contribution to achieve this in South Africa. This issue is far more important than scoring a debating point; this issue constitute the credibility of South Africa in the eyes of our Black, Coloured and Indian people and in the eyes of Africa. It is an issue which we have to face in the world as a whole. I believe that if we are South Africans and if we believe that South Africa comes first and do not try to score cheap debating points we must try to find each other and try to see to it that we do not have to face the world and being accused: “When you said that you would remove discrimination you did not mean it; in fact, it was just a trick.” I do not believe that it was a trick. I believe that our Prime Minister, who obviously briefed our ambassador at the United Nations, meant it and was sincere in what he wanted to do. It is perfectly proper for us to debate our different approaches, but can we say that out of this debate —we are now in the fourth day of it— anything has come in respect of which the other side can say that in fact we have found each other to try to find a solution to South Africa’s problems? Credibility is in fact what is important. I want to say here, so that there is no misunderstanding about it, that I believe that the Government has already done certain things which are important. There are many things that did not exist before. There are things which are being done even if they are small. I, for one, do not want to be carping about the Nico Malan, the Blue Train or about all the things that have happened. On the contrary, I want to say “Thank you,” because I believe that we must also tell the world that these are the things that have already been done. I will give an example of what has been done and where we were in fact applauded by a Nationalist newspaper. The city of Johannesburg took the initiative and decided that it would take steps to remove certain aspects of discrimination. It opened the museums, the libraries and the parks, thereby taking a tremendous risk. They were warned about the risks they were taking, but they are the people who prepared the way and who are prepared to take a chance for the sake of South Africa. Graciously enough, we have a newspaper like Die Vaderland which was prepared to state in its columns that this was an achievement of which the city council in Johannesburg could be proud. That is a big gesture because it is a United Party council while Die Vaderland is a Nationalist Party newspaper. Is such a gesture not the kind of gesture that should motivate us here today? I think we must give credit for what has been done. I think we must tell the world what has been done, not only from the Government benches but also from the Opposition benches. We must agree that we will work together in order to see that what remains of discrimination, is removed from the scene in South Africa. I believe that sincerity and credibility are essential, not only for our country but also for every political party, and when we speak of these matters we must speak in such a way that our people know that we shall do what we say we will do. When we in the United Party speak of a federal structure, we must make it clear that that federal structure will not be a fraud, that it is not a means whereby there will always be a veto, whereby there will always be White baasskap that can be exercised. Sir De Villiers Graaff, my leader made it very clear that he endorsed what the hon. member for Durban North said, i.e. that if in fact we were to anticipate that the White Parliament would remain for ever, the whole conception would be a fraud. It is not a question of the White Parliament “could” disappear, it is a question of the White Parliament “would” disappear, subject to the safeguards we have given to the people of South Africa. We must state this sincerely, and we must have the credibility as a political party to put this across. The same point applies in regard to White leadership, in connection with which I have disagreed with my hon. friend across the way. White leadership in South Africa means that we as Whites have political control, and we must bring about a change in South Africa. White leadership does not mean White baasskap and suppression, and if it does it cannot be part of the United Party’s policy. With respect, it is this credibility which is at issue. It is the sincerity of people that is at issue, and that it why it is credibility which South Africa now needs. Sincerity is what must, in fact, prevail. That is why I say that what we need to do in this House, as a result of these days of debate, is to find ourselves and to decide whether, for the sake of South Africa, it is not possible for us to work together to remove discrimination so as to ensure that we can hold our heads high in Africa and in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend reacting at any length to the political part of the hon. member for Yeoville’s speech. As far as his remark at the end of his speech is concerned, I can just say that this side of the House, the Government and the Prime Minister, in all they have done—which might have been right or which might have been wrong—has always been honest There were years when we were accused of not being honest, of not telling our people outside that this was our policy. We have been told that we say one thing in this House while we tell different stories to the U.N. and to our people. It has also been said that we are not honest in the implementation of our policy. After the falseness of the allegation had penetrated to them, however, hon. members on the opposite side accepted it. I do not want to reproach them this afternoon, but then they came forward with another accusation. Then they said that we were going to create dangers on our borders. The point I therefore want to make, is that our Prime Minister, in his consultations with the non-White leaders— and there he took the lead—has always been honest, and will always be honest. That is one reason why the Government is trusted. Even if people do not like all our policies at this stage, even if we are told that we must go still further, that we must go still faster, there is one thing that cannot be said of us and that is that this side of the House is not honest in its standpoint. I do not want to go into this any further. I assume that the hon. the Prime Minister will cover this whole field tomorrow. I do not have access to the hon. member for Yeoville’s statement, he has just read out, but the little I did hear of his statement brought me under the impression that he was telling his colleagues that he was keeping all his options open. That was the impression I gained.

Because time is marching on, I should like to proceed from the economic part of the hon. member’s speech. I actually want to proceed from the point he made when he said that inflation was the one thing today which could endanger the standard of living of our people and that we must combat it. When I first looked at the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition it was very noticeable to me that it contained a number of sub-divisions, the combating of inflation being the last. The hon. member who spoke before me reproached us on this side of the House with having participated in this debate for four days without our having stood up for the ordinary man and championing his cause. I ask hon. members now, which of the hon. members on the opposite side has spoken on behalf of the ordinary man and woman in South Africa in the four days which have passed. Which of them has done so? Not a single one. The only speaker who had something to say about economic affairs, referred to it only in passing. I am going to deal with it this afternoon. I want to say—it has been said before—that this side of the House has the interests of the ordinary man and woman in South Africa at heart. They are, inter alia, the people who support us, they are the workers of South Africa, including the non-Whites of South Africa, whose interests we also have at heart. We are just as opposed to price increases—if I may use price increases and inflation as synonyms—but there are certain factors which we simply cannot avoid. Hon. members will allow me to mention a few of those factors. I do not want to score debating points; I do not simply want to win the debate across the floor of this House and then walk out feeling satisfied while the person who is paid his salary at the end of the month, still struggles to make ends meet. Our hearts are with those people. But we must be realistic and face up to the truth of the matter.,

The hon. member for Yeoville spoke of imported goods. Hon. members know that we have an open economy. We must sell to the world; it cannot be otherwise. At the same time, however, we must also buy from the world. Imported goods account for a fifth, or rather, just over 20%, of our domestic spending. It is calculated that for every 1 % which the wholesale price index of imported goods rises, our consumer price index rises by 0,22%. This cannot be disputed. From November 1973 to November 1974 the wholesale price index for imported goods rose by 28%. In other words, the price of imported goods rose by 28% in that period, i.e. consumer goods which are unpacked and sold in shops, production goods which are used in industrial processes or which are known as intermediary goods, as well as capital goods, i.e. machinery and equipment of all sorts. I concede that such a rise of 28% cannot make itself fully felt in the economy overnight. Nor do I want to suggest that the full 28% has made itself fully felt up to now. But the fact of the matter is that the rise of 28% will bring about an increase of 6,16% in our consumer price index. I mention this simply to demonstrate what a tremendous effect imported goods have on our consumer price index rising.

Where did you get those figures?

From the Department of Statistics and the office of the Economic Adviser to the Prime Minister. The figures are generally accepted.

Are those figures available to us as well?

Yes. The hon. member may accept these figures. This is a figure which has been determined scientifically and which indicates that imported goods account for just over 20% of our domestic spending. That includes consumer goods, production goods and capital goods. The effect of this is that with every rise of 1 % in imported prices, our consumer price index rises by 0,22%. In other words, the ultimate effect of this rise of 28% over 12 months—this exceeds the rise in the previous year—was a rise of 6% in our consumer price index, and nobody can do anything about that.

Let us consider a second factor, i.e. that of wages. Before coming to that, I just want to say that not only imports, but also exports have a price-increasing effect on our economic structure, because as the prices of everything we export increases overseas—the price of wool, skins and hides, copper and chrome, etc., has increased—the domestic prices of those products increase as well. To what extent has the price of fishmeal, for example, not increased abroad? The factories were allowed to export a certain quantity of the fishmeal they produced. The rest they had to sell locally. Because they obtained such a tremendously high price abroad, they maintained that the domestic price had to be increased as well. Increases in the prices of export products mean that the industries and the processing units taking in these goods had to pay more as well. Therefore export prices, too, have a price-increasing effect on domestic prices.

I want to return to the factor of wage increases both for the Whites and the non-Whites. To the extent to which wage increases exceed the increase in productivity, they have the effect of causing our cost structure to rise. There is no escaping from that. As hon. members know, non-White wages were increased by 18% in 1973 and by an average of 24% per worker in 1974. We do not say that this is wrong. Both sides of the House state that this is necessary. The policy of the Government is that the wage gap should be narrowed by increasing non-White wages. That is also the policy on the opposite side of this House. However, this does have the effect of causing our cost structure to rise; profits cannot always absorb the increases. The position already is that a business undertaking needs more money today to do the same volume of business as last year. Consequently it cannot pay these additional wages out of its profits. For that reason prices have to be increased and the consumer has to pay.

What about productivity?

Productivity is being increased. This is something which nobody must lose sight of, neither the public sector, nor the private sector. The wage increases, however, are far higher than increases in productivity can be. If, on a purely economic basis, we are to bring the wages of non-Whites to the level on which they want them, we shall progress far more slowly. Although I do not want to deal with the world’s dilemma, this is a worldwide problem, i.e. that purely economic factors do not always determine decisions on national and international financial affairs. There are also social and political factors. As far as non-White wages are concerned, we have almost the same situation.

Then there is the effect rising food prices have of causing our consumer prices to rise. In 1973 our food prices rose by more than 17%. Last year they rose by 18,4%. For the sake of our agriculturalists and for the sake of my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, I should like to say that we must not forget that in the 12 years from 1960 to 1972, food prices rose more slowly in South Africa than did any other goods which make up the components of the consumer price index. In 1973 and in 1974, however, we had extraordinary increases in food prices, which had the effect on the index of causing it to rise considerably. In addition we must remember that the farmers alone did not receive these additional amounts. The money also went towards tractors, tractor tyres, fuel, spare parts, implements and higher wages, and on the distribution side there was the question of higher rail tariffs, higher remuneration for the millers, the bakers, and the other distributors. The farmers did get a part of this, but other persons and groups, too, each received a part of this considerable increase in agricultural prices. Therefore I want to repeat that there are factors concerning prices— and here we come to the major part of the increase—about which this side of the House can do nothing, about which nobody can do anything and for which the Government must not be blamed. I am not saying that the poor man is to live from this consolation, but I am saying that we must see the position in its proper perspective,

Furthermore. Mr. Speaker, I should like to say this: We should not see inflation in isolation. One cannot wrap it in a shawl, take it to a doctor’s surgery, see what its condition is at the surgery and stick a pin into him every now and again so that he may scream. Inflation is a world phenomenon. For that reason I am of the opinion, in the first place, that we must see it in a world context. I do not want to deal with this at length, except to tell hon. members that our consumer price index, i.e. on the basis of December 1973 to December 1974—this is one method according to which one can calculate the index; I mention this basis because all the countries with which I want to draw a comparison are also from month to month over 12 months—rose by 14,1%. That is very high. But that of the United Kingdom rose by 17,1%; France 14,7%; the U.S.A. 12,1%; Japan 25,4%; Australia 16,4%; Italy 20,3%; the Netherlands 10,3%; Canada 11,6% and Germany, the lowest, 7,1%. In other words, the consumer price index rose in all these countries, and in some of these countries by much more than ours did. Therefore we must see it in this light. The most important thing, however, is that we must see inflation in the context of our own economy. Even if it is a negative achievement, it is one of the achievements of our economy. There are other achievements as well, such as that of the growth rate, there is the question as to whether a country’s people have employment and there is the question of how much the people are paid for their work. If we come to these achievements, I can tell hon. members that the gross domestic product of South Africa rose by 7% last year. This in itself is, far higher than anything we find in the rest of the world. I am not speaking of the oil-producing countries. This is already far above any comparable figure in any other comparable country in the Western World. I also want to compare the gross national product. Last year our gross national product rose by 10% and in the U.S.A, there was a negative growth of 1,75%. It has been said here today that South Africa is a rich country and that, thanks to those riches, things must go well. But America, too, is a rich country. The conclusion is merely that the reins in South Africa have been held very, very well, especially during recent years. In the U.S.A, there was a negative growth of 1,75%. West Germany had a growth of a mere 1%, the United Kingdom, minus 0,5%, Japan a negative growth of 3,25% and Canada Italy and France each a growth rate of 4,75%.

Surely those are not per capita figures?

No, these are the percentage figures. Then I want to mention that the average growth rate of the 24 OECD countries was only a ¼% last year. South Africa actually stood out with a wonderful growth rate: in this respect South Africa was a shining star in the world. We have debated the question of the per capita growth rates in this House before. If the population increase is very high, then naturally the per capita growth is small. The smaller the population increase, the larger, relatively, the per capita growth rate.

Mr. Speaker, I now want to put the question here whether our people in South Africa have had work, and I want to say this afternoon that there is work in South Africa for everyone who wants to work, regardless of his colour. Here in South Africa there is work for everyone who wants to work. I do not want to deal with the unemployment figures for Whites, Coloureds and Indians now; we know that these are minimal. Hon. members on the opposite side always say that we cannot quote the unemployment figures for Whites, Coloureds and Indians as proof that there is no unemployment in South Africa, because what of the Bantu? Sir, our economy can absorb all the Bantus in South Africa who want to work. Our gold mines have a labour shortage today. They can produce more if only they can get the workers. If people really want to work, then there is work for them. Our agriculturalists are looking for workers. There is a registered unemployment figure among the Bantu, a figure which probably is not very accurate. However, the registered unemployment figure among the Bantu at the Bantu Administration Boards in the Republic for December 1974 was 94 000, and in the homelands in June 1973—that is the latest figure—it was 34 000.

I presume that the real figure is actually higher. But the question is what work do these people report for, because a person is offered work in a certain direction and then refuses to accept it because he wants to do a certain type of work only. But, in any event, I should like to make the point here that there is work in South Africa today for everyone who wants to work. We have many foreign Bantu in our country and it is good that they are here; they are welcome here, and I hope that they will continue to offer their services here. We have 485 000 foreign Black workers in South Africa. If we did not have them here we would have had a big shortage of workers in this country.

Sir, I put a further question. I have said that there is a good income in our country for people who want to work. What do our people earn? In 1972-’73 the consumer price index figure rose by 9,5%; White wages—and this is my answer to the hon. member for Yeoville who said that we must ensure that standards of living did not drop, but rose—rose by 12,8% as against a rise of 9,5% in the consumer price index figure. Non-White wages rose by 18,4%. In 1973-’74 the consumer price index figure rose on average—that is, you take the figures for all the months of the year and then the average—by 11,6%; White wages rose by 13,1% and non-White wages by 24,2%. From 1948 to 1974 the consumer price index figure in South Africa rose by 175,9%; in the same time White wages rose by 471,6%, and non-White wages by 416,3%. If one takes the price increases in those 26 years into account, then the average wage of the White worker in South Africa, in actual terms, rose by 107,2%, and the average wage of the non-White worker in South Africa rose by 87,1%; that is, since 1948 the standard of living of the Whites—this actual standard of living, not their income in moneys but their actual standard of living—has risen by 2,9% per year and that of the non-Whites by 2,4% per year.

I can quote other figures as well. Let us take old-age pensions just from 1970 to 1974. In this time the cost of living—I have the indexes here—rose by 38%. Old-age pensions rose by 63%. You see, Sir, the Government is thoroughly mindful of ail these things. Because what can one do? On the one hand, one can indeed reduce hardships. If the money is there, one can vote subsidies for food. One can vote large amounts for food subsidies. But, of course, that is nothing but a palliative. One still does not cure the disease of inflation. But one can do it, and that is what the Government is doing. Within the limits of our means, food subsidies are made available. One can see to it that wages and salaries keep abreast of the rises in the cost of living. Here I have already quoted the figures to demonstrate to you that under this Government wages and salaries have more than kept abreast of rises in the cost of living, and now, since salaries and wages have risen more than the cost of living, the onus is really on the worker to show that he will help close this gap by means of higher productivity. We have introduced savings schemes to encourage people to save. There are tax-free saving schemes, various forms of investment where the interest earned is tax free, etc.

People say so often that it does not help to save. Sir, I want to say today that my advice to people, and particularly to young people, is still to save in addition to making other investments. They must not allow themselves to be misled by the story that it does not help to save. One can save R1 000 or R10 000 today—just call it weak money—and perhaps it is easy to save that amount. If the economy changes, one may find in a short time that that R1 000 to R10 000 is good money. I think someone who saved and had something in his pocket, never regrets it. I have already mentioned that pensions have been increased. Our public expenditure during the past number of years, has, as far as I know, been financed in an inflationary way in one year only. Every year our public expenditure is financed in a non-inflationary way. On the other hand, take education. What has this Government not done for and spent on education and the training of all our people, for training schemes for our Bantu workers, tax concessions, productivity, investment, and the training of workers in service? More work has been created for our Bantu. In the recent growth phase we did not run into a bottleneck as regards labour. I think hon. members will agree with me. We have had this high growth phase without our economy running into many bottlenecks. One of the reasons for this is that the Government has seen to it that there are enough skilled workers and that it has come to an agreement with the trade unions that certain categories of employment should also be opened to non-Whites.

Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in saying that it has always been the objective of the Government to ensure prosperity and security for all our people. The Government has always ensured that economic growth and development can take place against the background—and this is important—of confidence and stability. Therefore South Africa is characterized as almost the only country in the world which has economic prosperity and also, as a cause of this, political stability.

Mr. Speaker, I trust the hon. the Minister will forgive me if I do not respond in detail to his speech. The reason for it is simply, as he said at the beginning of his speech, that there are matters on which the Government and the Opposition agree. I think that within the strait-jacket of economic rationality we can appreciate with what dilemmas each government is faced. The same also applies to the remark the hon. the Minister made on the issue regarding the honesty of the Government’s efforts in moving away from racial discrimination, and that there seems to be agreement between the Government and the Opposition. We also agree as far as the urgency of it is concerned. However, it is also the responsibility of an Opposition to make it clear on which points it differs from the government, because, surely, if it does not do so, it is not an Opposition and it might just as well join the government and assist in putting matters right where minor differences exist. I think that is what I really want to do today.

†Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Progressive Party, the hon. member for Sea Point, started our contribution to this debate by saying that we have now entered an era of the politics of negotiation. I think there was general agreement that this is the case, not only in South Africa, but also in Rhodesia at this very moment, Angola and Mozambique and in South West Africa. In the politics of negotiation the fundamental point is that the governing party, the ruling elite, can never formulate a completely unilateral solution to the political future of a country. This is the first important point and from this follows that you have to negotiate and compromise in that situation. In the policy of the Progressive Party it is stated very clearly that as a fundamental aspect of our policy we believe that you must have a national convention on which all the various groups in South Africa are represented so that they can deliberate about the nature of the constitution and the entrenched bill of rights that will be operative for the political system of South Africa.

And the qualified vote?

I am coming to the qualified vote.

I think the important point about this convention is that it accommodates exactly and anticipates this development in Southern Africa—the politics of negotiation. Obviously any party that enters into such a national convention must state that there are certain non-negotiable factors; there are certain factors in regard to which they are not prepared to compromise because they feel that those factors are important if we are to have orderly, responsible and stable government in South Africa. These were mentioned by the hon. member for Sea Point very clearly in his speech and they were also reflected in the nature of his amendment to the no-confidence motion. He said, for example, that we are not prepared to negotiate on a federal structure for South Africa where there is an effective sharing of political powers; we believe that has to be part of that constitution. We are not prepared to negotiate on the protection of civil liberties in an entrenched, rigid constitution protecting the rights of individuals and minorities. We are not prepared to negotiate the question of whether race discrimination should be eradicated. The hon. member for Houghton has made a contribution in this debate on the issue of civil liberties and the hon. member for Pinelands has made a contribution on the issue of race discrimination as well.

*Mr. Speaker, what is really at issue in the point of difference between this party and the Government? As has been mentioned by various hon. members on that side, it concerns the question of the sharing of power. As has been mentioned by the hon. member for Bloemfontein East, there is a fundamental difference between the Progressive Party and the Government on the question of the sharing of power. When speaking to one another as reasonable people, without stealing a march on one another, we have to discuss the reason for this difference. Why is this party of the opinion that the sharing of power is a pre-requisite for the stable future of South Africa, even a pre-requisite to secure the continued existence of the Whites? This is what we think; the Government thinks exactly the opposite. Why is this the case? The element in our policy our opponents seize upon as though it is the symbol of the difference between us and the Government is the qualified vote. To our opponents this becomes an indication of the sharing of power. In earlier years it used to be a question of Black majority, but at present I notice there is great concern about discrimination and whether the Black man will be satisfied. If hon. members were to study our policy, they would see that it is only one element to cope with this whole problem of the sharing of power in South Africa. Let me say quite frankly that it is only a minor part of the problem, and I now want to illustrate it. Under the present constitutional setup in South Africa I cannot see that the qualified vote is a feasible political measure. Why? Because we have here a Westminster model of parliamentary democracy which is entrenched in White politics. By implication this means that all power in South Africa is centralized in this political institution. In spite of all the fine pleas we have from Government members, it remains a fact and a political reality in South Africa that every responsible and effective decision that is taken about the destiny of all the people in this country emanates from this House. It is because we have centralized the power here that it is also the centre of conflict in South Africa. One can ask any Black man—I presume members of the official Opposition have also done so on various occasions—and he will tell you that this is the real institution which is at issue in South Africa. To him this is where his life is determined and where his opportunities are created or withheld from him. Because this is so, the final result thereof is simply that the Government—it does not matter whether it is the Nationalist Party or any other Government —have to create an administrative bureaucracy which governs the lives of 70% of the people in South Africa. It has no option, and this is the source of political stability in South Africa. It is not Parliament: it is not even the constraining legislation we have; it is not even the communal systems or electorate colleges which we create for the different peoples. Political stability does not lie in this; political stability lies in the administrative structure that is created, for example, Bantu councils and government departments, which regulates the lives of people on a daily basis. For that reason it is inevitably linked to this type of government we have. That is why our policy lays down that there should be a federal political structure in South Africa.

Are you against stability?

Not at all. Where we are in favour of a federal political structure in South Africa, it means something different to us than what it means to the official Opposition, namely, that one decentralizes powers to political units and define provinces geographically. I have had great appreciation for the statement of the hon. the member for Randburg that we should extend the borders of the provinces in a federal set-up, but even if we were to have such a federal structure the qualified vote will nevertheless not be a feasible political measure, because this in itself is inadequate. There is no guarantee that minorities would not be able to exercise political power in an arbitrary manner under the guise of the central political institution. This is exactly the problem we are dealing with at the moment, namely that there is a White minority in South Africa which, in terms of its group interests, which is quite understandable, uses political power to entrench its interests. These interests are not only of a cultural nature, as has been said by the hon. the member for Pinelands, but are also economical and political interests. This is what constitutes the source of conflict in South Africa. To the extent that the Whites monopolize the political power, it means, to the same extent, that the other peoples and groups in South Africa—Black groups, Coloured groups and Indian groups—are unable to obtain instruments with which to develop themselves. It is so simple and we cannot get away from it. It is no use drawing up constitutional blue-prints and tell people to “uplift yourselves”. People uplift themselves in proportion to the effective political decisions they are able to take. This is one of the major problems in South Africa today. Therefore, it is also a fundamental aspect of our policy that one must have a very rigid constitution which includes a charter of human and civil rights which are guaranteed. Perhaps it may be said that constitutions exist everywhere in the world …

Who guarantees them?

I want to assure hon. members that I am aware of these questions and that I am now trying to answer them. I am dealing with these questions now, and if my answers do not satisfy the hon. members, we can even discuss them at a later stage. However, my time is very limited and I should like to come back to my speech. That is why a charter within a rigid constitution is an important element, together with a federal political structure, but a constitutional blue print in itself is not enough. We also have to consider the political realities of South Africa itself. We have large-scale social, economical and educational inequality, and this is what really constitutes the source of conflict. Between Black and White there are these differences, these conflicts, and they must be removed. I believe the hon. the Minister of Planning is in earnest to do so, but to us it is important that this should be done as quickly as possible, because to the extent in which the differences between Whites and non-Whites are removed in the economic, social and educational spheres, in other words, reach greater equality, to the same extent the intensity of conflict and aggression between the two groups is going to diminish. It is in this context that we must consider the qualified vote. To discuss the qualified vote out of this context, is to talk political nonsense.

†And what does qualified franchise mean within this context? It means that the Progressive Party stands for the right of every South African to qualify for full franchise, and insists that the means to qualify must be made available to all South Africans as rapidly as possible. It also means that the Progressive Party rejects any franchise proposal which makes race the only criterion for participation in politics. Thirdly it means that the Progressive Party proposes the continuous extension of franchise rights to those who attain the defined qualifications and of all of the educational, economic and other opportunities which are necessary to make up those qualifications.

What are those qualifications?

It is quite clear. We have told you a hundred times already. The underlying acceptance of the qualified vote is very simple. These are evolutionary political measures through which effective political participation could be transferred to all South Africans. I can say even at this stage, for the benefit of hon. members who refer to this matter so often, that the political commission set up by the Progressive Party is prepared to consider any alternative and even to suspend the qualified vote should there be a more effective way of effecting this evolutionary transfer. This is precisely what it is all about. It should now be clear to everyone that the Progressive Party is indissolubly committed to the sharing of power in South Africa. This is a difference which exists between us and the Government, and this will continually be an element in our arguments involving discrimination and progress. We cannot get away from it. We have to debate those points. There may be members on both the Opposition and the Government side who say: But this is not going to work. I can at least say that there are historical precedents where federal systems are, in fact, working. They are there.

Where?

Switzerland, the U.S.A, and many others. Of one thing I am quite certain, i.e. that there are no historical precedents for what this Government is trying to do. The simple point I want to make, is that there are many historical lessons to be learned from the dilemma in which South Africa finds herself today. It is that an élite minority, with a monopoly of political and economic power, will, as a result of economic and social developments, continually be forced by the majorities in the country to make concessions. This is inevitable. The only alternative is to refuse to do so, but this is merely going to aggravate conflict. This is exactly the position in which we find ourselves at the moment. The Government must make concessions whether or not it wants to do so and although it means well it is compelled to make concessions because it has no alternative. For this reason it is the attitude of this party that when one starts making these concessions one should give very careful consideration to the logical outcome of the concessions one is making. We can consider what happened with the disappearance of the feudal system in Europe and with the coming of industrialization. There has always been a struggle for social and economic rights which, after these have been obtained, revolved around political participation. It seems to me this is a problem South Africa cannot ignore. At some stage or other, whether it is by means of a qualified vote or another system, the Government of this country will have to deal with the question of how to enable all the people of our country to participate in effective political action. If this is not done, the alternative is, as our hon. the Prime Minister has said, too serious even to consider. When the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education and even the hon. the Minister of Defence say that we as a party deliberately propagate the abdication of the Whites, I want to differ from him and I do so in all sincerity. I have no need to say that we must abdicate. However, what is really at issue? I have no need to lose my own self-preservation. But what does self-preservation mean to the Whites in South Africa? I think the hon. member for Pinelands spelled it out quite clearly when he said that self-preservation does not concern a cultural identity or religion. One can practise one’s religion; in fact, people in Eastern Europe practise their religion in prisons and catacombs. It does not concern the cultural aspects of the existence of a person as a member of a cultural group. I think the Government has proved itself that there is no distinction between Jews, English, Afrikaners, Portuguese and Germans; they are all Whites. Therefore “race” is an integral part of this situation, and every Black man considers it as such. He notices the emphasizing of ethnic group solidarity for the Black people as a deliberate effort to divide and rule. It is not I who say this. But there are ample indications that this is the case and that there is a deliberate effort to divide and rule. As long as this attitude prevails, this Government will, while desperately clinging to power in South Africa, constitute the greatest single danger to the Whites in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to dwell on what was said by the hon. member for Rondebosch. He made a few statements, and I want to tell him that the policy which he advocated contained a few stimulating ideas. He said, inter alia, that the fundamental difference between their side of the House and us was that we did not believe in the sharing of power. I want to ask him, however, whether he does not know the way things go in Africa. Sharing of power leads to seizure of power, and this applies throughout. For that reason the great colonial powers had to abdicate. One of the most powerful anchors for the preservation of a people as a people is precisely that it should retain the political power in its hands. This is a powerful anchor for the preservation of a people. That is the difference. Let the hon. member come along with this so-called new political structure of his. It is nothing but the old structure of franchise for all civilized people, irrespective of race and colour. It is just that the hon. member, as a doctor and a professor, has presented the thing in respectable dress, that is all. I want to say what the difference is between this side and that side of the House. We believe that we can guarantee our survival in South Africa only when we have a policy in terms of which every nation can be led to self-determination in its own right. While the Opposition speaks of the deep-rooted and inherent differences in civilization and culture between the various population groups, they nevertheless want to lead all those people along the same parliamentary mechanism, although the conflict outside concerns the possession of power. Surely this must necessarily sow the seeds of a political conflict of which the hon. member spoke. Eventually it will lead to a Babel of confusion and a volcanic eruption, on that convention they want to arrange as well.

However, I do not want to dwell on this, for I know that other hon. members will deal with the hon. member. Where I have risen from this bench today, I want to tell the hon. Chief Whip that I have now really experienced that, as far as speaking turns are concerned, “it is more blessed to give than to receive”. At this late hour, they say, I have 20 minutes or so to make a few statements here. I want to devote the greater part of my speech today to a speech made by the hon. member for Durban Central. I want to devote it to two very important statements which he made here. His first statement took the form of a question. The question which he asked the House was, “What concerns me and what I would like to know is whether the White people, our people, are sufficiently motivated and prepared to assist whatever Government is in power to bring about those changes”. The hon. member asks whether our people are motivated for the changes which are coming. I want to tell him that this is a very important question in the sense …

Hear, hear!

I hope that you do not only hear, but also understand what you are hearing. The hon. member has asked a very important question. If there has ever been a time in the history of South Africa when great demands were made on us as a White nation and on all parliamentarians, that time is today. There is no doubt about the fact that our nation is faced with relentless and unmerciful circumstances. They know that there are difficult and delicate matters which have to be handled. They know that there are great and thorny problems which are crying out for solutions. It is right of the hon. member to ask whether our nation is motivated to handle this situation and these complicated problems. I want to give the hon. member the assurance today that under the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister, a National Government and a nation such as ours, all these situations, problems and circumstances will be accepted as challenges. I want to give him the assurance, too, that this nation is convinced that it will possess the necessary courage, patience, faith, self-confidence, penetrating depth of thought, and to a large extent the capacity for self-examination as well, which will enable it to meet these problems and to solve them.

The hon. member has spoken here of a mental attitude. He asked whether the people were properly motivated. I want to tell him—he is worried, of course—that there are three kinds of mental attitudes which you find in the country if you go into the matter as a member of Parliament and if you are concerned with these compelling and urgent national circumstances. The first is that of fear. The hon. member for Mooi River also spoke about fear the other day. He said one should not give way to fear. But does he want me to be brave and to follow his policy and so to plunge into the abyss with my face shining with courage? Surely I cannot do that. Unfortunately there is a part of our nation, although a small part, which is panic-stricken. This is a dangerous mental attitude, for a nation which at a time such as this is panic-stricken about what is happening in the world and in our own country very easily dies. Therefore it is dangerous if one becomes panic-stricken and unbelieving, if one throws up one’s hands in despair and says that the world belongs to the rich and the strong. This is dangerous. It is a form of cowardice if one gets cold feet in the middle of the stream. In fact, in an hour of crisis it is very close to treachery. This is the one attitude and approach which unfortunately one finds among a number of people in the country, those who get cold feet. There are also some other people in the country that I am worried about. They may be people of my own flesh and blood, there may be some of them among our Afrikaners and perhaps among the English-speaking people as well—I do not know. I am referring to those people who, when we are faced with a challenge, adopt an attitude of provocation, a kind of stubborn recalcitrance. That is the trouble. They are people who care nothing about world opinion or equal human dignity.

Who are they?

I want to make it quite clear that this group is full of hatred. You cannot solve a problem with hatred. You cannot solve a problem with emotion. Hatred consumes the person who hates, and when you are dealing with a relations problem, you must display the right attitude. This small group of people acts in a spirit which makes me think of the proverbial mouse who gets drunk and then challenges the cat. They will even attack the world in the face of world opinion, in the face of the U.N. and in the face of everything. They take up an attitude and they believe that we should take no account of the outside world or of events in Africa. This, too, is dangerous. This is recklessness, and recklessness and cowardice, these two mental attitudes, are equally dangerous.

However, there is a third approach, and this is the approach of the National Party and of the National Government. This approach is that you should analyse the problem, that you should not think with your heart, but with your head. You should distanciate yourself from the problem. You should analyse the problem. If you have done that, you have acted according to common sense. In this country of ours, where we have a complex and unique problem, we can also have a dialogue diplomacy. I am not against consultation, and when you have approached the problem from all sides, you are able to find clarity and truth. Therefore I want to tell the hon. member that he need not be concerned. Our nation is motivated. What is it motivated by? It is motivated by the National Government, by the policy of the National Party, a policy which is nothing but a policy based on the philosophy which grew out of the experience which the White man has gained of the Black man and which we are using to solve the problem of race relations in our fatherland.

Which section of the party?

The section of my party which believes in this is almost as big as the hon. member who is interrupting me. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I really do apologize to the hon. member I did not mean to say that. The hon. member is not at all a stupid member, but really, he seems to me to be at his most intelligent when he keeps quiet.

I should now like to consider the question of whether our nation is motivated. I think I know what I am talking about here, for I have been actively engaged in politics for about 32 years, and you will not blame me for saying that I have fairly close contact with our people. Do you know what I am finding in these days? I am finding that there is a deep and sincere desire on the part of almost the whole White population for a permanent and equitable solution to this relations problem to be found as soon as possible. In the second place our population has been so motivated and educated by the exchange of ideas in the past that our nation as a whole says today that there should be freedom of development. They say that every opportunity should be created to enable every person, irrespective of race or colour, to experience full freedom of development. We have made progress. We have educated people. This is the motivation of our nation. In the third place, however—and this is perhaps the essence of this debate—the people of South Africa say that the day has come for us to look at race discrimination. Does this not mean that we are making progress? We must not be frightened of this. We must not be frightened of race discrimination.

Would you like a membership card?

The hon. member should please refrain from arguing with me about things on which we are agreed. All of us in this House say that we are against race discrimination. I want to say today that I think the time has come for us in South Africa to define the words “race discrimination” as a political concept, so that we may get clarity about this concept. We have become bogged down in confused and clouded thinking in this regard. One has to be either an idiot or a genius to understand the interpretation given by some people to the question of discrimination or differentiation. For that reason I say: Let us now be clear about this.

This is where I get to the second statement made by the hon. member. He said, “The Government has been hampered by its policy and political philosophy which— I want to state it again here—is, of course, based on prejudice and discrimination.” The hon. member has not been in politics as long as I have, but still I cannot understand how the hon. member can say that our policy is based on discrimination. Surely he knows that this is not so. Our policy is nothing more or less than a method for removing discrimination. For that reason I blame the hon. leader of the United Party in Natal for having told me that apartheid and discrimination are almost identical.

The hon. the Prime Minister has pointed in a speech that we are following a method; that it is our policy eventually to carry the method to its logical conclusion, so that discrimination will disappear. I want to read a few quotations to you, Mr. Speaker. I want to quote what was said by Dr. Verwoerd in the Budget Committee on 14 April 1961. This is very important, for hon. members opposite always say that Dr. Verwoerd was the architect of the policy of separate development. He said:

Do hon. members on that side believe what was said here by Dr. Verwoerd?

You do not believe it any more.

Oh, you do not believe it? Then there is something wrong with your belief.

Dr. Verwoerd also went on to say in that speech (column 4618)—and this is interesting—

Perhaps I should just quote the following as well, and then I want to address a few words to the Opposition in all amity—

Sir, I came to this House of Assembly in the year 1943. At that time we were still a small and a formidable Opposition, an Opposition which was not a negative resistance movement, but which took up a positive attitude. It was during that year in particular, during 1943, that the National Party Government, under the leadership of Dr. Malan, thought out the great and thorny colour or relations problem to its logical conclusion. It was during those years, too, during that same period, the war years, that new ideologies and new schools of thought almost literally burst upon the world everywhere. It was clear from debates in this House at that time that they were of the opinion that race hatred was one of the causes which had given rise to the Second World War. It was striking how in those years, and after the war as well, a tremendous aversion was built up to all forms of race hatred. Today the world does not want to allow one nation or one race to be subordinate to another in the same fatherland. That was a time when concepts such as freedom of development or equal human dignity spread over the world with lightning speed and the developing nations, particularly the Western nations, said that they should help the underdeveloped nations. They regarded colonialism as an evil and race discrimination as a deadly sin. It was against that background that we formulated our policy. I think the hon. members will remember that when race discrimination became the focus of world interest after the World War, when the new world order came about, at that time, when the U.N. was created as an organization which was to neutralize the conflict between nations and to defuse situations of tension in order that there might be world peace, we thought and re-thought and reflected deeply on our policy. Those members, too, have been thinking now for 26 years. They used to sit and think but now they are just sitting. I said that it was in those years that we reflected deeply on our policy of separate development. We thought that we should now devote this whole policy to an attempt to escape from this complex dilemma of race relations in our father land. At the time when we were doing that, of course, we were also one of the joint architects of the U.N. We thought that we should find an answer to all these changes and tendencies which had jolted countries and continents into a new awareness. What standpoint would we adopt as a party? That was when we thought the whole policy out as we did and eventually embodied it in the manifesto of 1948. And allow me to say at once that our whole policy is really an answer to the challenge of change. After all, we know that we are living in a changing world. We know that the world has been drawn into a circle of change. All changes for the good represent progress, national progress, and for that reason we formulated our policy in such a way as to enable us to get away from discrimination. And then we produced a set of basic principles. I want hon. members to pay attention to me when I say that this set of basic principles, our policy, is not going to disappear when discriminatory measures or offensive elements are eventually removed. For our policy consists of three components, i.e. the set of basic principles, the course it will take and the ultimate and immediate aims. What did we embody in the manifesto, that set of basic principles? The fundamental principle, the preservation of identity. There are the preservation of sovereignty and the principle of justice, and self-determination and self-development. These are all so many principles. One finds them all over the world. One invests them with universality. Everywhere these will be accepted as principles. Now I want to say today that after 26 years of National Government the set of basic principles underlying the policy of separate development is still intact. When the hon. members see changes here today, they must not think these are concessions; they represent nothing but the development and adjustment of the policy of separate development. [Interjections.] The hon. member may laugh as much as he likes. “A smile worth while is the smile you smile when you don’t want to smile.” That is an embarrassed little laugh on the part of that hon. member, but he cannot laugh away a fact. The hon. member should not try to do that. He can be friendly without laughing in that funny way. I want to say, therefore, that this is the basis. We shall introduce changes, but they will be changes for the good. We shall make adjustments. When you live in a country and you find yourself in a dilemma of complex race relations, you should try to escape. You should make adjustments. What is wrong with adjustments? After all, one even adjusts one’s necktie, and what is wrong with that? Only they should not be the wrong adjustments. The trouble is that that party thinks we are going to make the wrong adjustments. No, we are not going to make the wrong adjustments. We have motivated our nation so strongly that we shall make the adjustments in this way, and things that are seen as adjustments and changes are nothing but the development of the policy of separate development of the National Government.

I do not have much time left to speak. I have been able to speak in Parliament for long enough and now I have been allowed only 20 minutes. I think the Chief Whip said that I may only speak for 15 minutes, did he not? [Interjections.] Nevertheless I want to make it very clear that as far as our domestic policy is concerned, it is indissolubly bound up with our Africa policy, while our Africa policy is bound up with our whole foreign policy. It goes without saying, after all, that when we are dealing with a problem in regard to the attitude of the outside world, its solution will depend on our attitude in regard to our domestic policy. “No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.” It goes without saying that we have to set right our domestic relations, which will eventually influence the Africa policy and ultimately link up with the policies of the outside world. We must find our way into the world through Africa, and by doing that, we shall eventually be able to breathe more freely internationally. We shall then have right of say in the international trade pattern of the world, as well as in many other fields of international life.

Your time has expired!

No, my time has not yet expired. I know that the hon. member who is going to speak after me is the Chief Whip on the other side. That means that we are evenly matched, but at the moment I hold the floor. [Interjections.] I shall give him a chance; he need not be in such a hurry. I know he is after the blood of the hon. member for Yeoville, but he can play the part of executioner tomorrow if he does not get the chance today.

I want to state clearly that if we wish to survive as a White nation in Africa, it is imperative that we follow a policy which will enable us to play a part in Africa. We were born in Africa. We are of Africa and we are committed to Africa, but we must prove to the world that we have a historical right to remain in Africa. We have that historical right. Our ancestors made this country habitable. After countless sacrifices and almost superhuman acts of dedication, through which they laid themselves on the altar of their nation, this country was made habitable for Christian White civilization. We have a right to inhabit this territory, to have a fatherland here, to live and to work and to strive here, and I even have the right to go on talking as long as I please in this Parliament before sitting down. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, it was very interesting to hear the hon. member for Brits on race hatred. He told the House that opposition to race hatred started during the Second World War. I must remind the hon. member that one of the main causes of the Second World War was race hatred, but at that time the hon. member was very sympathetic towards the country in which race hatred obtained.

I am always a sympathetic person.

It is quite a change to hear Dr. Verwoerd being quoted with approval in this House. The hon. member said that the changes which are being made are not “toegewings”. I should like to point out that the changes which are being made now, the “toegewings”, are all changes in the policy of Dr. Verwoerd and it is not just a question of “aanpassing”. The hon. member asked: “What is wrong with ‘aanpassing’ ”? I can assure him that the Nationalist Government will have to come with a lot more “aanpassings” before many days have passed.

All the changes were implicit in the manifesto. [Interjections.]

May I be allowed to proceed? The hon. member said there is a difference between discrimination and differentiation. I should like to point out to him that the discrimination applied by this Government is exactly the same as the differentiation that they wish to apply. It is discrimination and one cannot get away from it.

The hon. members opposite have shown great interest in the internal affairs of the United Party in order to divert attention from their shortcomings and the ineffectiveness of the Government in meeting the crises of the day. I want to tell them, to satisfy their curiosity, why our caucus has taken certain action against the member for Randburg. The member has been expelled from the caucus, a serious step for any caucus to take. It is, in fact, the most severe sanction it can impose. Now what was the gravamen of the charge against the member for Randburg? It is that he initiated an opinion poll which was framed in such a way that he knew, or should have known, that it would embarrass his colleagues and his leader, and that he was responsible for the publication of material which was detrimental to the party.

The first question we must ask is whether a member responsible for taking a public opinion poll is committing any offence and if the poll itself is undesirable. Of course not! If he wants the information for his own purposes and he holds the poll in his own constituency, if it is not conducted scientifically, that is his own affair. But if he wishes to publish the results and gets involved with the constituencies of other colleagues, one would expect him to respect protocol and to have the courtesy to advise them. If he intends publishing the results or making them available to possible hostile influences, one would expect him to make sure that it is done scientifically and that the public are told, for example, the number of respondents in each constituency, whether the voters were taken from the roll, that they were in the right proportion and that the questions are not loaded in the way in which they are framed. What are the details of the poll which was set in motion by the hon. member for Randburg? Firstly, his questions were loaded in the way in which they were framed and sought to establish the strength of the so-called reformists if they should break away from the party. It has been the party’s consistent policy to maintain its internal unity and to counter the exaggerated and provocative publicity that the Press has given to such differences as have in fact arisen. Secondly, it sought to create the illusion that the personal position of the party leader and the party’s effectiveness under his leadership were directly challenged by a rival candidate within the party. Thirdly, and most important, when the hon. member knew that these questions had in the past provoked a response along the lines along which they were directed, he used the Argus Group to expand the poll and to give it wider publicity. He did this without reference to his leader or any other person of authority in the party. He did not have the courtesy even to tell his own provincial chairman that he had conducted a poll in his constituency. No matter how he reasoned, he cannot possibly contend that his action was one of loyalty carried out in the interests of the party. He is not unintelligent and he is not naïve. He must have known the full consequences of his actions. It was a deliberate course of action the results of which could have been foreseen. But supposing he had acted in ignorance, he was left in no doubt as to the attitude of his colleagues in the caucus. If he had acted bona fide one would have expected an apology or an act of contrition. But there has been no word of regret for any harm he may have done to the party, his leader or his colleagues. Instead he has been defiant in the face of general condemnation of his behaviour. There was no alternative for his colleagues but to view his action as one of the grossest disloyalty to them and their leader and to find that his conduct was incompatible with continued membership of the caucus. In the discussion in the caucus there was absolutely no difference of opinion on the aims and the principles of the party as the Press has been at pains to suggest. We in the caucus have taken the action which we have thought fit. It is now up to other bodies in the party to investigate and to do what they think fit in the circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, as a person who has known the United Party for so many years, I find this statement of the Chief Whip very strange. When Gen. Hertzog, one of the founders of this party, was the leader of the party, we would neither have had a statement such as the one made by the hon. member for Yeoville in respect of the hon. member for Randburg this afternoon, nor the one that had to be made by the Chief Whip, because a leader of a party would make statements of this nature himself if necessary. However, if the Leader is really in control of that party, such a statement will always be unnecessary. I cannot help smiling when I think of what would happen to members on this side of the House should they be guilty of such behaviour. On our way to the caucus room, each one of us would, in such a case, lose quite a few pounds in weight. This is the difference between one kind of leader and another kind, to which I should like to refer later.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to say that 36 or 37 years ago I was very close to the party leadership of the United Party. This United Party was founded in 1934. One of the founders was the representative of the constituency of Smithfield, the then Prime Minister, Gen. Hertzog. I was born and bred in Smithfield. In other words, as a young man I was well acquainted with that leader as leader of the National Party. My father was a member of the Provincial Council at the time of the coalition in the United Party, something which brought me even closer to the leadership in those days. What is more, I lost my mother at a very early age and my father was married to the youngest daughter of the youngest brother of Gen. Hertzog. You will appreciate that, as a young man, I was very close to the United Party when it was founded. After all that had happened that party was founded towards the end of 1932 and at the beginning of 1933. Those were important days in the political history of South Africa. Those of us who joined that party just prior to, during and immediately after the provincial elections of 1936, found on looking back that, in spite of all the assurances given by Gen. Smuts, there were people sitting in that United Party who held different views on different aspects. In those days there was not much the people in the United Party were able to do about this. Gen. Hertzog joined that United Party with the best of intentions. Gen. Hertzog had many shortcomings —if anyone was familiar with those shortcomings, it was I—but two shortcomings he did not have: he was always unimpeachably honest and he was unable to tell a lie. In that United Party the attitude of Gen. Smuts was different. There were seven points of agreement which he accepted.